BEFORE

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT

OF

INDIVA

ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION [CIVIL] NO. /2023

[UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIVA READ WITH ORDER

XXXVIII, RULE 12(1)(d) & 2 OF THE SUPREME COURT RULES, 2013]

- IN THE MATTER OF -
ARTICLE 14, ARTICLE 19 AND ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIVA

- BETWEEN -

1. SAMAN ADHIKAR
BLOCK C, 3RD FLOOR,
ANKARA …. PETITIONER NO. 1

AND

1. STATE OF ANKARA
Rep. by its Secretary
Ministry of Home & Affairs,
3rd Block, Ankara. ….. RESPONDENT NO. 1

2. UNION OF INDIVA
Rep. by its Secretary
Ministry of Home & Affairs,
North Block, New Delhi. ..… RESPONDENT NO. 2

3. UNION OF INDIVA
 Ministry of Law & Justice,
Shashthri Bhavan,
New Delhi – 110 001. ..… RESPONDENT NO. 3

4. CHIEF SECRETARY
Govt. of Ankara
Block C, 2nd Floor, Ankara Secretariat,
Ankara – 360 017. ..… RESPONDENT NO. 4

5. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,

Government of Ankara,
Lakdi Pool Police Headquarters,
Ankara – 300 004. ..… RESPONDENT NO. 5

6. V. C. SAJJANAR, IPS,
Commissioner of Police, CYBERABAD
P/21, Old Mumbai Hwy,
Next to care Hospital 2-48,
Sri Shyam Nagar,
Telecom Nagar Extension,
Gachibowli, Ankara – 300 032. ..… RESPONDENT NO. 6

7. NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONS,

Rep. by its Secretary, Manav Adhikar Bhawan,
Block – B, GPO Complex, INA,
New Delhi – 110 023. ..… RESPONDENT NO. 7

8. STATE HUMAN RIGHT COMMISSIONS,

Rep. by its Secretary,
Purta Bhavan, (2nd Floor),
Block - D, Sector-I, Salt Lake,
Ankara - 300091
ALL ARE CONTESTING RESPONDENTS

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

Page | ii
 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER DRAWN
AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER WRIT
PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIVA READ WITH ORDER XXXVIII, RULE 12 (1) (D) & 2
OF THE SUPREME COURT RULES, 2013 TO ISSUE AN
APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION
ESPECIALLY IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF
CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS CALLING FOR THE
RECORDS OF 2ND TO 7TH RESPONDENTS / ANKARA STATE
AUTHORITIES PERTAINING TO THE FAKE ENCOUNTER
KILLING OF ALLEGED 4 RAPE ACCUSED BY THE POLICE
PERSONALS OF 4TH RESPONDENT, V. C. SAJJANAR, IPC,
CYBERABAD POLICE COMMISSIONER, ANKARA STATE
AND ORDERED FOR REGISTRATION OF FIR FOR AN
OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 302 AND 376 OF IPC,
CYBERABAD POLICE COMMISSIONER WHO INVOLVED IN
THE ABOVE SAID FAKE ENCOUNTER KILLING OF
ALLEGED 4 RAPE ACCUSED SHALL BE CONDUCTED BY
AN INDEPENDENT AGENCY LIKE CBI, SIT, CID OR ANY
OTHER POLICE TEAM OF ANOTHER STATE POLICE
UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF A SENIOR OFFICER (AT
LEAST A LEVEL ABOVE THE HEAD OF THE POLICW PARTY
ENGAGED IN THE ENCOUNTER AND GET THE
CONCERNED POLICE OFFICIALS WHO INVOLVED IN FAKE
ENCOUNTER BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE LAW; AND (B)
ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE TO STRICTLY COMPLY WITH THE
16 GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN THE
CASE OF PUCL & ANR. VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA &
ORS. REPORTED IN (2014) 10 SCC 635 IN REGARD TO THE
INVESTIGATION OVER FAKE ENCOUNTER KILLING; FOR
THE VIOLATION OF THE RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLE 14, 19 &
21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIVA.

