TC-26 R

The 14th DUMCS Inter-Year Moot Court Competition 2025-2026

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF RIVERLANDS

PEOPLE FOR SAFETY & RIGHTS DEVELOPMENT

(Petitioner)

GOVERNMENT OF RIVERLANDS
(Respondent)

_____________________________________________

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 RESPONDENT

Table of contents

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ………………………………………………………… i

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES …………………………………………………………. i
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION …………………………………………………. ii
STATEMENT OF FACTS …………………………………………………………… iii
ISSUE RAISED ………………………………………………………………….…….. iv
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS ………………………………………………….……. v
PLEADINGS ……………………………………………………………………...…. 1

1. THE PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HIGH

COURT DIVISION…………………………………………………………...…1

A. The writ petition is not maintainable due to lack of locus standi ...…. 1
B. The petition does not satisfy the threshold requirements
of Public Interest Litigation …………………………………………......1
C. The petition involves disputed questions of fact unsuitable for writ
jurisdiction ………………………………………………………...……...2
D. The petition is a publicity-oriented litigation ………………………......2

2. THE COLLAPSE RESULTED FROM THE CONTRACTOR’S

INDEPENDENT NEGLIGENCE, NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL BREACH
ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE STATE …………………………………………... ...3

A. Absence of direct state action amounts to no constitutional violation .… 3

B. Policy decisions under FTDP are non justiciable ………………….……...3
C. Doctrine of absolute liability is not applicable ………………………….. 4

3. THE INTERCEPTION AND ARRESTS WERE LAWFUL ACTIONS

UNDER THE STATUTE ……………………………………………………………………4

A. Lawful and authorised interception ………………………………………………..4

B. Constitution does not recognise an absolute right to privacy …………………….5
C. State is not responsible for leakage ………………………………………………...5
D. Arrest to prevent chaos ……………………………………………………………...5

4 THE VICTIMS CAN NOT CLAIM COMPENSATION FROM STATE

FOR THE CONTRACTOR’S INDEPENDENT NEGLIGENCE ………………………..6

A. Compensation under constitutional jurisdiction is exceptional and not

automatic …………………………………………………………………………….6
 B. No direct or intentional violation of the right to life by the state
has been established …………………………………………………………………7
C. Natural causes are an intervening and mitigating factor …………………………7
D. Subcontracting was an independent act of a private party, which cannot be
attributed to the State ……………………………………………………………….8
E. Lack of vicarious constitutional liability …………………………………………...9
F. Property damage cannot be held to be constitutional deprivation
under Article 42 ……………………………………………………………………...9
G. The arrests were legal and among the measures for maintaining public order …..9
H. Ex gratia payments are a recognised and lawful form of State relief ……………..10

PRAYER FOR RELIEF ………………………………..……………………………………11

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ECHR European convention on Human Rights

ECtHR European Court of Human Rights
FTDP Fast Track Development Policy
ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
MRTB Ministry of Road Transport and Bridges
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
PPP Public-Private Partnership
PSRD People for Safe & Rights Development
PUCL People's Union for Civil Liberties
UoI Union of India
UN United Nations

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

List of statutory instruments:

1. The Constitution of Riverlands art 39
2. The Constitution of Riverlands art 42
3. The Constitution of Riverlands art 44
4. The Constitution of Riverlands art 102
5. The Mobile Communication Act, 2001 s 103(1)

List of domestic cases:

1. Abdul Jalil v. Bangladesh 44 DLR (1992) HCD

2. Anwar Hossain Chowdhury v Bangladesh (1989) 41 DLR (AD) 165.
3. Bangladesh Sangbadpatra Parishad v Bangladesh (1991) 43 DLR (HCD) 424
4. Bangladesh v Court of Settlement (1996) 48 DLR (AD) 502
5. Bangladesh v. Md. Motiur Rahman (2010) 62 DLR AD
6. Bangladesh v Sheikh Hasina (2008) 60 DLR (AD) 90
7. Chairman, Civil Aviation Authority v KA Rouf (1994) 46 DLR (AD) 145
8. Dr Mohiuddin Farooque v Bangladesh (1997) 49 DLR (AD) 1
9. Government of Bangladesh v. Mahbubur Rahman (2007) 59 DLR (AD) 166
10. Kazi Mukhlesur Rahman v Bangladesh (1974) 26 DLR (AD) 44

