TC13 Petitioner

Team Code: 13
Smt. SHAKUNTALA DEVI FIRST NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION
BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF UNNAT PRADESH, WINDIA
UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF WINDIA

Writ Petition No. of 2024
In the Matter Of
Sachibai……………………………………….……………………...…. Petitioner
Versus
State of Unnat Pradesh…………………………………………...…. Respondent

SI Tejwa Bhajirao………………………………………………….…Respondent
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

Smt. SHAKUNTALA DEVI FIRST NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024
TABLE OF CONTENT
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................... 3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................ 5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ........................................................................................... 8
ISSUES RAISED........................................................................................................................... 9
STATEMENT OF FACTS ......................................................................................................... 10
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ................................................................................................ 11
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ..................................................................................................... 13
ISSUE I: WHETHER SECTION 46 OF THE UNNAT PRADESH POLICE ACT 1949 AND
UNNAT PRADESH CRIME CONTROL REGULATIONS, 2023 UNCONSTITUTIONAL? ..... 13
ISSUE II: CAN POLICE DELEGATE ITS INVESTIGATING FUNCTIONS TO PRIVATE
PARTIES AND IF YES, WHO BEARS THE LIABILITY IF THE ACTIONS CONCERNED
LEAD TO BREACH OF AN INDIVIDUAL’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS? ............................... 17
ISSUE III: DID SACHIBAI HAVE A RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN IN TERMS OF
PERMANENT ERASURE OF HER PAST CRIMINAL RECORDS? ........................................... 22
ISSUE IV: DID SACHIBAI HAVE A RIGHT TO MARRY AND IF YES, DID THAT RIGHT
OVERRIDE THE RIGHT OF HER POTENTIAL SPOUSE TO BE PROTECTED FROM
DEADLY DISEASES? ......................................................................................................................... 27
PRAYER FOR RELIEF............................................................................................................. 31
2|Page
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATION FULL FORM
& And
AIR All India Reporter
Art. Article
UP Unnat Pradesh
Sec Section
i.e. That is
Vol. Volume
IAS Indian Administrative Service
HC High Court
Retd. Retired
Pg. Page
Vs. Versus
Para. Paragraph
ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
UDHR Universal Declaration on Human Rights
SI Sub Inspector
CrPC Criminal Procedure Code
3|Page
Anr. Another
GDPR General Data Protection Regulation
ALD Administrative Law Decisions

SC Supreme court
UT Union Territory
A.Y Assessment Year
SCC Supreme court Cases
CEO Chief Executive Officer.
CCTV Closed Circuit Television
HIV/AIDS Human immunodeficiency virus infection and acquired

immune deficiency syndrome
STDs Sexually Transmitted Diseases
PSO Police standing order
Ltd Limited company
Hon’ble The Honourable
4|Page
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
1) CONSTITUTION
• Constitution of Windia
2) STATUTES
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

• Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
3) REGULATIONS
• Unnat Pradesh Crime Control Regulations, 2023

• Unnat Pradesh Police Regulation
4) INTERNATIONAL TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1976
• Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
• General Comment No. 36
5) CASES
• Sunkara Satyanarayana Vs. State of Andra Pradesh, 2000(1) ALD (CRI)117
• Mohammad Quadeer and others Vs. Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, Writ petition
No.31962 of 1998
5|Page
• Kharak Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1964)1 SCR 332, AIR, 1963 SC 1295
• Maneka Gandhi vs. State of Windia, 1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621
• Digital rights Ireland Ltd Vs. Minister for communications, Marine and Natural
Resources and others and Karntner Landesregierung and Others
• Justice KS Puttaswamy and another Vs. Union of Windia, AIR 2018 SC (SUPP) 1841,
2019 (1) SCC 1, (2018) 12 SCALE 1, (2018) 4 CURCC 1, (2018) 255 DLT 1, 2018 (4)
KCCR SN 331 (SC), AIRONLINE 2018 SC 237
• Chandra Rajkumari and Anr. Vs. Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad 1998(1) ALD810,
1998(1) ALD (CRI) 298, 1998(1) ALT329, AIR 1998 ANDHRA PRADESH 302, (1998)
4 RECCRIR 631, (1998) 1 ANDHLD 810, (1998) 1 ANDH LT 329
• Francis Coraile vs. UT of Delhi, AIR 1978 SC 597

