MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

TEAM CODE: T28

Before

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT

GOKULDHAM

POPATLAL………………………APPLICANT

V.

UNION OF GOKULDHAM…………RESPONDENT

FILED UNDER ART. 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF GOKULDHAM

-MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT-

Submitted On: 27th May, 2024

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................I

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................... II
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ................................................................................................ IV
STATEMENT OF FACTS ...............................................................................................................V
ISSUES PRESENTED .................................................................................................................. VI
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS .................................................................................................... VII
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ........................................................................................................... 1
ISSUE 1. THE SUPREME COURT OF GOKULDHAM IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE FORUM TO
EXERCISE THE JURISDICTION IN RELATION TO THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY POPATLAL. ..... 1

1.1 There is no violation Fundamental rights ................................................................ 1

1.2. The Petitioner has not exhausted Alternative Remedies ......................................... 2
ISSUE 2. THE PONS ACT VIOLATES THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND
EXPRESSION IN THE GOKULDAM CONSTITUTION. .................................................................... 3

2.1 Presumption in favour of Constitutionality and validity of the Act ............................. 3

2.2 The right to freedom of speech and expression not absolute or unbridled. ................. 4
2.3. PONS Act does not violate principles of natural justice. ........................................ 5
ISSUE 3. SECTION 4 OF THE PONS ACT DOES NOT VIOLATE ARTICLE 21 OF THE
CONSTITUTION. ......................................................................................................................... 6
3.1 No Violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of Gokuldham .................................... 6
3.2 The Government has met the doctrine of the legitimate Expectation .......................... 7
PRAYER .................................................................................................................................... IX
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

S.No. Abbreviations Full Form

1. PONS Public Order And National Security, Act

2. AIR All India Report

3. SSRO Stanian Space Research Organisation

4. E.g. Example

5. Hon’ble Honourable

6. No. Number

7. Ors. Others

8. S.C. Supreme Court

9. v. Versus

10. Govt. Government

11. ILR Indian Law Reports

12. SCC Supreme Court Cases

13. i.e. That is

i|Page
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

➢ Cases
1. AK Roy v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0051/1981
2. ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, MANU/SC/0062/1976
3. Rashid Ahmed v. Municipal Board, Kairana, AIR 1950 SC 163
4. Rashid Ahmed v. Municipal Board, Kairana, AIR 1950 SC 163
5. Charanjit Lal Chowdhury v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 41
6. Ashutosh Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 4 SCC 34
7. State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara, AIR 1951 SC 41
8. Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India, (2003) 11 SCC 146
9. Basu, D.D., Shorter Constitution of India (12th edn,. 2000) 62
10. RIT Foundation v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1404
11. Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, UOI, (2012) 5 SCC 1
12. Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124
13. Balco Employees Union v. UOI, AIR 2002 SCC 350
14. Virendra v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 896
15. P.M. Ashwathanarayana Setty v. State of Karnataka AIR 1989 SC 100.
16. K.S. Puttuswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
17. Naresh v. State of Maharashtra, 1966 3 SCR 744.
18. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 : AIR 1978 SC 597
19. Om Kumar v. Union Of India, (2001) 2 SCC 386, AIR 2000 SC 3689.
20. Shiv Bahadur Singh Rao v. State of UP AIR 1953 SC 394.

➢ Statues

1. The Constitution of Gokuldam

2. The PONS Act, 2023.

➢ Books

1. MP Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, eight edn. Pg 1086.

2. Dr. Durga Das Basu, Shorter Constitution of India,(Justice A.R. Lakshmanan, V.R.
Manohar, 14th Ed., 2013.

ii | P a g e
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

➢ Websites Referred
1. https://www.scconline.com/
2. https://www.manupatrafast.in/
3. https://advance.lexis.com/
4. https:/www.livelaw.in
5. https://www.jstor.org/

iii | P a g e
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner has approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Gokuldham u/a. 32 of the
Consitution of Gokuldham.

Article 32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

(1)The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the
rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.

(2)The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs
in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warrant and certiorari, whichever
may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.