11. Khondker Delwar Hossain v. Bangladesh (2005) 57 DLR HCD

12. Kudrat-E-Elahi Panir v Bangladesh (1992) 44 DLR (AD) 319
13. National Board of Revenue v Abu Saeed Khan (2013) 18 BLC (AD) 116
14. State v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Dhaka (2008) 60 DLR HCD 660

List of international cases:

 1. A v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56; [2005] 2 AC 68
2. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) AIR 2020 SC 1308
3. BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of India, AIR 2002 SC 350
4. Hatton v United Kingdom (2003) 37 E.H.R.R. 28
5. Klass and ors v Germany (1978) App 5029/71 (ECtHR)
6. Powell v United Kingdom (2000) App45350/99 (ECtHR)
7. State of Uttaranchal v Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010) 3 SCC 402
8. Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors (2008) 9 SCC 527
9. Wood v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2009] EWCA Civ 414, [2010] 1
WLR 123 (Weekly Law Report).

UN and other international instruments:

1. UN Commission on Human Rights, The Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and
Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

It is humbly submitted that, the Respondent has appeared before the Honorable High Court
Division of the Supreme Court of Riverlands, in response to the notice sent to the Respondent
with regard to the petition filed by the Petitioner in Public Interest Litigation under Article 102 of
the Constitution of Riverlands.

ii

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Birth of Riverlands

1. The People’s Republic of Riverlands is a developing State located in the Westeros Peninsula,
which was a colony of the Vale. Riverlands got its independence in 1992 after a two-year
liberation struggle.
Economy and political situation

2. The nation’s economy is primarily dependent on the garment sector and tourism, both of
which require infrastructural development and improved interconnectivity. But these goals often
are hindered by adverse climatic conditions.

3. After independence, Riverlands saw a coalition government for five years, during which
political stability enabled the drafting of a Constitution. Thereafter, governance alternated
between the Stark and Targaryen parties until 2015, when the Targaryen Party returned to power
and has remained in control since. National and international media have voiced concern over
declining democratic and human rights practices under the present elected government.

Developmental project

3. In 2023, the Government approved the Riverrun 2nd Flyover Project (a 200-foot urban
flyover) intended to support industrial growth in the expanding city of Riverrun. The Ministry of
Road Transport and Bridges (MRTB) undertook the project in partnership with MetroBuild Ltd.,
a private engineering firm. The project was cleared under the Fast Track Development Policy
(FTDP), a mechanism introduced by the governing party in 2021 to accelerate infrastructural
development.

Accident in the construction area

4. On 17 June 2025, a major portion of the under-construction flyover collapsed during peak
traffic hours. 17 people were killed and 46 were injured in the tragedy.

Investigation

5. A preliminary police investigation found the collapse due to substandard construction

materials and negligent supervision. An MRTB appointed committee later found that MetroBuild
had subcontracted critical structural work to Rapid Concrete Ltd., a firm lacking the required
licences. Further, both companies had failed to conduct mandatory weekly inspections.

iii

MetroBuild defended its actions by citing pandemic-related delays, the Government’s refusal to
extend deadlines, and Rapid Concrete’s past experience as a “sister concern,” although its
contract explicitly prohibited subcontracting without prior government approval.

Media and public

6. Public outrage spread rapidly across social media. The Government offered payments to the
victims’ families and survivors, but many termed the compensation inadequate.

7. People alleged coercion, stating that officials had taken signatures of deceased's family
members on indemnity documents disguised as routine [Link] the revealed allegations
spread, aggrieved families and other injured persons initiated highway-blockade protests.
Opposition party’s conspiracy

8. Matters escalated when a private channel broadcast a leaked audio call between protest leader
Mr Tyrion and Mr Joffery of the opposition party, allegedly discussing plans to vandalise
government property. Both men denied the recording’s authenticity, calling it fabricated.