• D.K. Yadav vs. J.M.A. Industries, (1993) 3 SCC 258
6) ARTICLES AND RESEARCH PAPERS

• Australian Privacy Charter Group, Law School, University of New South Wales, the
Australian Privacy Charter (1994)
• The need for a reliable code of police investigation in India, DRISHTI IAS COACHING IN
DELHI, ONLINE IAS TEST SERIES & STUDY MATERIAL (2016),
https://www.drishtiias.com/printpdf/the-need-for-a-reliable-code-of-police-investigation-
in-india (last visited Apr 15, 2024).
• Representative Sample: Definition, Uses & Methods” By Jim from -Use a representative
sample when you want to generalize the results from the sample to a population. By
studying a representative sample, you can approximate the properties of the population
from which it was drawn. Also available at: Representative Sample: Definition, Uses &
Methods - Statistics By Jim
6|Page
• Chaurasia, S. (2023a) Right to be forgotten, Lexology. Available at:

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=abd8fb99-391d-4f35-a44d-
68360ea1e670 (Accessed: 15 April 2024).
• Factsheet on the Right to be Forgotten” Ruling (C-131/12), 2017
• Amit Meharia & Bhavna Sharma, “Right to be forgotten in India- Case analysis of Jorawer
Singh Mundy vs. Union of India & ors”, Pg.1, MCO Legals, Published on 31st Jan 2022,
also available at:
https://www.mcolegals.in/kb/Cyber_Law_Issue_4_Right_to_be_forgotten_in_India_Jora
wer_Singh_Case.pdf
• Zheng Xi, “Return of a Forgotten Right: Application of the Right to be Forgotten in

Criminal Justice”, HSOA Journal of Forensic, Legal and Investigative Sciences, ISSN:
2473-733X, Published on Nov 07, 2019, also available at:
https://www.heraldopenaccess.us/openaccess/return-of-a-forgotten-right-application-of-
the-right-to-be-forgotten-in-criminal-justice
7) REPORTS
• Expeditious Investigation and Trial of Criminal Cases against 2012 Influential Public
Personalities. (प्रभावशाली साववजनिक व्यक्तिय ों के नवरुद्ध आपरानिक मामल ों का शीघ्र अन्व ण
और नवचारण | ररप र्व सों .239)
• Yulia Moshkovska, “TO BE OR NOT TO BE FORGOTTEN: A New Dimension of the
Conflict between the Right to Privacy and Freedom of Expression”, p.g.1, University of
Vienna, Global Campus of Human Rights and European Inter University Centre for Human
Rights and democratization; A.Y. 2016/2017
• J. E. McNealy, 'The Emerging Conflict between Newsworthiness and the Right to Be
Forgotten', Northern Kentucky Law Review, Vol. 39, No. 2, 119-135. 2012. p. 121
7|Page
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The petitioner submits that the jurisdiction clause under the Constitution of Windia has been
fulfilled pursuant to Article 226 which provides the High Court the power throughout the
territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including
in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including
4 [writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any
of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.
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.
8|Page
ISSUES RAISED
ISSUE I
Whether section 46 of the Unnat Pradesh Police Act 1949 and Unnat Pradesh crime Control
Regulations, 2023 unconstitutional?
ISSUE II
Can police delegate its investigating functions to private parties and if yes, who bears the
liability if the actions concerned lead to breach of an individual’s Fundamental Rights?
ISSUE III
Did Sachibai have a right to be forgotten in terms of permanent erasure of her past criminal
records?
ISSUE IV
Did Sachibai have a right to marry and if yes, did that right override the right of her potential
spouse to be protected from deadly diseases?
9|Page
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Sachibai is a dedicated civil services aspirant residing in Shukravaar Wada, a small town in the
state of Unnat Pradesh, Windia with her old mother Radhabai. Mr. Tejada Bhajirao (sub-
inspector), who fell head over heels for her at the first sight, proposed to Sachibai for marriage and
also offered to speak to her parents regarding the same. She was taken aback by the abrupt proposal
and vehemently refused.
On 15 December 2021, Mr. Ambuja Panth the CEO of Excelsior’s IAS stopped her on the way
and harassed her. He asked her for sexual favors and also tried assaulting her. One of her
classmates, Mr. Sunday, witnessed her plight and tried having a few conversations with her in
order to offer some help. On 26 January 2022, when Mr. Sunday came and sat next to Sachibai
and tried to inquire if she was doing well, she started shouting at him and pricked his hand with
her pen multiple times.
On the morning of 28 January 2022, Mr. Ambuja was found dead. Upon discovering Sachibai's
departure from Paus IAS and absence of subsequent entries after her, she was arrested on January
31, 2022, and charged with murder under section 302 of the Windia Penal Code, 1860. Despite an
eight-month trial, the court found insufficient evidence to convict her. After the Unnat Pradesh
Crime Control Regulations were enacted on July 19, 2023, Sachibai alleges that Mr. Bhajirao
regularly visited her home, even at odd hours, to verify her whereabouts.
He reportedly compelled her to install the MSpy app for constant tracking, set up a CCTV camera
outside her house, and bribed a nearby vendor to monitor her activities. To end the surveillance,
Radhabai arranged for Sachibai to marry her friend's son, Manoj, in Dubai. Upon uncovering
Sachibai's criminal records, Manoj was informed by Bhajirao about her alleged sexual encounters
in jail and the risk of STDs. Subsequently, Manoj terminated the marriage, humiliating Sachibai
and her mother for concealing the information.
Sachibai became very impatient and chose to go to the High Court of Unnat Pradesh, seeking help
under Article 226 of the Windia Constitution.
10 | P a g e
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
UNNAT PRADESH CRIME CONTROL REGULATIONS, 2023 UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
The counsel argues that the creation of a history sheet for Sachibai lacks legal justification and
violates fundamental rights guaranteed by various legal instruments, including the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the Constitution of Windia. This action infringes upon Sachibai's
right to privacy, freedom of movement, equality, fair trial, and reputation. Drawing upon legal
precedents and constitutional principles, including the right to life and liberty under Article 21, the
counsel contends that the Unnat Pradesh Crime Control Regulation 2023, which permits such
surveillance measures, is unconstitutional and must be voided due to its inconsistency with
fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution and international laws