TO, THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIVA

And His Companion Justice of the
Supreme Court of Indiva

The Humble Petition of the

Petitioner above named.

Page | iii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF CONTENTS PAGE NO.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

STATEMENT OF FACTS

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ARGUMENT ADVANCED

PRAYER

Page | iv
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS FULL FORM

U/A Under Article

NLSA National Legal Service Authority of Indiva

UN United Nation

AIR All Indian Report

V, V/S, VS Versus

NCT National Capital Territory

AOI Association of Individual

ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

SCC Supreme Court Cases

UOI Union of India

§ Section

SRC Supreme Court Report

BCLR Butterworth’s Constitutional Law Report

ADMN Administration

ORS Others

VOL Volume

CR. L. J Criminal Law Journal

I. P. C Indiva Penal Code

L. L. J. Labour Law Journal

ART. Article

P Paragraph

PUCL & ANR. People’s Union for Civil Liberties & Anr.

SUPP Supplement

Page | v
ANR Other parties involved in a case

Page | vi
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

No
Page no.
.

1. PUCL & ANR. VS State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2014) 10 SCC 635
Criminal Appeal No. 1255 of 1999
2. M/S Andhra Pradesh Officers Association VS A.P. Liberties Committee
Civil Appeal No. 5646 of 2019
3. Chaitanya Kal Bagh and Ors. VS State of U.P. and Ors. (1989) 2 SCC 314
4. R.S. Sodhi Advocate VS State of U.P. and Ors. (1994) Supp (1) SCC 143
5. Satyavir Singh Rathi VS State through CBI (2011) 6 SCC 1
6. Prakash Kadam and Ors. VS Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta and Anr.
(2011) 6 SCC 189
7. B. G. Varghese vs Union of India and Ors. (2013) 11 SCC 525
(Criminal) No. 31/2007
(Criminal) No. 83/2007
8. Rohtash Kumar VS State of Haryana (2013) 14 SCC 290
9. Om Prakash and Ors. VS State of Jharkhand (2012) 12 SCC 72

Page | vii
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

It is most humbly submitted that the Petitioner has approached this

Hon’ble Supreme Court Under Article 32 of the Constitution of Indiva
for the violation of fundamental Rights guaranteed under the
Constitution of Indiva by filing a writ petition. The petitioner most
humbly and respectfully submits before the jurisdiction of the present
court- and accepts that it has the power and authority to preside over
the present Case.

The Honourable Supreme Count of Indiva has the jurisdiction in this matter.

Under Article 32 of the Constitution reads as follows -

Article 32 in The Constitution of India, 1950
Article 32
Remedies for enforcement of rights Conferred by this Part -
(1) The rights to move the Supreme Court- by appropriate proceedings for the
enforcement of the right conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
(2) The Supreme Shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs,
including Writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo
warranto 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. Clause
(1) and (2) Parliament-may by law empower any other court to exercise
within the local limits of its jurisdiction all 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.

Page | 8
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

 PREFACE OF THE CASE

Republic of Indiva is a country which has various cultural and

historical glories to its name and was often nicknamed as the “Land of
Culture”. People from various backgrounds lived in harmony and abided
by the laws of the land.

In Republic of Indiva, the majority of the population worshipped

deities in the personification of women as a symbol of Strength and
Fearlessness.

Ankara is a State of Republic of Indiva with the highest literacy

rate among all other States of Republic of Indiva and the people
believed in the Equality between Men and Women in all spheres of life.

 SHRISHTI AND HER WORK

Shrishti Mitra was a young Advocate who had just passed her
college and started practicing. She was very ambitious about her work
and always worked for the poor and needy people free of cost.

 INCEDENT ON SHRISTI BY FOUR

She was always the last one to leave her workplace and often took
her personal vehicle to travel home from workplace. One such night, on
17-01-2023 around 9:30 P.M. she was returning from workplace on
her scooty, where she noticed four men desperately asking for help
beside the highway.

Out of generosity, she stopped her scooty and two men told her that
they are tourists and one of their friends is laying injured at a distance.
While she got down from her scooty, two of them accompanied her to a
distant secluded place.