9. Shortly thereafter, police arrested both individuals, citing section 103 (1) of the Mobile
Communications Act of 2001, permitting government-authorised interception of
telecommunication data for state security and public order.

Litigation for publicity

11. In August 2025, PSRD filed a writ petition on behalf of the aggrieved people.

ISSUE RAISED

1. Whether the petition is maintainable in the present form before the High Court Division;

2. Whether the negligence of the government in supervising the Riverrun Flyover Project,
resulting in failure to ensure public safety, amounts to a violation of the Constitution of
Riverlands and/or other statutory rights;

iv

3. Whether the incidents relating to the phone conversation between Mr Joffery and Mr Tyrion,
and their subsequent arrests, have violated their fundamental rights; and

4. Whether the victims can claim compensation for the violation of their rights.

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

1. The petition is not maintainable because the petitioner lacks sufficient locus standi to invoke
writ jurisdiction also the petition does not satisfy the threshold requirements of Public Interest
[Link], it raises disputed questions of fact unsuitable for adjudication under Article
102 and it amounts to a publicity oriented litigation rather than a genuine constitutional
grievance.

2. No constitutional violation arises as the incident was caused by acts of private contractors
beyond the State’s direct control. The government followed established and well practiced
procedures, granted approvals under a lawful policy aimed at economic development, and cannot
be held vicariously liable for unforeseen structural failures or contractor’s misconduct.

3. The interception of phone calls was lawfully conducted under Section 103(1) of the Mobile
Communications Act in the interest of public safety and to maintain public order. The
discussions revealed intent to incite violence and vandalism, justifying arrests. The government
denies involvement in any media leak, and mere allegation of privacy breach cannot invalidate
lawful preventive action by the State.

4. The incidents, though tragic, do not amount to direct violations of fundamental rights by the
State. The losses arose from a combination of private negligence and external factors, not
unconstitutional State conduct. Granting compensation under writ jurisdiction would expand
constitutional liability beyond its intended limits. Accordingly, the prayer for compensation
should be dismissed.

PLEADINGS

1. THE PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HIGH COURT DIVISION:

A. The writ petition is not maintainable due to lack of locus standi

It is humbly submitted that the present writ petition is not maintainable as the Petitioner
lacks the requisite locus standi to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Honorable High
Court Division under Article 102 of the Constitution of Riverlands, which is pari materia
with Article 102 of the Constitution of Bangladesh.¹

Although the doctrine of locus standi has been liberalised in limited circumstances, the
Supreme Court of Bangladesh has consistently held that Public Interest Litigation is not
an unfettered right, and standing must be granted with caution to prevent abuse of the
writ jurisdiction.²
 In Dr Mohiuddin Farooque v Bangladesh, while recognising PIL, the Appellate Division
clearly emphasised that only bona fide persons or organisations having a real and
sufficient interest in the matter may be permitted to maintain such petitions.³

The Petitioner, People for Safe & Rights Development (PSRD), has failed to demonstrate
any direct involvement, statutory mandate, or specialised expertise concerning
infrastructure regulation, construction supervision, or telecommunication surveillance.
Mere status as an NGO does not automatically confer standing.⁴

B. The petition does not satisfy the threshold requirements of Public Interest Litigation

It is submitted that PIL is maintainable only where the affected persons are unable to
approach the Court themselves due to poverty, disability, or similar compelling
circumstances.⁵

_____________________
1
The Constitution of Riverlands art 102
2
Anwar Hossain Chowdhury v Bangladesh (1989) 41 DLR (AD) 165.
3
Dr Mohiuddin Farooque v Bangladesh (1997) 49 DLR (AD) 1
4
National Board of Revenue v Abu Saeed Khan (2013) 18 BLC (AD) 116
5
Kazi Mukhlesur Rahman v Bangladesh (1974) 26 DLR (AD) 44

In the present case, the alleged victims include organised protest leaders and politically
active individuals who have actively mobilised public demonstrations and media
attention. Such persons cannot be characterised as voiceless or incapable of seeking legal
remedies on their own behalf.⁶

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that where affected parties are capable of
asserting their own rights, a third party cannot substitute itself as a litigant under the guise
of public interest.⁷ The present petition therefore fails to meet the foundational
requirements of PIL jurisprudence.

