TEAM CODE: __4___

BEFORE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIVA

WRIT PETITION FILED

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIVA

IN THE MATTER OF

SAMAN ADHIKAR & ORS……………….…………………PETITIONER

Versus
UNION OF INDIVA…………………………………………………………RESPONDENT

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF

INDIVA

—MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT—

 TABLE OF CONTENTS
SL NO. CONTENTS PAGE NO.

1 TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS 3

2 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4

3 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 7

4 SUMMARY OF FACTS 8

5 ISSUES RAISED 9

6 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 10

7 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 11

8 PRAYER 21

2
 TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATION ACTUAL TERMS

& And

Anr. Another

Art. Article

CrPC Criminal Procedure Code

HC High Court

Hon’ble Honourable

IPC Indian Penal Code

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

Ors. Others

S.C. Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

Sec Section

sec. Section

U.P Uttar Pradesh

u/s Under section

UOI Union of India

v./ V/vs. Versus

WP Writ petition

3
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

1 STATUTE REFERRED
1 INDIAN CONSTITUITION,1950

2 INDIAN PENAL CODE,1860

3 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE,1973

2 BOOKS
1 V.N. SHUKLA, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 136
([Link].2022)

2 C.K TAKWANI,INDIAN PENAL CODE,[Link].2014

3 R.V KELKAR’S CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, [Link].2021

3 LEGAL DATABASES
1 SCC ONLINE

2 INDIAN KANOON

4
 CASES REFERRED

SL PAGE NO.
CASE NAME CITATION
NO.
(1962) AIR 1457 15
1. Daryao & Others v. State of U.P

15
2. Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1979 SC 1876

(1979) SC 1876 15
3. Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab

17
4. Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) SCC (3) 569

AIR 1987 965 12

5. M.C. Mehta v. UOI

(2012) SC 604 18
6. Om Prakash v. State of Jharkhand

Pradeep Sharma v. State of 16

7. (2020)
Maharashtra
Prakash Kadam v. Ramprasad (2011) SC1945 18
8.
Vishwanath Gupta
20
9. Re: Arundhati Roy AIR 2002 SC 1375

20
10. S.P. Gupta v. UOI (1982), 2 SCR 365

Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of 16

11. (2010) 3 SCC 1371
Investigation
Shoukat Hussain Guru vs State (NCT) (2008) AIR SC 2419 13
12.
Delhi & Anr
Shri K. Jayaram & Ors v. Bangalore (2021) SCC 1194 12
13.
Development Authority & Ors
19
14. State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma (1991) AIR 1260

5
 19
15. State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172

18
16. State of Punjab v. Swaran Singh (2000) AIR SC 2017

16
17. State of U P v. Niyamat (1987) SCC (1) 844

(1974) AIR 1570 16

18. State of U P v. Ram Swarup

State of U.P. & Anr v. U.P. Rajya 12

19. (2008) AIR SCW 608
Khanij Vikas Nigam S.S & Ors
13
20. UOI v. T.R. Verma 1958 SCR 499

13
21. Veerappa v Ramaniii (1952) SCR 583

6
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

1. The RESPONDENT, Union of Indiva, humbly submits this memorandum in response

to the petition filed before this Honourable Court. The petition invokes its writ
jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of Indiva.
2. Under Art 32 of the Indiva Constitution, Public Interest Litigation (PIL) can be filed
by any individual or organization acting in the public interest. PIL allows any person
or entity to bring forward issues that affect the public at large.