(3)Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2),
Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its
jurisdiction ill or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).

(4)The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for
by this Constitution.

iv | P a g e
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

STATEMENT OF FACTS

-Parties-
Popatlal Pandey, a prominent journalist and editor-in-chief of 'Toofan Express', is known for
investigative journalism and outspoken critiques of government policies. Their reporting is
nationally and internationally recognized, and they frequently participate in news debate
panels.

The Tapusena party, led by Jethalal and his son Tiperndra (Tapu), has governed Gokuldham
since 2017. On February 15, 2024, the Gokuldham Parliament enacted the 'Public Order and
National Security Act of 2024 (PONS Act)', granting extensive censorship powers to suppress
purported “anti-national” content.

-Ensuing Events-

On February 24, 2024, Popatlal published investigative reports in ‘Toofan Express’ alleging
corruption at the highest levels of the Tapusena government, implicating Jethalal, his
associates, and relatives. The following day, the government shut down the magazine and
initiated legal action against Popatlal under the PONS Act, accusing them of disseminating
"anti-national" content. Popatlal was arrested and detained without bail, pursuant to the Act's
provisions for pre-trial detention.

Popatlal filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Gokuldham Constitution in the Supreme
Court, claiming violations of their fundamental rights due to the magazine's shutdown and their
detention under the PONS Act. They argued that the Act is vague, grants excessive power to
the government, and infringes on the rights to freedom of speech, expression, and personal
liberty. Popatlal urged the Court to declare the PONS Act unconstitutional. The State countered,
asserting the petition’s non-maintainability, defending the Act’s necessity to curb
misinformation, and claiming it aligns with reasonable restrictions on speech provided in the
Constitution.

v|Page
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

ISSUES PRESENTED

ISSUE I: Whether the Supreme Court of Gokuldham is an appropriate forum to exercise

the jurisdiction in relation to the writ petition filed by Popatlal.

ISSUE II: Whether the PONS Act violates the fundamental right to freedom of speech
and expression in the Gokuldham Constitution.

ISSUE III: Whether the provision in PONS Act allowing for the arrest and detention of
individuals without bail during the pendency of investigation violates the right to personal
liberty under the Gokuldham Constitution.

vi | P a g e
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE I: Whether the Supreme Court of Gokuldham is an appropriate forum to exercise

the jurisdiction in relation to the writ petition filed by Popatlal.

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court that that the present writ petition
is not maintainable under Article 32 of the Constitution of Gokuldham. In the present case, the
petition is not maintainable on the grounds that the there is no infringement of Fundamental
Rights and the Petitioner has not exhausted Alternative Remedies.

ISSUE II: Whether the PONS Act violates the fundamental right to freedom of speech
and expression in the Gokuldham Constitution.

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court that the PONS Act does not
violate the fundamental right of the citizen to speech and expression and the said Act is valid
and it has been enacted within the legislative competence of the Parliament.

ISSUE III: Whether the provision in PONS Act allowing for the arrest and detention of
individuals without bail during the pendency of investigation violates the right to personal
liberty under the Gokuldham Constitution.

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court section 4 of the PONS Act does
not violate the Right to life and personal liberty given under Article 21 of the Constitution of
Gokuldham. The contention is based on the grounds that, first, there is no violation of Art.21
of the Constitution of Gokuldham, second, the government has met the doctrine of legitimate
expectation.

vii | P a g e
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1. THE SUPREME COURT OF GOKULDHAM IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE

FORUM TO EXERCISE THE JURISDICTION IN RELATION TO THE WRIT PETITION
FILED BY POPATLAL.