C. The petition involves disputed questions of fact unsuitable for writ jurisdiction

It is respectfully submitted that the petition raises seriously disputed questions of fact,
including the precise cause of the flyover collapse, the extent of governmental
negligence, the voluntariness of acceptance of ex gratia payments, and the alleged
leakage of intercepted communications.

It is well settled that the writ jurisdiction under Article 102 is not an appropriate forum
for adjudication of matters requiring detailed fact-finding, technical evaluation, or
examination of evidence.⁸ Such issues are better suited for determination by civil or
criminal courts.⁹
 D. The petition is a publicity-oriented litigation

The Respondent submits that the present petition is, in substance, a publicity interest
litigation, driven by media narratives and political controversy rather than a genuine
constitutional grievance.

The Supreme Court has cautioned against entertaining PILs that are politically motivated
or intended to generate publicity, as such litigations undermine judicial discipline and
constitutional balance.¹⁰

______________________
6
Bangladesh Sangbadpatra Parishad v Bangladesh (1991) 43 DLR (HCD) 424
7
Kudrat-E-Elahi Panir v Bangladesh (1992) 44 DLR (AD) 319
8
Chairman, Civil Aviation Authority v KA Rouf (1994) 46 DLR (AD) 145
9
Bangladesh v Court of Settlement (1996) 48 DLR (AD) 502
10
State of Uttaranchal v Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010) 3 SCC 402

2. THE COLLAPSE RESULTED FROM THE CONTRACTOR’S INDEPENDENT

NEGLIGENCE, NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL BREACH ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE
STATE

A. Absence of direct state action amounts to no constitutional violation

The Respondent respectfully submits that not every tragic accident results in a
constitutional violation. Fundamental rights are infringed only where there is direct,
arbitrary, or malicious State action, not where harm arises from independent contractual
breaches by private entities. It was established in Hatton v United Kingdom that not every
adverse consequence leads to a human rights violation.11 Similarly in Powell v. United
Kingdom it was agreed upon that human rights law does not impose strict liability on
states for all accidents or operational failures.12

This is, at best, a case of contractual or tortious negligence by private entities, not a
constitutional violation. So it can be said that the immediate cause of the collapse was the
contractor’s unauthorised subcontracting and failure to conduct inspections, constituting
an intervening act that breaks the chain of State liability.

B. Policy decisions under FTDP are non justiciable

The Fast Track Development Policy was adopted to address urgent developmental and
economic needs. Courts have consistently refrained from interfering in policy decisions
unless they are manifestly arbitrary or mala fide. The Minister of MRTB, Ms Cersei,
noted that the FTDP was crucial for the country’s economic growth, as many people were
still suffering due to the country's overall poor economic condition. She added that such
 policies are very common in many parts of the world.13

In BALCO Employees’ Union v Union of India, the Supreme Court held that economic
and developmental policies fall within the exclusive domain of the executive.14 The
FTDP, being a legitimate policy choice, cannot be invalidated merely because an accident
occurred.

______________________
11
Hatton v United Kingdom (2003) 37 E.H.R.R. 28
12
Powell v United Kingdom (2000) App45350/99 (ECtHR)
13
Fact [8]
14
BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of India, AIR 2002 SC 350

C. Doctrine of absolute liability is not applicable

The doctrine of absolute liability applies only to ultra-hazardous industrial activities

involving toxic substances. Ordinary construction projects do not fall within this
category.

In Union of India v Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar, the Supreme Court cautioned against
indiscriminate application of strict liability principles and emphasised the need to assess
the nature of the activity and degree of State control.15

Moreover the government took reasonable steps post-incident, including investigations

and immediate relief, demonstrating due diligence rather than negligence. Imposing strict
constitutional liability in such circumstances would unduly burden the state and
discourage big developmental projects.