THE MEMORANDUM SETS FORTH THE FACTS, CONTENTIONS AND

ARGUMENTS

7
 SUMMARY OF FACTS

• Republic of Indiva is a country of cultural & historical glories to its name & often
known as the “Land of Culture”. People from various backgrounds lived in harmony
& abided by the laws of the land. They worshipped deities in the personification of
women as a symbol of Strength & Fearlessness. Ankara is a State of Republic of
Indiva with the highest literacy rate & they believed in the Equality between Men &
Women.
• Shrishti was a young Advocate . On 17-01-2020 around 9:30 P.M. she was returning
from workplace on her scooter, & brutally raped by four men. In the fear of not
getting caught, the four men put petroleum in her body & burnt her alive till she was
dead & ran away towards the nearby village. On 18-01-2020 the partially burnt body
was found at an underpass .On 24-01-2020, the Police presented the four accused in
front of the local Magistrate & requested for a 7 days remand for further investigation.
• On 03-02-2020, the Media flashed the news that the four accused had been shot dead
by the Police while they were being taken to the Court. The Investigation In-Charge
in stated that Naveen & Keshav snatched the revolvers from the Constables & tried to
escape. The Police claimed that they found no other ways & had to shoot down the
four accused otherwise the accused would have fled.
• The killing of the accused in the alleged encounter was hailed by a section of
people, the families of the deceased & human rights groups alleged that the
police took law into its hands, terming this as extra-judicial killing. The family
alleged that the police officers have framed the murder scene as they had threatened
them when they went to the police station. An NGO named as “Saman Adhikar” filed
a Petition before the Hon’ble HC of Ankara. The Court passed a judgement
favourable to the policemen. Families of the four accused approached the SC,
seeking registration of murder case against the police officers involved.
Alleging that they were killed in a stage-managed gunfight, the families filed a
WP under the provisions of Art 32 of the Constitution that enables individuals
to seek redressal for the violation of their fundamental rights. The NGO, after the
Judgment by the Hon’ble HC, approached the Hon’ble SC on the contention of
violation of Human Rights as well as the violation of Fundamental Rights guaranteed
under the Constitution. All the petitions have been clubbed by the Hon'ble SC &
stands pending before the Hon’ble SC of Republic of Indiva.

8
 ISSUES RAISED

The following issues are most humbly & respectfully presented before the Hon’ble SC of
Indiva for adjudication:
[ISSUE 1]

1. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE

CONSTITUTION BY THE FAMILIES OF THE DECEASED & THE NGO IS
MAINTAINABLE?

[ISSUE 2]

2. WHETHER THE POLICE OFFICERS VIOLATED THE FUNDAMENTAL

RIGHT OF THE FOUR ACCUSED UNDER ART 21 OF THE
CONSTITUTION BY ENGAGING IN AN EXTRA JUDICIAL KILLING?

[ISSUE 3]

3. WHETHER THE PUBLIC SENTIMENTS & MEDIAS UNDULY

INFLUENCED THE ACTIONS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT & THE
JUDICIARY ?

9
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1 THE WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ART 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION BY
THE FAMILIES OF THE DECEASED & THE NGO IS NOT MAINTAINABLE
• MISREPRESENTATION OF FACTS

• EXISTENCE OR AVALABILITY OF ALTERNATIVE REMEDIES

• MALICIOUS PETITION
2 THE POLICE OFFICERS DIDN’T VIOLATED THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF
THE FOUR ACCUSED UNDER ART 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION BY ENGAGING
IN AN EXTRA JUDICIAL KILLING
• RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENCE BY THE POLICE OFFICERS
• POLICE DUTY & LAWFUL FORCE OF THE OFFICERS
• IMMEDIATE NECESSITY & ABSENCE OF MALAFIDE INTENTION OF THE
POLICE OFFICERS.
3 THE PUBLIC SENTIMENTS & MEDIAS UNDULY DIDN’T INFLUENCED THE
ACTIONS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT & THE JUDICIARY

• LAW ENFORCEMENT OPERATES WITHIN STRICT LEGAL FRAMEWORKS

• JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE AND ADHERENCE TO LEGAL PRINCIPLES

10
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1-WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE

CONSTITUTION BY THE FAMILIES OF THE DECEASED & THE NGO IS
MAINTAINABLE?

1. The writ petition filed under art 321 of the constitution by the families of the deceased &
the NGO is not maintainable due to [A] Misrepresentation of facts by the petitioners [B]
Existence or availability of alternative remedies to opponent parties [C] Malicious petition
have been filed by the petitioners.

[A] MISREPRESENTATION OF FACTS

2. It is humbly submitted before the court on behalf of the respondent that the principle
of misrepresentation of facts in the context plays a crucial role in determining the
maintainability of such petitions. If a petitioner is found to have committed substantial
misrepresentation of facts, the SC may dismiss the petition for abuse of process.

3. A writ petition must be based on truthful & accurate representations of facts. Substantial
misrepresentation or concealment of material facts can undermine the credibility of the
petition & lead to its dismissal.

4. In the above case, the families of the accused alleged that the police officers framed the
murder scene & this accusation is speculative & not based on any credible evidence. The
entire crime scene was staged without providing verifiable details or witnesses, the intention
behind such a claim could mislead the court into believing that the police acted with malice
or premeditation, potentially influencing the court’s perspective on the entire incident.2 The
families also claim that the police officers made threatening statements, indicating that the
accused would not be spared due to public outrage. However, these allegations are fabricated
or exaggerated, and there is no concrete evidence to support these claims.