PARTIES AND IF YES, WHO BEARS THE LIABILITY IF THE ACTIONS
CONCERNED LEAD TO BREACH OF AN INDIVIDUAL’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS?
The counsel submits that the investigation of criminal cases, whether cognizable or non-
cognizable, is a duty entrusted solely to police officers or designated individuals under the law,
emphasizing the principle of non-delegable duty and the constitutional mandate of accountability.
Drawing upon legal principles and international precedents, particularly the European Court of
Justice's ruling on private entities' role in crime prevention, the counsel argues against the unlawful
delegation of investigative functions to private parties, as witnessed in the case of Sub-Inspector
Tejwa Bhajirao's actions. Highlighting the violation of fundamental rights, including privacy and
freedom of movement, the counsel asserts that such actions undermine public trust in law
enforcement and the rule of law. By invoking constitutional provisions and international
conventions, the counsel concludes that Sachibai's petition, seeking protection of her fundamental
rights, warrants the state's intervention and holds Sub-Inspector Tejwa Bhajirao accountable for
the breach, urging the court to reject the delegation of investigative functions to private entities
11 | P a g e

PERMANENT ERASURE OF HER PAST CRIMINAL RECORDS?
It is submitted that Sachibai, despite being acquitted, faced post-trial stigmatization and the
cancellation of her marriage due to her criminal record being easily accessible digitally. To prevent
such unwarranted harm and ensure her right to a dignified life, the State must guarantee her right
to be forgotten, which intersects with principles such as the right to privacy and the right to
reintegration into society. Her right to be forgotten encompasses not only the removal of digital
and documentary evidence related to her wrongful arrest and trial but also extends to mitigating
the social stigma and harm inflicted upon her and her family. This right, deeply intertwined with
the principles of privacy, dignity, and reintegration, is not merely about erasing past transgressions
but about safeguarding an individual's ability to lead a life free from undue intrusion and
unwarranted judgment.
ISSUE IV: DID SACHIBAI HAVE A RIGHT TO MARRY AND IF YES, DID THAT
RIGHT OVERRIDE THE RIGHT OF HER POTENTIAL SPOUSE TO BE PROTECTED
FROM DEADLY DISEASES?
The plea presented before this Hon’ble Court regarding the case of Sachibai and Mr. Bhajirao
revolves around the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of Windia. Sachibai's right
to marry, protected under Article 21, is not in question; rather, the focus lies on the credibility and
ethicality of Mr. Bhajirao's actions. Moreover, even if Sachibai were at risk of sexually transmitted
diseases, it is her right to be informed of her health status first, and Mr. Bhajirao's intrusion into
her personal affairs violates her privacy and dignity. While Sachibai does have the right to marry,
informed consent is paramount, and both parties have the right to be protected from potential health
risks, as supported by legal provisions such as the Hindu Marriage Act. In essence, Sachibai's right
to marry should not be infringed upon by unauthorized interference, and both parties deserve the
opportunity for informed decision-making and protection of their health and dignity.
12 | P a g e
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
UNNAT PRADESH CRIME CONTROL REGULATIONS, 2023 UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the section 46 of Unnat Pradesh Police Act
1949 and Unnat Pradesh Crime Control Regulations 2023 is unconstitutional.
The Court determined that Sachibai's alleged offense could not be established beyond a reasonable
doubt, and the evidence presented lacked conclusiveness for her conviction. Soon after, the Unnat
Pradesh Crime Control Regulations were passed on 19 July 2023 under Sec 46 of the Police Act
19491.
It is Submitted that the new Regulation made a provision that, “An Inspector not below the rank
of a Constable can open up history sheets of an individual through digital and non-digital means,
if he has reason to believe that the individual concerned is suspected to be involved in any
cognizable offence(s) or has prior involvement in such an offence(s) or has the potential to become
a habitual offender2”.
A history sheet is a document pertaining to the personal information of an accused 3. However, a

history-sheet can be filed only on the following conditions4:
i. Class A history-sheets for dacoits, burglars, cattle-thieves, railway goods wagon