3. THE INTERCEPTION AND ARRESTS WERE LAWFUL ACTIONS UNDER THE

STATUTE :

A. Lawful and authorised interception

The interception of the phone conversation was carried out strictly under Section 103(1)
of the Mobile Communications Act, 2001, which explicitly authorises surveillance in the
interest of state security and public order, beginning with a notwithstanding clause that
overrides other laws.16 The PUCL case referred by the petitioner although protects
privacy but allows interception if there is a concern of national security by statutory
authority.
 And since Mr Joffery and Mr Tyrion were explicitly discussing vandalising police
vehicles and torching the Department of Labour office17 to mess with the order of the
forces and government over a phone call, this provision surely applies.

______________________
15
Union of India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar & Ors (2008) 9 SCC 527
16
The Mobile Communication Act, 2001 s 103
17
Fact [15]

B. Constitution does not recognise an absolute right to privacy

Fundamental rights under the Constitution are not absolute. The Appellate Division has
recognised that reasonable restrictions may be imposed in the interest of public order and
security.18 During the relevant period, prolonged highway blockades and escalating
protests posed a serious threat to essential services and public safety, justifying targeted
surveillance.

Unlike jurisdictions with explicit constitutional recognition of privacy, the Constitution

of Riverlands does not enumerate privacy as a standalone right. Any implied right must
therefore be balanced against compelling state interests. The constitutional text and socio-
political realities of Riverlands justify a more restrained approach.

C. State is not responsible for leakage

The Respondents categorically deny any involvement in leaking the intercepted

conversation to the media. Allegations made by activists or NGOs, without concrete
proof, cannot ground constitutional liability.19 Also in this digital age, unauthorised
dissemination may occur through multiple actors. The burden lies on the Petitioner to
establish direct state involvement, which they have failed to discharge. In absence of such
proof, the State cannot be held vicariously liable.

D. Arrest to prevent chaos

The intercepted conversation disclosed intent to vandalise public property and incite
violence, which falls outside the protection of free speech. Article 39 itself permits
reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order and morality.20 In A v Secretary of
State for the Home Department, the House of Lords acknowledged that courts should
exercise restraint where security assessments are involved.21

______________________
18
Kudrat-E-Elahi Panir v Bangladesh (1992) 44 DLR (AD) 319
19
Fact [17]
20
The Constitution of Riverlands art 39
21
A v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56; [2005] 2 AC 68

Preventive action is a recognised mechanism to avert imminent threats. Other states have
acted amid escalating protests before.21 The Appellate Division has upheld preventive
detention and arrest where public order was endangered.22 Waiting for violence to
materialise would amount to a failure of the State’s constitutional duty to protect citizens.
Various jurisdictions have passed judgments based on such similar situations to uphold
order in the nation.23

The arrests were therefore bona fide, proportionate, and grounded in statutory authority,
consistent with the Siracusa Principles adopted by the UN in 1984.24

[Link] VICTIMS CAN NOT CLAIM COMPENSATION FROM STATE FOR THE
CONTRACTOR’S INDEPENDENT NEGLIGENCE :

A. Compensation under constitutional jurisdiction is exceptional and not automatic

Article 102 compensation is an extraordinary public law remedy accorded only in

conditions of overt, direct, and undisputed infringement of fundamental rights by the
State. The Appellate Division has repeatedly stated that a writ petition cannot be used as
an "appeal" to escape legal debts or responsibilities. It is not the right place for cases that
involve complicated disagreements over facts, private arguments about negligence, or
issues that should normally be handled in a regular civil court. As to whether the flyover
fell because of defective raw materials, structural flaw or other causes, and whether
damage to property and other incidents followed, is a factually disputed issue and one
that is yet under investigation.25

______________________
21
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) AIR 2020 SC 1308
22
Bangladesh v Sheikh Hasina (2008) 60 DLR (AD) 90
23
Klass and ors v Germany (1978) App 5029/71 (ECtHR)
Wood v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2009] EWCA Civ 414, [2010] 1 WLR 123 (Weekly Law
Report).
24
UN Commission on Human Rights, The Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
25
Fact
 6

Awarding compensation at such a stage would be premature and run counter to the
hallowed principles of constitutional restraint. The Appellate Division in Bangladesh v
Md. Motiur Rahman categorically held that constitutional compensation is not automatic
and must be confined to exceptional cases of clear constitutional breach.26 Where
alternative remedies exist and factual controversies remain, the writ court can refrain
from awarding compensation.