1
Art 32.
2
Moot proposition para 8

11
5. In Shri K. Jayaram & Ors v. Bangalore Development Authority & Ors 3,The SC held that
the information & misrepresentation amounted to an abuse of the legal process. The Court
dismissed the petition, emphasizing that equitable relief from writ courts is not available
when the petitioners engage in such conduct.
6. In M.C. Mehta v. UOI4,The SC highlighted the importance of accurate & complete
disclosure of facts in petitions. Misrepresentation can lead to a loss of credibility & may
result in dismissal of the petition.

[B] EXISTENCE OR AVAILABILITY OF ALTERNATIVE REMEDIES

9. It is humbly submitted before the hon'ble court on behalf of the respondent that if the
petitioner has another remedy, he must seek it rather than filing a writ petition. The principle
of availability of alternative remedies is a key factor in determining the maintainability of a
writ petition under Art 325 of the Constitution. It holds that if a petitioner has access to other
legal remedies that are effective & adequate, they should pursue those remedies before
approaching the SC under Art 32.

10. In this case, the families of the accused have directly approach SC. However, the
petitioners had other legal avenues available, such as filing complaints with the local police
or First Information Report against police officers involved in the alleged extra judicial
killing , seeking investigation through lower courts, or pursuing remedies through human
rights commissions which has the authority to investigate human rights violations including
cases of alleged extrajudicial killings & recommend actions against the perpetrators or other
statutory bodies. The families of the four accused didn’t utilize these options.

11. In State of U.P. & Anr v. U.P. Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam S.S & Ors 6, The Hon’ble SC
ruled that the petitioners must seek a suitable alternative remedy before filing a writ case &
held that the petitioners should have pursued their remedies under industrial law instead of
filing a writ petition.

3
(2021) SCC 1194
4
AIR (1987) 965
5
Article 32
6
(2008) AIR SCW 608

12
12. In the case of UOI v. T.R. Verma7, the SC stated that it is well settled that when an
alternative & equally efficacious remedy is open to a litigant, he should be required to pursue
that remedy & not to invoke the special jurisdiction of the HC to issue a prerogative writ.

13. In the case of Veerappa v Ramaniii8 the hon'ble SC held that if the right & liability is
created by a statute & it prescribes a remedy or procedure for enforcing, then the court may
refuse to entertain the writ petition & direct the petitioner to seek remedy under the statute
only.

[C] MALICIOUS PETITION

15. It is humbly submitted before the hon'ble court on behalf of the respondent that the
petition has been filed to seek justice with malafide intention. A malicious petition refers to a
legal action brought with an ulterior motive, often to harass or burden the respondent rather
than to genuinely seek justice. The SC has the authority to dismiss such petitions if they are
found to be frivolous, baseless, or brought with malintent, even when filed under Art 32,
which is meant for enforcing fundamental rights.

16. The families of the accused have been influenced by intense media scrutiny & public
sentiment, prompting them to pursue speculative claims. The widespread coverage, including
trending hashtags like #KillTheRapists, pressured them into filing a malicious petition. The
media's portrayal of the police action as an "Act of Bravery" suggests that the petition is less
about seeking genuine justice and more about challenging the narrative shaped by public
opinion.9

17. In Shoukat Hussain Guru vs State (NCT) Delhi & Anr10 the SC dismissed the writ
petition, stating that it lacked any rational basis or valid grounds for it to be entertained under
Art 32. The Court observed that the petition was frivolous & brought without any genuine
legal foundation.

18. This principle helps to maintain the integrity of the judicial system & ensures that the
SC's time is reserved for cases that genuinely involve violations of fundamental rights. In

7
(1958) SCR 499
8
(1952) SCR 583
9
As per Moot proposition
10
(2008) AIR SC 2419

13
Daryao & Others v. State of U.P.11 the petitioners filed a writ petition under Art 32 after their
petition under Art 22612 was dismissed by the HC. The SC dismissed the petition, citing the
principle of res judicata & the lack of fresh grounds. The Court emphasized that Art 32
cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal or as a forum to re-agitate matters that have
already been settled.

19. Here, the petition is not only malicious but also an attempt to undermine public trust in
law enforcement because the media & the general public have supported the police officers’
actions. So the petitioners are trying to challenge the legitimacy of law enforcement for
seeking justice. The SC should consider the broader public interest & the potential negative
impact of overturning the HC’s decision & the petition is an abuse of the judicial process. It
means the misuse or manipulation of the legal system to achieve improper or unjust
outcomes. Here, the petitioners are trying to harass the respondents & gain public sympathy.
Since the petition is based on allegations that have already been ruled upon by the HC in
favour of the police, the SC should recognize the petition as a vexatious attempt to reopen
settled matters.