¶1. It is most humbly submitted that the present writ petition is not maintainable under Article 32
of the Constitution of Gokuldham. The maintainability of a petition under Article 32 of
Constitution of Gokuldham depends on the facts of each case.1 The question as to when the
Supreme Court should entertain the claim depends on the nature of the fundamental right
alleged to have been infringed and the remedy claimed.2 In the present case, the petition is not
maintainable on the grounds that the there is no infringement of Fundamental Rights (1.1) and
the Petitioner has not exhausted Alternative Remedies (1.2).
1.1 There is no violation Fundamental rights

¶2. It is respectfully submitted that the present case does not justify an Article 32 petition, as there
is no legitimate cause of action for the petitioners to approach this Hon'ble Court. Article 32(1)
grants individuals the right to move the Supreme Court through appropriate proceedings for the
enforcement of rights conferred under Part III. In this case, there are no fundamental rights
violations as claimed by the petitioners. The respondent humbly submits the following
contentions regarding this sub-issue;
o That Shutting down of publication of magazine is violative of Article 19(1)(a)3 of the
Constitution of Gokuldham.
o Arrest of the petitioner without bail (Pre-trial detention ) is violative of Article 214 of
the Constitution of Gokuldham .

¶3. Regarding the first contention, it is important to note that reasonable restrictions can be imposed
on Article 19(1)(a) based on the grounds specified in Article 19(2). In other words, the right to
freedom of speech and expression is not absolute. Restrictions can be justified on grounds such
as the security, sovereignty, and integrity of the state as provided under Article 19(2).

1
Assam Sanmilitia Mahasangh v. Union of India, (2015) 3 SCC 1.
2
Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi, (1969) 1 SCC 110.
3
All citizens shall have the right-
(a) to freedom of speech and expression;
4
Article 21- No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established
by valid law.

1|Page
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

Furthermore, concerning the second contention, there is no violation of Article 21 as the

petitioner was deprived of their liberty in accordance with the procedure established by law.
The individual's liberty must be reasonably subordinated to the greater good of the people.5
This power of detention is conferred by the Constitution itself in order to ensure that the
security and safety of the country and the welfare of its people are not put in peril6

1.2.The Petitioner has not exhausted Alternative Remedies

It is a well settled proposition of law that existence of an alternative adequate remedy is a factor
taken into consideration in a writ petition.7 The same has been upheld in a plethora of
judgments rendered by this Hon'ble Court8.

Article 226 grants the High Court the authority to entertain writ petitions. Notably, Article 226
contains a non-obstante clause in relation to Article 32. Additionally, Article 226 empowers the
High Courts within their respective jurisdictions to entertain writs as necessary.

It was held by the Hon'ble Court in the case of Confederation of All Nagaland State Services
Employees' Assn. v. State of Nagaland,9 that writ petitions should initially be brought before
the High Court of Judicature exercising its authority under Article 226 of the Constitution. In
this case, the petitioner has directly approached the Supreme Court, whereas the appropriate
course would have been to seek relief from the High Court under Article 226. Therefore, this
Hon'ble Court is urged to exercise its discretion to dismiss the current writ petition on grounds
of non-maintainability.

5
AK Roy v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0051/1981.
6
ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, MANU/SC/0062/1976.
7
Rashid Ahmed v. Municipal Board, Kairana, AIR 1950 SC 163.
8
Kanubhai Brahmbhattv. State of Gujarat, AIR 1987 SC 1189; A petitioner complaining of infraction of his
Fundamental Right should approach the High Court first rather than the Supreme Court in the first instance.
Similar observation in Union of India vs. Paul Manickam and Another, (2003) 8 SCC 342.
9
(2006) 1 SCC 496.

2|Page
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

ISSUE 2. THE PONS ACT VIOLATES THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF

SPEECH AND EXPRESSION IN THE GOKULDAM CONSTITUTION.

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that The PONS Act does not violate the
fundamental right of the citizen to speech and expression and the said Act is valid and it has
been enacted within the legislative competence of the Parliament. The argument is based on
the ground that, there is presumption in favour of constitutionality and validity of the Act (2.1),
and the right to freedom of speech and expression is not absolute or unbridled (2.2), PONS Act
does not violate the principles of natural justice (2.3).