B. No direct or intentional violation of the right to life by the state has been established

There was not any deliberate or reckless State action infringing Article 32, but an
unfortunate accident resulting mainly from the negligence of the private contractors and
compounded by extraneous factors including heavy rainfall and earthquakes preceding
the collapse of the flyover.27 The Constitution does not impose upon the State strict or
absolute liability with regard to every accident that involves a potential development
project. What is required to constitute a violation of Article 32 is proof of direct State
responsibility, which is not present in this case.

The Government acted in good faith, approved the project for valid public interest
reasons and cannot be held constitutionally liable for sudden structural failures that could
not have been predicted and that are solely caused by third parties.

C. Natural causes are an intervening and mitigating factor

The case of the flyover collapse involves natural factors such as heavy rain and earth
convulsions captured under the facts. Natural phenomena like earthquakes and unusual
rainfall events are also recognized as acts that are outside the control of humans and can
lead to a weakening of the structure despite adhering to the standard practices for the
construction process. For those situations that have experienced damage from both
natural forces and human intervention, the doctrine of intervening cause has always been
applied to break the chain of responsibility under the State.

______________________
26
Bangladesh v. Md. Motiur Rahman (2010) 62 DLR AD
27
Fact [12]
 7

Strict or absolute responsibility is not imposed by the Constitution on the State for any
resultant caused by natural events relating to infrastructural facilities. There must be a
clear proximate link between the actions of the State and the damage caused by any
failure on the part of Article 32. Additionally, because there was a final inspection to be
carried out by the Government after completion, which is common practice, this is a
natural forces acting as intervening causes, breaking the chain of proximate causation,

matter for its sound judgment, and decisions made in good faith cannot be later found to
be unconstitutional. In, Bangladesh v. Md. Motiur Rahman, where loss arises due to
courts have declined to impose public law compensation, recognising that constitutional
liability is not absolute.28

D. Subcontracting was an independent act of a private party, which cannot be

attributed to the State

The subcontracting of structural work to Rapid Concrete Ltd. was an unauthorized and
unilateral act on the part of MetroBuild Ltd., made contrary to the express contractual
prohibition.29 The State neither sanctioned nor ordered any subcontracting. In fact, the
conditions of tender specifically prohibited subcontracting without obtaining written
consent in advance, thus establishing the will of the Government to control the matter.
The rule that the State cannot be held responsible in its constitutional capacity for
autonomous breaches of contract committed by private actors, especially when such acts
are expressly prohibited and concealed from the government, has been asserted.30 To the
extent that it may be considered negligent with regard to the use of poor-quality materials
or without inspection by the subcontractor, it is thus the result of private malfeasance,
rather than State action or policy. Therefore, the constitutional compensation cannot force
itself upon the State as a consequence of a private contractor breaching a contract. The
remedy would lie in civil and criminal cases against those companies.

______________________
28
Bangladesh v. Md. Motiur Rahman (2010) 62 DLR AD
29
Fact [10]
30
Government of Bangladesh v. Mahbubur Rahman (2007) 59 DLR (AD) 166

8
 E. Lack of vicarious constitutional liability

The role of the State is one of general supervision; however, this obligation is not
required regarding the absolute compliance of the private contractor, especially so when
there is fraud and concealment involved. According to Bangladeshi jurisprudence,
vicarious constitutional liability is constrained, and it can only arise if the act is
authorised, ratified, or tolerated by the State. With respect to this particular appeal, there
is, however, no evidence that the Government had any knowledge or involvement with
the unauthorized subcontracting pre-incident.