ISSUE 2- WHETHER THE POLICE OFFICERS VIOLATED THE FUNDAMENTAL

RIGHT OF THE FOUR ACCUSED UNDER ART 21 & ART 22 OF THE
CONSTITUTION BY ENGAGING IN AN EXTRA JUDICIAL KILLING?

20. The police officers didn’t violated the fundamental right of the four accused under art 21
& art 22 of the constitution by engaging in an extra judicial killing due to [A] Doctrine of
Self-Defence by the police officers [B] Police Duty & Lawful Force of the officers

[A] DOCTRINE TO SELF-DEFENSE

21. Self-defence is a fundamental legal principle that applies to all individuals, including
police officers, under certain circumstances. In the context of extrajudicial killings, police
officers may invoke self-defence as a justification for their actions if they can prove that they
were responding to an imminent & serious threat to their lives or the lives of others. The
provisions mentioned below highlight the circumstances under which force may be used and
the legal remedies available in cases of abuse.

11
(1961) AIR 1457
12
Article 226

14
21.1 Sec 100 IPC,186013: This section outlines circumstances under which a person,
including a police officer, can cause the death of an assailant:
• If the assault is likely to cause death.
• If the assault is likely to cause grievous hurt.
• If the assault is aimed at committing rape, kidnapping, or wrongful confinement,
which may cause harm.
In Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab14 the SC recognized the right to private defence &
clarified that it extends to causing death if there is a reasonable apprehension of death or
grievous harm. This defence can be invoked by police officers as well.
21.2 Sec 46 CrPC, 197315:Use of Force by Police: This section allows police officers to use
"all means necessary" to make an arrest or prevent an escape. However, it restricts the use of
lethal force to situations where the person being arrested is accused of an offense punishable
with death or life imprisonment and resists arrest or attempts to flee.
In Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab16 the SC held that police officers have the right to use
force if necessary to carry out their duty, including during the arrest of a dangerous criminal,
as long as the force used is proportionate & justified by the circumstances.

22. For self-defence to be valid, the threat faced by the police officer must be immediate &
serious. The officer must reasonably believe that their life or the life of another is in danger.
This belief must be based on the circumstances as they appeared at the time of the incident.
The force used in self-defence must be proportional to the threat. If the force used exceeds
what is necessary to neutralize the threat, the claim of self-defence may not hold.

23. Art 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life & personal liberty, stating that no
person shall be deprived of their life or personal liberty except according to the procedure
established by law. The right to life under Article 21 is not absolute & may be lawfully
curtailed in situations where the police, acting in the discharge of their duties, are compelled
to use force in self-defence or to prevent an imminent threat. If the police officers involved
acted in self-defence or in the face of an imminent threat to their lives or the lives of others,
their actions would be legally justified under the doctrine of self-defence.

13
Indian Penal Code, 1860, sec 100.
14
AIR 1979 SC 1876
15
Criminal Procedure Code,1973, Sec 46.
16
1953 AIR 83, 1953 SCR 319

15
24. In Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation17 the SC held that the right to self-
defence is recognized under Indian law, & when law enforcement officers are faced with an
immediate threat, they are entitled to use necessary force to protect themselves and others.
This protection extends to the use of lethal force if the situation warrants it.

25. In case of the four accused, the police officers allegedly acted in self-defence when the
accused attempted to escape and posed a significant threat by reportedly snatching firearms
and attacking the officers. The use of force by the police, including lethal force, was a
necessary and proportionate response to the imminent danger posed by the accused. The
accused attempted to escape by snatching firearms from the police officers & firing shots in
the air. The police asserted that the situation posed an immediate threat to their safety & to
public order, prompting them to use lethal force to prevent the escape of the accused. Thus,
the police's use of force was a legitimate exercise of their right to self-defence in a high-
pressure situation, ultimately falling within the bounds of constitutional protections for law
enforcement.

26. In State of U P v. Ram Swarup18 the court upheld the actions of the police, recognizing
that the officers were responding to an immediate & life-threatening attack.

19
27. In Pradeep Sharma v. State of Maharashtra the court ruled that without concrete
evidence to the contrary, the police officers' claim of self-defence could stand.