2.1 Presumption in favour of Constitutionality and validity of the Act

¶4. In the present case, there is no prima facie violation of any of the Constitutional right and no
adverse presumption can be laid down against law enacted by the Parliament.
¶5. The constitutional courts in India have relied on the presumption of constitutionality of statute
as principle in catena of decision.10 However, a similar presumption cannot be applied to pre-
Constitutional laws. The presumption of constitutionality serves as a guiding principle for
constitutional courts during their judicial review process. It implies that each law passed by the
legislature is presumed to be constitutional unless proven otherwise, placing the burden of proof
on those who argue that the law in question is invalid, unconstitutional, or infringes upon
fundamental rights.11 The reason behind the same is the judicial deference to the wisdom of the
legislature in enacting the laws after understanding the will and the needs of the people, as a
natural corollary to the doctrine of separation of powers.12 Also, the Supreme Court in Saurabh
Chaudhari v. Union of India,13 clearly laid down that the “Strict Scrutiy Test” which is
applicable in US will not apply in Indian Courts and Indian law favours presumption in
constitutionality.
¶6. In the present case where the Constitutional validity of the law is challenge by the Petitioner, it
is upon him to prove that how the said Act violate right to free speech and expression by taking
into consideration the principle of presumption in favour of validity of statute.
¶7. Also, the rule of presumption is not absolute in every case14 & there are exceptions where Strict

10
Charanjit Lal Chowdhury v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 41.
State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara, AIR 1951 SC 41.
11
Ashutosh Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 4 SCC 34.
12
RIT Foundation v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1404.
13
Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India, (2003) 11 SCC 146.
14
Basu, D.D., Shorter Constitution of India (12 th edn,. 2000) 62.

3|Page
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

Scrutiny Test can be applied, mainly in cases were legislation ex facie found to be unreasonable
and there is lack of intelligible differentia in applying restriction for object sought to be
achieved. But if we take note of the current situation then it is explicitly realized that there is
no violation of the Fundamental Right of the citizens.
¶8. The Hon’ble SC in Kedar Nath v. State of Bihar, 1962, observed that when a position of law
is capable of two interpretations, one favouring constitutionality and other favouring
unconstitutionality, the interpretation which makes it constitutional should be preferred.15
¶9. Thus, the said Act is valid as the restrictions which can be imposed on freedom of speech &
expression are within the ambit of A.19(2) and the grounds which are considered to be anti -
national even form part of A.19(2). Therefore, no prima facie violation of the Fundamental
Right is there and burden shift on Petitioner to prove the same.

2.2 The right to freedom of speech and expression not absolute or unbridled.

¶10. Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution provides right to freedom of speech & expression
but this right is not absolute and unbridled and reasonable restrictions can be validly put by
law.16 The Constitution itself u/A, 19(2) laid down eight grounds on which restriction can be
ordered. The PONS Act which is a competent law enacted by Parliament lays down restriction
i.e., censorship on ground of anti-national content.
¶11. S. 2(a) of the said Act defines what is “anti-national content”, it means any content, in
any of the form written, oral, etc, which deemed by the government to undermine the integrity,
sovereignty, or security of the nation. Thus, the restriction under the Act can be ordered mainly
on three out of the eight grounds mentioned in A.19(2) and it is in consonance with A.19(2)
and there is no question as to its validity.
¶12. Also, this present case is different from Shreya Singhal, where Article 66A of IT Act
was held unconstitutional because it falls outside the scope of A.19(2) and the grounds on which
restrictions could be imposed are not covered by A.19(2) and the same was vague as very elastic
and wide interpretation could be given to those grounds.17 But, in the present case restrictions
in only on ground, namely, anti-national content and it includes only three sub grounds i.e.,
integrity, sovereignty or security of the nation. These sub grounds are extensively dealt and
defined by SC in catena of decisions18. Reaffirmed in Desiya Murpokku Dravida Kazhagam

15
MP Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, eight edn. Pg 1086.
16
Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, UOI, (2012) 5 SCC 1.
Sahara Real Estate Corp Limited v. Securities & Exchange Board of India, AIR 2012 SC 3829.
17
MP Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, eight edn, Pd 1084.
18
Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124.;Madhu Mimaye v. SDM, Monghyr, AIR 1971 SC
2468.