F. Property damage cannot be held to be constitutional deprivation under Article 42

Article 42 protects against unlawful acquisition or requisition of property by the state,31

and not against incidental or accidental damage arising from infrastructure failure.
Although it is a matter of regret, the shops and vehicle destruction was not the result of
any deliberate state act or policy decision. Compensation for property loss under the
Constitution is not the norm and should not be extended when ordinary civil remedies
would be available.

Allowing public law compensation for all collateral property damage would create an
unsupportable burden on public resources, as well as discourage essential development
activities. In Abdul Jalil v. Bangladesh, it was held that no constitutional obligation to
pay compensation arises where property damage is caused by natural forces and not by
any deliberate or unlawful State action.32 The Court further observed that article 42 does
not impose a positive duty on the State to compensate every property loss, particularly
where the damage is incidental and attributable to natural causes

G. The arrests were legal and among the measures for maintaining public order

The arrests of Mr. Tyrion and Mr. Joffery were effected in respect of section 103(1) of
the Mobile Communications Act, 2001, that authorizes interceptions in the interest of
public order and state security.33 So, the arrest of Mr. Tyrion and Mr. Joffery were lawful
and constitutionally justified. The intercepted conversation disclosed discussions
concerning vandalisation of police vehicles, arson of public offices, and escalation of
street violence. Such acts pose a direct and imminent threat to public order and safety.

______________________
31
The Constitution of Riverlands art 42
32
Abdul Jalil v. Bangladesh 44 DLR (1992) HCD
33
The Mobile Communication Act, 2001 s 103(1)

The police, therefore, acted preventively, not punitively, to avert further chaos and
destruction. In Khondoker Delwar Hossain v. Bangladesh,34 The High Court Division
held that arrest or detention to prevent public disorder, when supported by reasonable
grounds, does not amount to arbitrary deprivation of liberty.
 Mere arrest under statutory power cannot be held to be a contravention of either Article
31 or 32 unless it is clearly established to have been made in bad faith or with ulterior
motives, which again the Petitioners have not established. State v Metropolitan Police
Commissioner, Dhaka,35 the High Court Division held the arrests made pursuant to
statutory authority and on reasonable suspicion to prevent breach of peace or maintain
public order are lawful and do not violate Articles 31 or 32 of the Constitution. Mere
deprivation of liberty following such lawful arrest cannot be termed arbitrary, and no
constitutional remedy arises in the absence of mala fide intention or abuse of power.

H. Ex gratia payments are a recognised and lawful form of State relief

Ex gratia payments are a well-known executive practice, granted as a humanitarian

measure in cases of accidents, disasters, and unforeseen loss of life, without admission of
legal liability. Such payments are intended to provide immediate relief, alleviate
hardship, and demonstrate state responsibility, particularly where incidents arise in
complex factual contexts involving multiple actors. The Constitution does not mandate
compensation in every case of death or loss connected with state projects; rather, the
grant of compensation under writ jurisdiction remains discretionary and exceptional. In
Khondker Delwar Hossain v. Bangladesh,36 The High Court Division recognised that
executive actions taken in good faith for public order or public interest should not readily
attract constitutional liability. Where the State acts responsibly following an incident,
courts should avoid imposing additional financial burdens absent clear proof of
constitutional violation.

______________________
34
Khondker Delwar Hossain v. Bangladesh (2005) 57 DLR HCD
35
State v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Dhaka (2008) 60 DLR HCD 660
36
Khondker Delwar Hossain v. Bangladesh (2005) 57 DLR HCD

10

PRAYER

For the foregoing reasons, the respondent respectfully requests this Court to adjudge and declare
that:

1. The petition is not maintainable before the High Court Division

2. The accident occurring from independent contractor’s negligence does not
amount to constitutional violation of statutory rights.
3. The incidents relating to the phone conversation between Mr Joffery and Mr
Tyrion, and their subsequent arrests, do not amount to violation of their
fundamental rights
4. The victims can not claim compensation.

Respectfully submitted

TC-26

Counsel for the Respondent

11