thieves, and abettors thereof.
ii. Class B history-sheets for confirmed and professional criminals who commit
crimes other than dacoit, burglary, cattle-theft, and theft from railway goods
1
Moot Proposition, pg.2, para.6
2
Unnat Pradesh Crime Control Regulations 2023, Regulation 200
3
Ibid. Regulation 199
4
Unnat Pradesh Regulations. Rule 228
13 | P a g e
wagons, e.g., professional cheats and other experts for whom criminal personal files
are maintained by the Criminal Investigation Department, prisoners, cattle
poisoners, railway passenger thieves, bicycle thieves, expert pick-pocket, forgers,
coiners, cocaine and opium smugglers, hired ruffians and goondas, telegraph wire-
cutters, habitual illicit distillers and abettors thereof.
The counsel submits that the basis on the history-sheet is created does not fulfill any condition
aforementioned. The main objective of opening such history-sheets in police station is to keep
watch on such individual who would likely to prove dangerous to society. But Sachibai is neither
a habitual criminal nor an abettor of such criminal activities and there is no record to prove that
she was a habitual offender nor he was convicted for any of those offences for which a history-
sheets could be opened against her.
It is submitted that this action contradicts established legal principles and fundamental rights
enshrined in various legal instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(UDHR) and the rights guaranteed by Constitution of Windia like:
i. Right to Privacy: Privacy is a basic human right and the reasonable expectation of every
person.5 The creation of a history sheet without proper justification infringes upon the right
to privacy. Sachibai, an aspiring civil servant with no criminal record, is subject to
unwarranted surveillance, violating her privacy rights. “The right to privacy is implicit in
the right to life and liberty guaranteed to the citizens of this country by Art. 21. It is a right
to be left alone6”
ii. Freedom of Movement: In the case of Sunkara Satyanarayana vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh7, Andhra High Court has held that, “Cumulative effect of PSO 736(2), PSO 749
read with PSO 853 is that the persons against whom the history sheet or Rowdy Sheet is
opened are subject to police surveillance. As a part of this police surveillance, police often
5
Australian Privacy Charter Group, Law School, University of New South Wales, the Australian Privacy Charter
(1994)
6
R. Rajagopal alias R.R. Gopal & Another. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 1995 AIR 264, 1994 SCC (6) 632
7
2000(1) ALD (CRI) 117
14 | P a g e
restrict the movements of the History sheeters. They may be detained as and when there is
information regarding likely disturbance in the town. These sheeters in some cases are not
allowed to move freely in the city or town or leave the town without permission. With the
subtle methods of telephone tapping, telescope watching, remote controlled audio and
video recording gadgets, a citizen subjected to surveillance can never have mental peace
and thus his life and liberty at every movement would be restricted.”
Here, upon formation of history sheet of Sachibai and where her movements are observed
through MSpy, bribing vendors and surprise visits at her house at off-hours restricts her
right of free movement guaranteed by Article 19 of constitution of Windia.
iii. Right to Equality: The unequal treatment of Sachibai compared to individuals falling
under Class A or B history-sheet categories constitutes a violation of the right to equality.
Sachibai does not fit the criteria for history-sheet creation yet faces discriminatory actions.
iv. Right to a Fair Trial: Sachibai's presumption of innocence until proven guilty was
compromised by the creation of a history sheet without conclusive evidence. This violates
the principle of fair trial and due process guaranteed under the Constitution.
v. Right to Reputation: In the case of Mohammed Quadeer and others Vs. Commissioner
of Police, Hyderabad,8 the Supreme Court ruled that Article 21 of the Constitution of India
guarantees right to life with dignity and the right to live, as a dignified man, carries with it