Page | 9
 On her way, she realized that her phone was inside the scooty, so
she returned for taking the same and on return, she found that her
two-wheeler tyre was punctured.

Shrishti Mitra called her younger sister Nancy Mitra at 9.35 p.m. to
inform that her scooter had broken down and she was alone on the
road.

All of a sudden, the two men, who had asked for help accompanied
by two other men came towards her and started touching her in a
wrong way.

She got scared and slapped one of them, to which the men became
angry and then dragged the girl to a distant place and raped her one by
one.

In the fear of not getting caught, the four men put petroleum in her
body and burnt her alive till she was dead and ran away towards the
nearby village.

On 18-01-2023 the partially burnt body was found at an underpass

on the Ankara - Bendakal national highway by a farmer @Ajit Das
around 6 a.m.

He informed the village sarpanch @Kartik Das, who alerted the local
police.

After confirming that the victim was a female, the local police
verified the recent women missing cases and then, with the help of the
handbag and the scarf, the family members were able to recognise her.

 POLICE INVESTIGATION, NEWS AND PROTEST

The Police started various investigation procedures and discovered a

CCTV footage which was placed near the highway for traffic control.

By looking at the CCTV footage, the Police saw some faces where
the recording timing showed around 10:00 P.M. based on which, they
started searching for the four men who had run towards the village and

P a g e | 10
 started the enquiry. On 23-01-2020, based on its investigation, the
Police arrested, Javed, Rajesh, Naveen and Keshav.

In the meantime, as soon as the news became viral, people all over
the country started protesting and the news became trending all over
Social-Media and people demanded Justice for Shrishti Mitra.

People from various political background as well as Film Industry

and Media houses demanded speedy Justice and “Kill The Rapists”
became viral all over the Country and the Government took initiative for
a speedy disposal of the case.

 ENCOUNTER OF FOUR

On 24-01-2023, the Police presented the four accused in front of

the local Magistrate and requested for a 7 days remand for further
investigation.

Amidst the remand period, the entire Country protested with candle
light marches and various High-Profile Personalities also got involved in
the protests.

On 03-02-2023, the Media flashed @The Republic the news that

the four accused had been shot dead by the Police while they were
being taken to the Court.

 IC INTERVIEW

The Investigation In-Charge in the Interview stated that

Naveen and Keshav snatched the revolvers from the Constables
while they were being taken to the Court, jumped out of the Police
Van and fired two rounds in the air.

Javed and Rajesh also followed them and tried to escape.

The Police claimed that they found no other ways and had to
shoot down the four accused otherwise the accused would have
fled.

P a g e | 11
 FAMILIES OF FOUR’S PROTEST

P a g e | 11
 The killing of the accused in the alleged encounter was
hailed by a section of people, the families of the deceased and
human rights groups alleged that the police took law into its
hands, terming this as extra-judicial killing.
In the police press conference that followed, questions as to
how two of the four accused managed to get hold of the pistols in
the presence of 10 armed police officers went unasked.
The families of the Four Accused also alleged that the police
officers have framed the murder scene as they had threatened
them when they went to the police station.
The families informed the reporters that the police officers
angrily made the statement to the families that the accused stand
no chance of being saved from death as the entire Nation was
against their act.

 HIGH COURT DECISION

As soon as the News became viral, the entire Country rejoiced

and supported the action of the Police and the same was called an “Act
of Bravery” by various Political Leaders.

But An NGO named as “Saman Adhikar” filed a Petition before

the Hon’ble High Court of Ankara.

The Hon’ble High Court of Ankara after hearing all the arguments
of the case held “The Police had no other option but to shoot the four
accused failing to which they would have fled and which would have
triggered mass and widespread agitation throughout the Nation and the
Role of the Police would have been in question. Therefore, the Court finds
the Act of the Police as an Act of Bravery and sudden reflex to counter
the situation which arose in front of them.”

 WRIT PETITION TO SUPREME COURT

P a g e | 12
 Families of the four accused who were gunned down by the police in
an alleged encounter, have approached the Supreme Court, seeking
registration of murder case against the police officers involved.