4|Page
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

(Dmdk) And Another V. Election Commission Of India.19

Thus, the PONS Act is valid as to its constitutionality as there is no invalidity as the grounds
mentioned for its restrictions are clearly within the ambit of A.19(2).

2.3.PONS Act does not violate principles of natural justice.

¶13. It is universally accepted rule that even no procedure is mentioned under any law but
it is mandatory to follow the principles of natural justice . The prominent principle of natural
justice is that no one be condemned unheard or without giving him first adequate opportunity
but this rule is not absolute and can be relaxed in the interest of public or security of the state
by invoking “doctrine of necessity”. The S.C. in Balco Employees Union v. UOI20,reaffirmed
in The Indian Institute Of Architects And Ors. Petitioners V. Union Of India And Ors.21
observed that principles of natural justice had no role to play in those situations where policies
considering the public at large were to be undertaken. Also, there is no need in every case that
before taking making order opportunity to represent must be given but what is required that
before imposing actual penalty, punishment, etc. adequate opportunity must be given.
¶14. In the present case, the govt. authority is empowered u/s. 3 to order censorship but it
does not amount to having an effect of any kind of penalty but only a preventive action so to
have stability and peace in the state on the ground mentioned u/s.2(a). Also, the aggrieved even
has right to appeal against such decision
¶15. The S.C. in Virendra v. State of Punjab22 made the following observation regarding
subjective satisfaction of the govt which is almost similar to our present case,
¶16. “The provisions of the Act challenged on the ground of giving arbitrary and
uncontrolled discretion to the govt. to curtail freedom of speech & expression on its subjective
satisfaction and the same could be rightly upheld by looking into the situation of the existing
circumstances prevailing in the state. Also, the state govt. being in possession of all material
facts, is the best authority to take anticipatory action for prevention of threatened breach of
peace. Also to make exercise of those powers justiciable would defeat the very purpose of the
Act.”
¶17. Thus, by having concurrence on the above view given by S.C., it is cleared that giving
subjective satisfaction to the administrative authorities not amount to unreasonableness of
vagueness in its procedure.

19
2012 AIR SC 2191.
20
Balco Employees Union v. UOI, AIR 2002 SCC 350.
21
2016 SCC ONLINE DEL 1235.
22
Virendra v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 896.

5|Page
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

ISSUE 3. SECTION 4 OF THE PONS ACT DOES NOT VIOLATE ARTICLE 21 OF THE
CONSTITUTION.

It is most humbly submitted before the Honorable Supreme Court of Gokuldham that section
4 of the PONS Act does not violate the Right to life and personal liberty given under Article
21 of the Constitution of Gokuldham. The contention is based on the grounds that, first, there
is no violation of Art.21 of the Constitution of Gokuldham (3.1), second, the government has
met the doctrine of legitimate expectation (3.2).

3.1 No Violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of Gokuldham

¶18. Article 21 lays down that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty
except according to procedure established by law. This procedure cannot be fanciful and
arbitrary, but must answer the test of reasonableness in order to satisfy the requirements of
Article 21.
¶19. The Supreme Court has held that the lack of perfection in a legislative measure does
not necessarily imply its unconstitutionality.23 A law is valid if it is enacted by competent
legislature and if it does not violate any of the other Fundamental Rights declared by the
Constitution like Article 1424 or Article 19.25 Individual rights cannot be absolute in a welfare
state. The right of life and liberty so guaranteed under Article 21 is also subject to the rule of
proportionality.26 Liberty is the right of doing an act which law permits.27 Liberty is confined
and controlled by law as it is regulated freedom. It is not an abstract or absolute freedom. The
safeguard of liberty is in the good sense of the people and in the system of representative and
responsible Government which has been evolved. Liberty is itself the gift of law and may by
law be forfeited or abridged.
¶20. Article 21, being an inherently natural right,28 is applicable to the citizens of the
Gokuldham. Section 4 of the PONS Act is constitutional and does not violate Article 21. It has
been laid down that the law could be declared unconstitutional only when it has a “direct and
inevitable effect”29reaffirmed in Mahavir Prasad Sharma V. State Of U.P And Others30] on the

23
P.M. Ashwathanarayana Setty v. State of Karnataka AIR 1989 SC 100.
24
Shiv Bahadur Singh Rao v. State of UP AIR 1953 SC 394.
25
Inderjeet v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1979 SC1867
26
Om Kumar v. Union Of India, (2001) 2 SCC 386, AIR 2000 SC 3689.
27
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569.
28
K.S. Puttuswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
29
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 : AIR 1978 SC 597
30
2001 AWC ALL 2 1591.