the right to reputation. Right to reputation is an integral part of right to life guaranteed
by Article 21, and such a right cannot be deprived except in accordance with the procedure
established by law. Such laws which authorize the Police to open rowdy sheets and exercise
surveillance are required to be very strictly construed. Opening of the rowdy sheets and
retention thereof except in accordance with law would amount to infringement of
fundamental right guaranteed by Art. 21 of the Constitution of India.
8
Writ Petition No. 31962 of 1998
15 | P a g e
The Constitution of Windia provides that the State shall not make any law which takes away or
abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall,
to the extent of the contravention, be void.9 Thus, by the virtue of this provision, the laws made by
Unnat Pradesh is subject to be void.
Similarly, in Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh10, the majority held that the U.P. Police
Regulations authorizing domiciliary visits [at night by police officers as a form of surveillance,
constituted a deprivation of liberty and thus] unconstitutional. It read the right to personal liberty
expansively to include a right to dignity. It held that “an unauthorized intrusion into a person’s
home and the disturbance caused to him thereby, is as it were the violation of a common law right
of a man -an ultimate essential of ordered liberty, if not of the very concept of civilization”
Counsel further submits that n a minority judgment, in this case, Justice Subba Rao held that: “The
right to personal liberty takes in not only a right to be free from restrictions placed on his
movements but also free from encroachments on his private life. It is true our Constitution does
not expressly declare a right to privacy as a fundamental right but the said right is an essential
ingredient of personal liberty. If physical restraints on a person's movements affect his personal
liberty, physical encroachments on his private life would affect it in a larger degree. Indeed,
nothing is more deleterious to a man's physical happiness and health than a calculated interference
with his privacy. We would, therefore, define the right of personal liberty in Article 21 as a right
of an individual to be free from restriction or encroachments on his person, whether those
restriction or encroachments are directly imposed or indirectly brought about by calculated
measures. If so understood, all the acts of surveillance under Regulation 236 infringe the
fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution.
In the case of Malak Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Haryana11, The Supreme Court
recognized that there exists a need to balance the state’s aim of preventing crime and ensuring
9
Art. 13 (2), Constitution of Windia
10
(1964)1 SCR 332, AIR, 1963 SC 1295
11
AIR 1981 SC 760, (1981) SCC (Cri) 169
16 | P a g e
public safety with constitutional freedom under Art. 21 and Art. 19 (1)(d), and held that police
surveillance could not intrude upon the personal liberty, dignity and privacy of individual.
It is contended that the Supreme Court has also observed and established the principle that the
procedure prescribed by law for depriving a person of his life and personal liberty must be ‘right,
just and fair’ and not ‘arbitrary, fanciful and oppressive’12
The Constitution of Windia mentions that the state shall not make by law which takes away or
abridges the rights conferred by this part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall,
to the extent of the contravention, be void.13
As it imposes an unreasonable restriction on the enjoyment of fundamental rights guaranteed by

the constitution of Windia, The Unnat Pradesh Crime Control Regulation 2023 is unconstitutional
and must be declared void on grounds of inconsistency with the Constitution and International
laws such as UDHR and ICCPR.
CONCLUSION FOR THE FIRST ISSUE:
In the light of aforementioned contentions, it is firmly established that the section 46 of the
Unnat Pradesh Police Act 1949 and Unnat Pradesh crime Control Regulations, 2023
unconstitutional and is subject to be declared void.