28. In State of U P v. Niyamat20 the SC held that the use of force by police officers in the line
of duty is justified when they are confronted with a situation where they have no other option
but to use force to protect themselves or others from harm. In such cases, the actions of the
police do not amount to a violation of the right to life under Art 21, as the force used is within
the bounds of the law.

[B] POLICE DUTY & LAWFUL FORCE

29. It is humbly submitted before the hon'ble court on behalf of the respondent the Police
officers have the legal authority to use force while performing their duties, particularly in

17
(2010) 3 SCC 1371
18
1974 AIR 1570, 1975 SCR (1) 409
19
2024
20
(1998)

16
situations where they need to arrest suspects, prevent crimes, or protect themselves and others
from harm. This authority is provided by various laws, including the IPC,1860 & the
CrPC,1973.

30. Sec 46 of the CrPC,197321:Sec 46(2) allows police officers to use "all means necessary"
to effect an arrest if the person forcibly resists or attempts to evade it. Sec 46(3) further states
that if the accused is charged with an offense punishable by death or life imprisonment &
resists arrest, the police may use force, even to the extent of causing death.

31. If the accused resisted arrest or attempted to evade the police while being taken for
evidence, the officers are authorized to use reasonable force. In this situation, the police could
claim that the accused exhibited violent behaviour or made attempts to escape, thereby
necessitating a lethal response to prevent them from fleeing and potentially harming others.

32. Under Sec 96 to 106 of the IPC,186022 the police officers, like any other individual, have
the right to self-defence. If an officer's life or the lives of others are in imminent danger, they
are legally permitted to use force, including lethal force, to protect themselves or others.

33. Art 2223 of the Constitution provides protections against arbitrary arrest and detention,
including the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest, the right to legal counsel, and the
right to be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours of arrest.
Art 22 applies to the process of arrest and detention, ensuring that individuals are treated
fairly under the law. In the case of the four accused, they were initially arrested, informed of
the charges against them, & placed in judicial custody, satisfying the requirements of Art 22.
The subsequent incident, which led to their deaths, occurred during a police operation
intended to gather evidence and reconstruct the crime scene. The events that transpired were
unforeseen and were not related to arbitrary arrest or detention but rather to an unexpected &
dangerous situation requiring an immediate response.

34. In Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab24 The SC emphasized that while Art 22 provides
crucial safeguards against arbitrary arrest & detention, it does not prohibit the use of

21
Criminal Procedure Code,1973, Sec 46
22
Indian Penal Code, 1860, sec 96-106.
23
Article 22
24
(1994) SCC (3) 569

17
necessary force by law enforcement officers in situations where they are compelled to act to
prevent an escape, resist an attack, or maintain public safety. The Court recognized that
officers are entitled to take reasonable measures, including the use of force, in such
situations.

35. In this case, the four accused were lawfully arrested on 23-01-2020 following a thorough
investigation by the police25, which included CCTV evidence placing them at the scene of the
crime. The police then presented the accused before a magistrate on 24-01-2020 & obtained a
seven-day remand for further investigation. This process adhered to the requirements of Art
22 of the Constitution, which protects individuals from arbitrary arrest and detention,
ensuring that the accused were informed of the grounds of their arrest and given the
opportunity to consult a legal practitioner. The subsequent events on 03-02-2020, which led
to the deaths of the accused, occurred while they were being lawfully transported to court. At
every stage prior to this incident, the legal rights of the accused, as mandated by Art 22, were
respected.

36. In State of Punjab v. Swaran Singh26 the SC held that if the police action was in good
faith, in the lawful exercise of their duty, and the force used was proportionate to the threat, it
does not amount to a violation of Art 21. The Court upheld the principle that police officers
are entitled to use necessary force when required to perform their duties effectively.

37. In Prakash Kadam v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta 27 the SC noted that if an encounter
is not genuine & is staged, it constitutes a grave violation of human rights. However, in cases
where the police are confronted with a real & imminent threat, they are justified in using
necessary force, including lethal force. This case clarifies that while genuine encounters
where police are in immediate danger are legally justified, fake encounters are not. The
distinction lies in the authenticity of the threat and the necessity of the force use.

28
38. In Om Prakash v. State of Jharkhand the SC ruled that the police had acted within the
scope of their duties. The use of force was necessary to neutralize the immediate threat posed
by the criminals. The Court emphasized that such actions, when carried out in the lawful
discharge of duty, do not violate Art 21.