6|Page
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

fundamental rights and not merely an incidental or indirect effect on it.31 It is humbly submitted
that in light of the aforementioned observation, there is no violation of the fundamental right of
the Petitioner as given under Article 21 of the Constitution.
¶21. Therefore, section 4 of PONS Act does not violate Article 21 of the Constitution of
Gokuldham. The state is acting as guardian of these very fundamental rights and hence, their
intention cannot be questioned.

3.2 The Government has met the doctrine of the legitimate Expectation

¶22. The doctrine of legitimate expectation has been explained in Food Corporation of India
v. M/s Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries32 as under:
“…..mere reasonable or legitimate expectation of a person, in such a situation, may not be
itself be a distinct enforceable right, but failure to consider and give due weight to it may render
the decision arbitrary, and this is how the requirement of due consideration of a legislative
expectation forms part of the principle of non-arbitrariness, a necessary concomitant of the
rule of law. Every legitimate expectation is a relevant factor requiring due to consideration in
a fair decision- making process. Whether the expectation of the claimant is reasonable or
legitimate in the context is a question of fact in each case. Whenever the question arises, it is
to be determined not according to the claimant’s perception but in larger public interest
wherein other more important considerations may outweigh what would otherwise have been
the legitimate expectation of the claimant. A bona fide decision of the public authority reached
in this manner would satisfy the requirement of non-arbitrariness and withstand judicial
scrutiny. The doctrine of legitimate expectation gets assimilated in the rule of law and operates
in our legal system in this manner and to this extent.”
¶23. In the case of Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service the court
held that “where a question as to the interest of national security arises in judicial proceedings,
the court has to act on evidence,”33 and in this the petitioner published a series of reports which
in itself acts as an evidence for the present case.
¶24. Also in the present case, the PONS Act has fulfilled the essential elements of the
doctrine of legitimate expectation and has not violated any fundamental right of the petitioner.
The main objective behind passing of the PONS Act was to curb the anti-national content and
to protect the sovereignty and integrity of the county. Such anti-national content as defined
under section 2(a) of the PONS Act can be against the public interest and can spread hate

31
Naresh v. State of Maharashtra, 1966 3 SCR 744.
32
1993 (1) SCC 71.
33
1985 AC 374.

7|Page
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

amongst the citizen for its government.

¶25. Section 7 of the PONS Act clearly used the word “powers granted are not to be used
arbitrarily”, which simply means that the powers which are exercised by the Government
authorities under PONS Act, 2023 is not at all arbitrary in nature and is in consonance with the
Constitution. Thus, the Act is in accordance with the legitimate expectation and within the
public interest at large.
¶26. Therefore, section 4 of the PONS Act which talks about the arrest and detention of the
individuals without bail during the pendency of the investigation does not violate Article 21 of
the Constitution and that the petitioner’s fundamental right has not been violated. Hence it is
most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court that PONS Act is constitutionally
upheld because its application is imperative for the national security and sovereignty of
Gokuldham.

8|Page
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

PRAYER

Wherefore in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is humbly

prayed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court may be pleased to hold, adjudge and declare that;

1. The Petition is not maintainable.

2. The PONS Act is not violative of fundamental rights.
3. Section 4 of the PONS Act does not violate the Fundamental Right to Life.

AND/OR

Pass any order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience. And for

this act of kindness, the Respondent as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.

All of which is respectfully submitted. Sd-/

Counsels for Respondent

ix | P a g e