PARTIES AND IF YES, WHO BEARS THE LIABILITY IF THE ACTIONS
CONCERNED LEAD TO BREACH OF AN INDIVIDUAL’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS?
12
Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of Windia, 1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621
13
Constitution of Windia, Article 13
17 | P a g e
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the Police cannot delegate its investigating
functions to the private parties. If done, the police officer bears the liability for the actions which
amounts to the occurrence of breach of an individual’s Fundamental rights.
The police investigation forms the backbone of the criminal justice process of Windia. The
criminal justice system is the set of laws, processes, and institutions that aim to prevent, detect,
prosecute, and punish crimes while ensuring the rights and safety of all people. It has four
subsystems: Legislature (Parliament), Enforcement (Police), Adjudication (Courts) and
Corrections (Prisons, Community Facilities)14. The police department as an integral part of law
enforcement agency, have the responsibility to provide fair justice with fair and genuine
investigation. The police operations are guided by “The Police Act, 1949”, “Indian Penal Code,
1860” as well as “The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973”
The fear of law and the faith in the criminal justice system is eroded irretrievably. 15 The slow-
motion investigation leads to the prolonged criminal cases which gives birth to the distrust and
frustration towards existing criminal justice process of the country. Since, the right to speedy
justice with just investigation is the fundamental right, it is the obligation of the State to ensure
this right.
Counsel Submits that, “Investigation” includes all the proceedings for the collection of evidence
conducted by a police officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorized by a
Magistrate in this behalf16. It is clearly identified that the investigation is to be done only by the
police officer or the person authorized by the magistrate.
It is submitted that, The CrPC provides that “No police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable
case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial”17.
14
“The Need for a Reliable Code of Police Investigation in India” :: Drishti IAS Coaching in Delhi, Online IAS Test
Series & Study Material
15
Expeditious Investigation and Trial of Criminal Cases against 2012 Influential Public Personalities. (प्रभावशाली
सावव जनिक व्यक्तिय ों के नवरुद्ध आपरानिक मामल ों का शीघ्र अन्व ण और नवचारण | ररप र्व सों .239)
16
THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, Sec 2; “Definitions” (h) “investigation”
17
Ibid. CHAPTER XI, Sec 155(2)
PREVENTIVE ACTION OF THE POLICE Section 155(2)
18 | P a g e
This provision asserts that in non-cognizable cases like assault, cheating, forgery and so on police
officer cannot arrest the accused without a warrant and cannot initiate an investigation without the
permission of a court.18
Furthermore, The Code also mentions that “Any officer in charge of a police station may, without
the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over
the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the
provisions of Chapter XIII”19. It illustrates that in cognizable case20 the police officer may in
accordance to law arrest without warrant and carry out investigation without the order of magistrate
within its jurisdiction. Officer in charge of station is hereby understood as the sub inspector in
accordance to Regulation 43 of Unnat Pradesh police regulation.21
The aforementioned laws make it clear that the duty of investigation of both non-cognizable and
cognizable cases are given to the police officer or the officer in charge of the station therefore
delegating such important functional responsibilities to the private parties generates the ground for
potential abuse of power. There arise evident instances for the deficiency in accountability and
transparency leading to unjust judicial process.
It is submitted that, “Principle of non- delegable duty” holds the belief that certain obligation of
the police officer is not transferred to other party for maintaining direct accountability to the
supervisory authority. Parallel to this principle is “The constitutional principle of
accountability” which imposes responsibility to police officer to uphold transparency and
answerability in their actions, ensuring compliance with constitutional and statutory mandates and
safeguarding public trust. Together these principles impose a mammoth responsibility to the police
18
CrPC,1972, Section 2(l) “non-cognizable offence” means an offence for which, and “non-cognizable case” means
a case in which, a police officer has no authority to arrest without warrant
19
CrPC,1973, Section 156(1)
20
CrPC,1973, Section (c) “cognizable offence” means an offence for which, and “cognizable case” means a case in
which, a police officer may, in accordance with the First Schedule or under any other law for the time
Being in force, arrest without warrant.
21
CHAPTER V SUB-INSPECTORS AND UNDER OFFICERS OF THE CIVIL POLICE O section 43 “Officer-in-
charge of a police station” The officer in-charge of a police station is a Sub-Inspector.
19 | P a g e
officer whose functional authority including investigation when delegated to other private entities
jeopardizes the law enforcement together with whole criminal justice system.