Alleging that the youth were killed in a stage-managed gunfight,

the families filed a writ petition under the provisions of Article 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 High Court,

approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the contention of violation of
Human Rights as well as the violation of Fundamental Rights
guaranteed under the Constitution of Republic of India.

All the petitions have been clubbed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of Republic of India and stands pending before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of Republic of Indiva.

P a g e | 13
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

 ISSUE I

Whether the writ petition is maintainable or not?

 ISSUE II

Whether Art. 226 is proper for the ends of justice?

 ISSUE III

Is there any barred the accused under Art. 19

“Freedom of Speech”

 ISSUE IV

Right to life is applicable or not “Art. 21”, as because

the accused convicted for the rape and murder case?

 ISSUE V

Role of the Police officials

P a g e | 14
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that present writ

petition is maintainable against Union of Indiva, State of Ankara,
Director General of Police, Commissioner of Police and also National
Human Rights Commission. It is further submitted that since there has
been gross violation of Art. 14, Art. 19 and Art. 21 of the constitution of
Indiva, also no other efficacious remedy is available to petitioner.
It is humbly submitted before the Honourable Supreme Court of Indiva
that in the light of the aforementioned contentions it is firmly
established that the Government of Indiva non-availability of other
possible remedy and violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under
Part III of the Indiva`s constitution. Thus, the instant writ petition as
framed is maintainable.

2. WHETHER ART. 226 IS PROPER FOR THE ENDS OF JUSTICE?

3. IS THERE ANY BARRED THE ACCUSED UNDER ART. 19 “FREEDOM

OF SPEECH”?

4. RIGHT TO LIFE IS APPLICABLE OR NOT “ART. 21”, AS BECAUSE

THE ACCUSED ENCOUNTERED BY THE POLICE WITHOUT PROPER
JUDGEMENT?

5. ROLE OF THE POLICE OFFICIALS

P a g e | 15
 ADVANCED ARGUMENTS

1. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTANABLE OR

NOT

It is humbly submitted before the Honourable Supreme Court of Indiva that

in the light of the aforementioned contentions it is firmly established that
the Government of Indiva non-availability of other possible remedy and
violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Indiva`s
constitution. Thus, the instant writ petition as framed is maintainable.

1.1. Petitioner has Locus Standi in the instant case.

1.1.1. Locus Standi means the right to bring an action, to be heard in
court, or to address the court on a matter before intuit is submitted
that the foundation for exercising jurisdiction under Article 32 or
Article 226 is ordinarily the personal or individual right of the
petitioner himself. In writs like habeas corpus and quo warranto, the
rule has been relaxed and modified."1 That the legal right that can be
enforced under Art.32 must ordinarily be the right of the petitioner
himself who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the
Court for relief.2
1.1.2. It is hereby submitted that the instant petition should not be
dismissed as individual rights of the petitioner has been breached
and has rights to approach this court under Article 32”. In the
private law litigation concerned with private rights arising out of
property and contracts or tort, there is no much problem, the person
who has suffered a specific legal injury by reason of actual or
threatened violation of legal rights or legally protected interest can
1
Satyanarayana Sinha (Dr) v. S. Lal & Co. (P) Ltd. 1973 AIR 2720, 1974 SCR (1) 615.
2
See Ebrahim Aboobakar and Another V. Custodian General of Evacuee Property1952] S. C.
R. 696; In Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. The Union of India 1950 S. C. R. 869.