25
As per moot proposition
26
AIR 2000 SC 2017
27
AIR 2011 SC 1945
28
AIR 2012 SC 604

18
ISSUE 3-WHETHER THE PUBLIC SENTIMENTS & MEDIAS UNDULY
INFLUENCED THE ACTIONS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT & THE JUDICIARY ?

39. The public sentiments & medias didn’t influenced the actions of law enforcement & the
judiciary due to [A] Law enforcement operates within strict legal frameworks [B] Judicial
Independence & Adherence to Legal Principles.
40. The judiciary & law enforcement agencies in a democratic society are designed to
function independently and impartially, adhering strictly to the rule of law. While the media
plays a vital role in informing the public and fostering transparency, and public sentiments
often reflect societal values, the legal system is bound by constitutional principles, statutes,
and established procedures. This framework is meant to ensure that neither media coverage
nor public opinion can unduly influence judicial decisions or law enforcement actions. The
independence of these institutions is critical for maintaining public trust in the justice system.

[A] LAW ENFORCEMENT OPERATES WITHIN STRICT LEGAL FRAMEWORKS

41. Law enforcement agencies are bound by legal frameworks such as the CrPC, which
ensures that their actions are based on evidence and legal requirements. These frameworks
provide procedural safeguards that prevent law enforcement from being influenced by public
sentiment or media coverage. Law enforcement officers are trained to follow these
procedures, ensuring that their actions are objective and impartial.

42. In State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh29 the SC emphasized that law enforcement agencies
must adhere strictly to legal procedures, particularly in matters involving the rights of the
accused. The court ruled that investigations & prosecutions must be conducted based on
evidence and in accordance with the law, without being influenced by external factors such as
media narratives or public opinion.
43. In State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma30 the SC underscored the importance of law enforcement
agencies adhering strictly to legal procedures & acting based on evidence rather than external
pressures. The court ruled that investigations must be free from any influence, ensuring that
law enforcement actions are objective & impartial.

29
(1999) 6 SCC 172
30
(1991) AIR 1260

19
[B] JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE AND ADHERENCE TO LEGAL PRINCIPLES
44. Courts are constitutionally mandated to interpret and apply the law without any external
pressure. Judges are trained and obligated to base their rulings solely on evidence, legal
precedents, and statutory interpretation, ensuring that their decisions are insulated from
public opinion or media narratives.
45. In In Re:Arundhati Roy31, the SC emphasized the independence of the judiciary, stating
that judges must not be swayed by any external factors, including public opinion or media
criticism. The court stressed that the judiciary's role is to uphold the law impartially, and it
cannot be influenced by external pressures.
46. In S.P. Gupta v. UOI32 the SC emphasized the importance of judicial independence as a
cornerstone of the legal system. The court held that the judiciary must remain free from
external influences, including public opinion and media pressure, to maintain its impartiality
& integrity. This case underscores the judiciary's commitment to making decisions based on
legal principles rather than external pressures.

47. In this case, public sentiment & media attention surged after the brutal rape & murder of
Shrishti on 17-01-2020. The incident sparked widespread outrage across the Republic of
Indiva, leading to protests, candlelight marches, & social media campaigns demanding
justice, with #KillTheRapists trending nationwide. Political leaders & celebrities also voiced
their support for swift action. However, despite the intense public outcry, the law
enforcement & judiciary followed due process. The police conducted a detailed investigation,
relying on CCTV footage & other evidence to arrest the four accused on 23-01-2020. They
were lawfully presented before a magistrate on 24-01-2020, where a seven-day remand was
granted. The actions of the police on 03-02-2020, when the accused were shot while being
transported to court, were justified by law enforcement as a necessary response to an
attempted escape & were not directly influenced by public pressure. The HC of Ankara
upheld the police's actions as an "Act of Bravery," citing the circumstances faced by the
officers.

31
(2002) SC 1375
32
(1982) 2 SCR 365

20
 PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, and authorities cited the
Respondent most humbly and respectfully pray that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiva
may kindly adjudge to declare that:

a. The petition under Article 32 lacks merit as the officers acted within legal bounds and
the encounter was necessary to prevent the accused from escaping, not an abuse of
power.

a. The police officers did not violate Article 21, acting in legitimate self-defence and
the police officers’ actions were justified and do not constitute a violation of human
rights.

b. The media support reflects public trust in the officers, not undue influence.

And may kindly pass any order that the Hon’ble Supreme Court may deem fit.
And for this act of kindness the Counsel for the Respondent shall in duty bound for ever pray.
Date:
Place: Supreme Court of Indiva

SD/-

Counsel for Respondent/-

21