By the reason of similarity of legal issues, adopting the principle of “analogous reasoning” or
“legal analogy “various international illustration is to be taken into consideration for the dealing
of the provided case.
Reliance is also being placed on the judgment of Digital Rights Ireland Ltd V. Minister for
Communications, Marine and Natural Resources22, the European court of justice held that the
private party “Internet Service Providers’ (ISPs)” act of storing telecommunication data for the
prevention and prosecution of crime in accordance to the European Union Directive was found to
be invalid under Art. 7 and 8 of charter of fundamental rights of European Union.23
The act of bribing a vendor outside the house to keep a check on the activities of Sachibai by Sub
Inspector Tejwa Bhajirao24 lead to the breach of fundamental rights ensured by the constitution of
Windia. Protection of fundamental rights are the necessary sine qua non of justice and where it is
not provided, injustice is likely to result and every act of injustice corrodes the foundations of
democracy and the rule of law.
The counsel submits that the right to move freely throughout the territory of Windia25 in addition
to the right of personal liberty26is breached together by the act of unlawful delegation of
investigating function by S.I Bhajirao. The police department is the crucial law enforcement
authority, people believe works for the public security concern yet at times when such public
22
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 8 April 2014. Digital Rights Ireland Ltd v Minister for Communications,
Marine and Natural Resources and Others and Kärntner Landesregierung and Others.
23
Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, art.7; “respect for private and family life”, “Everyone has the
right to respect for his or her private and family life, home and communications.”
Article 8; “Protection of personal data”; everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or
her.
24
Moot Proposition, pg3, para. 11
25
Constitution of Windia, Art. 19; Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.
(d) to move freely throughout the territory of India;
26
21. Ibid, Art.21; “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established
by law”.
20 | P a g e
security agents go beyond the laws and principles set forth by the fundamental law of the land,
there is deterioration of public trust and confidence as a guardian of society.
It is submitted that Aforesaid rights are protected internationally through numerous conventions.
Universal Declaration of rights (UDHR) 1948, signed and adopted in the laws of Windia in 1950
incorporates that no one shall be subjected to the interference of privacy27. The comparable right
is also included in Article 17 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
ratified by Windia 1979A.D28.
The odd hours visit to Sachibai’s house in the night, forcing her to install MSpy application on her
phone, getting CCTV camera installed outside her house along with vendor being the watchdog of
each and every action of her formed the notable ground for the breach of the fundamental rights
guaranteed to Sachibai. It is an extended form of keeping someone into preventive detention
beyond the detention center or police custody. 24 hours’ digital surveillance is also a form of
restricting right to move freely despite absence of confinement in a single room.
Pursuant to the “Representative sample Theory”29 the act of private party being delegated with
the function of investigation by police authority and disrupting the everyday life of Sachibai can
be considered as an important sample of the practice going on the society which questions the
existence and the failure of the rule of law by the law enforcing agency. Concluding all these
instances supported by laws, case laws and principles, the delegation of investigating function by
police to private parties is emphatically rejected.
The counsel concludes that by the virtue of this rationale, Sachibai claiming for the protection of
her fundamental rights guaranteed to her by Part III of the constitution of Windia has issued the
27
Art. 12 of the UDHR states: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or
correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law
against such interference or attacks."
28
Article 17 of the ICCPR provides for the right to privacy, stating: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful
interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honor and reputation."
29
“Representative Sample: Definition, Uses & Methods” By Jim from -Use a representative sample when you want
to generalize the results from the sample to a population. By studying a representative sample, you can approximate
the properties of the population from which it was drawn. Also available at: Representative Sample: Definition, Uses
& Methods - Statistics By Jim
21 | P a g e
writ petition in adherence to Art. 226(1) of the constitution30 making the supervisory authority in
essence the state and the Sub- Inspector Tejwa Bhajirao liable for the breach of her basic
fundamental rights.
CONCLUSION FOR THE SECOND ISSUE:
In the light of aforementioned contentions, it is firmly established that the Police cannot delegate
its investigating functions to the private parties. If done, the police officer bears the liability for
the actions which amounts to the occurrence of breach of an individual’s Fundamental rights.