P a g e | 11
 knock the doors of the court”.3 It is contended that petitioner has
faced discrimination at workplace and his civil rights has been
injured.
1.2. Violation of Principle of Natural Justice.
1.2.1. It humbly submitted that, the right of Audi Alteram Partem is a
valuable right recognized under the constitution of Indiva, wherein it
is held that, the principle of the maxim which mandates that no one
should be condemned unheard, is a part of the rule of natural
justice.4 The Audi alteram partem facet of natural justice is also a
requirement of Art. 14, for natural justice is the antithesis of
arbitrariness5 and Art. 146 strikes at arbitrariness of State action in
any form,7 as it permeate the entire fabric of Rule of Law.8
1.2.2. The counsel humbly acknowledges the fact that the respondent
should give him adequate chance to defend himself. The general
principle of natural justice is unrecognised in the instant case, the
encounter of the accused without knowledge of the court is biased.
Decision to take life of the four accused should be taken depending
on the gravity of the pre planed decision on the part of the police
officers. In case of pre planed decision to take life from the four
accused, it will improper to right to life. The requirement of the right
to be heard also goes hand with the principles of natural justice.
1.2.3. The counsel further submits that, Art. 14 strikes at arbitrariness
because it negates equality9 and permeates the entire fabric of Rule
of Law. In the instant case the petitioner and accused family
members should be given fair opportunity and fair trial proceeding in
the session trial of the rape and murder case. Thus, the whimsical
3
R.S Gupta, Widening the role of locus standi
4
M.P. Electricity Board, Jabalpur v. Harsh Wood Products, (1996) 4 SCC 522: AIR 1996 SC
2258
5
D.T.C. v Mazdoor Union D.T.C., A.I.R. 1991 SC 101; Basudeo Tiwary v Sido Kanhu
University, (1998) 8 SCC 194: AIR 1998 SC 3261.;
6
Article 14 of the Constitution of Indiva – Equality Before Law
7
Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, AIR 1981 SC 487; Pradeep Jain v UOI, AIR 1984
SC 1420; Indravadan H. Shah v. State of Gujrat, AIR 1986 SC 1035; Ramana Dayaram
Shetty v. I.A.A.I., A.I.R. 1979 SC 1628); D.T.C. v. Mazdoor Union D.T.C., AIR 1991 SC 101.
8
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 SC 1325
9
R. D. Shetty v Airport Authority, AIR 1979 SC 1628; Suresh Chandra Sharma v.
Chairman, AIR 2005 SC 2021

P a g e | 11
 decision of the authorities and the police officers of the state not
providing the fair opportunity to the parties @four accused of being
heard before sharing the information, which abridges the
fundamental right of a person to be heard shall be regarded as
arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the constitution.
1.2.4. The principle of no one shall be a judge in his own cause. In other
words, the person @police officials deciding the matter must not have
anything like personal/private interest in the case. The rule that no
shall be a judge in his own cause is not followed strictly. Similarly,
there is every possibility that the police officials from the beginning
time period that we need to kill the four accused before the court
trial, which encounter seems like that the four accused want to flew
from the custody.

1.3. Breach of various Fundamental Rights under Article 21.

1.3.1. Right to life is inalienable basic right of man. It is most important,
human, fundamental, inalienable, transcendental rights. 10 The right
to livelihood, being an important facet of the right to life is protected
under Art. 21.11 The encounter of the four accused deprives the right
to life and liberty. Encounter killings violate the fundamental rights
of criminals, including the right to life and liberty. The right to life
and liberty can only be deprived through the procedure
established by law, as guaranteed by Article 21 of the
Constitution.
In the present case, the four accused was encounter in a fake
encounter scenario. The investigation in charge stated in the
interview, that two of the accused @Naveen and @Keshav snatch
revolvers from the constables while they were being taken to the
court, and jumped out from the police van and want to fled and the
other two accused @Javed and @Rajesh also followed them and tried

10
Indian Bar Review, Vol. XIX, 1992, P. 100
11
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180; Shantistar Builders v.
Narayan Khimalal Totame, AIR 1986 SC 180.

P a g e | 11
 to escape. In the moment the police shoot down all of the four
accused.
But without proper permission, police shoot the four accused and
take life from their body. Hance, the shoot down and take life seems
like encounter of the accused is unconstitutional.
1.3.2. The constitutional mandate to the state to protect the citizen’s right
to live with human dignity echoed by the apex court to this country 12
is unconstitutional promise that the polity owes to citizen. The pledge
in the Preamble of the constitution is to secure the “Fraternity
assuring the dignity of the individual” which includes dignity of the
accused in the police custody.
In this case, the police without proper permission in the sense of the
four accused want to escape from their custody, the police officials
shoot them as like a encounter of the accused.
The supreme court held that,
“Any act or which damages or injures or interferes with the use of any
limb or faculty of person either permanently or temporary would be
within the inhibition of Article 21”13
1.3.3. It is submitted that, right to live is an integral part of the right to life
and guaranteed under Art. 2114 of the constitution.15 The right to live
to be implicit in the right to life and liberty guaranteed to the citizens
of Indiva by Art. 21.16 “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and
security of person”.17 Right to life is also a fundamental human right
recognized in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, the
International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, 1976 and in
many other international and regional treaties.
In the case, the respondent police officials are taking life from the
accused without knowing they are guilty or not, by the investigation in

12
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597
13
Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, union territory of Delhi 1981 Cri. LJ 306
14
Article 21 of the Constitution of Indiva – Protection of life and Personal Liberty
15
People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 568; R. Rajagopal v. State
of T.N., (1994) 6 SCC 632.
16
R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N., (1994) 6 SCC 632
17
Art. 3, UN Declaration of Human Rights, 1948

P a g e | 11
 charge interview, we come at the point that the four accused want to
escape from the police van.
1.3.4. It is hereby submitted before the Hon’ble court that the action of the
respondent threatens or violates fundamental right, the question of the
enforcement of that arises and a petition under Art. 32 will lie. Article 32
can be invoked only for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. Article
21 include protection of life and personal liberty of the persons,
accused, men and women and opportunities and facilities for children
to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and
dignity, educational facilities, just and humane conditions of work and
maternity relief.
By the taking life of the accused the family members of the accused,
who are dependable over the person with the view of escaping from the
police van and custody the police officials shoot them. In this portion
there arise what next with the family members and children and
elder ones, who are dependable on the person?

1.4. The Hon’ble court has the constitutional duty to entertain

the instant petition
The Constitutional obligation of this Hon'ble Court as the guarantor
of fundamental rights has been interpreted broadly 18 and as one that
exists independent of any other remedy that may be available. 19 The
original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court can be invoked in any case
of violation of a fundamental right guaranteed by part III of the
Constitution of Indiva20 Consequently, it is submitted that a refusal
to entertain the instant petition would be inconsistent with the
aforesaid obligation. 21 22
It is the duty of the Supreme court to see

18
MC Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086
19
Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, AIR 1993 SC 1960; Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar
Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 1295.
20
Chiranjit Lal Chowdhury v. U.O.I. AIR 1951 SC 41
21
Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 129
22
Romesh Thappar v. The State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124.

P a g e | 11
 the right, intended to be fundamental must be kept fundamentally. 23
This petition is within the jurisdiction of Hon’ble Supreme court.

2. WHETHER ARTICLE 226 IS PROPER FOR THE END OF

JUSTICE
2.1. The Hon’ble High Court does not entertain the present
petition properly
2.2. Is there any Equality before the law

3. IS THERE ANY BARRED THE ACCUSED UNDER ARTICLE

19 “FREEDOM OF SPEECH”
3.1. Whether Art. 19 of the constitution is applicable or not

4. RIGHT TO LIFE IS APPLICABLE OR NOT “ART. 21”, AS

BECAUSE THE ACCUSED ENCOUNTERED BY THE POLICE
WITHOUT PROPER JUDGEMENT?
4.1. Do police have the right to take life
4.2. Violation of fundamental right under Art. 21 right to
life

5. ROLE OF THE POLICE

5.1. Hon’ble high court view

23
Ram Singh v. State of Delhi 1951 AIR 270, 1951 SCR 45109

P a g e | 11
5.2. Question arises in instant case – the police take life
5.3. What if police officials found guilty?

PRAYER

In such circumstances, your Honour, may graciously be pleased to pass

an order as below:

1. Accept the writ petition. According the preamble of the

Constitution under Art. 14, 19 and 21 of the constitution as
well as Art. 226.
2. As police file a false P.R. against the accused by doing table
work, so, accepting the written argument and exhausted the
accused from the P.R.
3. As because the families, who are dependable over the
deceased accused, so my humble request before the
honourable court to give the compensation to the families, as
well as the legal aid, as your honour deem fit and proper for
the ends of justice.
4. Please explain, the encounter is the ends of justice.

P a g e | 11