PERMANENT ERASURE OF HER PAST CRIMINAL RECORDS?
It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble Court that Sachibai has a right to be forgotten in terms
of permanent erasure of her past criminal records. She has the right to silence on past events in
life that are no longer occurring.
It is submitted that, “Right to be forgotten” is a right to have private information removed from
the internet search engine, database, websites or other public platforms31. It is 'the right for natural
persons to have information about them deleted after a certain period of time32. GDPR mentions
that the data subject shall have the right to obtain from the controller the erasure of personal data
concerning him or her without undue delay and the controller shall have the obligation to erase
30
Art.226.” Power of High Courts to issue certain writs” - (1) Notwithstanding anything in article 32 , every High
Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person
or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs,
including [writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them,
for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.
31
Sapna Chaurasiya, “Right to be Forgotten”, TMT Law Practice, published on Feb 27, 2023, also available at:
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=abd8fb99-391d-4f35-a44d-68360ea1e670
32
Cécile de Terwangne, “Internet Privacy and the Right to be Forgotten/ Right to Oblivion"
22 | P a g e
personal data without undue delay where the personal data are no longer necessary in relation to
the purposes for which they were collected or otherwise processed.33 The very reason pencils have
erasers and keyboards have delete keys is behind the approach that no man should exempt from -
to have a second chance34.
Sachibai’s right to be forgotten includes the removal of news articles and other incriminating
content whether digital or documentary related to her wrongful arrest and trial in response to a
fabricated FIR against her which she claims is causing detriment to her dignified life and personal
liberty.
Sachibai was accused of committing offense of homicide against Mr. Ambuja. She had been in
detention for 8 months and undergone a long trial. She could not be proved guilty of the alleged
offense beyond reasonable doubt and that the evidence presented before the Court was not
conclusive enough for her conviction35 and thus, she was acquitted.
If we look at the International practices and legal system, “An individual is eligible under the clean
slate scheme if s/he has not been convicted of a specified offence.”36
Although, Sachibai was not found guilty, she had to face post trial stigmas. Her marriage was
called off with Manoj. Sachibai and her mother had to face humiliation due to her past criminal
record. The fact that the criminal record was easily accessible digitally resulted to the unwelcomed
and unwarned harms to Sachibai and her mother’s reputation. The state must understand that “the
right to be forgotten is certainly not about making prominent people less prominent or making
criminals less criminal”37. In order to prevent any hindrances to her social life, The State must
ensure that her right to be forgotten is guaranteed.
Right to be forgotten is a very important principle as this right guarantees other rights of the people.
Hence, right to be forgotten is not an independent right rather it embodies intersection of various
33
Art. 17 (1) (a), General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), European Union
34
Yulia Moshkovska, “TO BE OR NOT TO BE FORGOTTEN: A New Dimension of the Conflict between the Right
to Privacy and Freedom of Expression”, p.g.1, University of Vienna, Global Campus of Human Rights and European
Inter University Centre for Human Rights and democratization; A.Y. 2016/2017
35
Moot Proposition, pg. 2, para.5
36
Sec 7 (1) (d), Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act 2004, New Zealand
37
“Factsheet on the Right to be Forgotten” Ruling (C-131/12), 2017
23 | P a g e
rights and principles. This right must not be observed in isolation but it must be interpreted
jurisprudentially from dimensions of various rights and principles: -
1. Right to Privacy
The notion of right to be forgotten is concerned with the right to privacy of the people. Right to
Privacy is connected with the principle of individual autonomy which guarantees Sachibai the right
to control her personal information and to prevent its dissemination. One can be protected from
unwarranted intrusion if the right to be forgotten is ensured.
International Instrument on Bill of Rights have made provisions on Right to Privacy. It reads as follows:
- “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence,
nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against
such interference or attacks.”38
Though the Constitution of Windia has not explicitly recognized the Right to privacy as the
fundamental right of the citizen, Supreme Court of Windia has interpreted the ‘Right to privacy as
intrinsic to right to life and personal liberty’39 which is incorporated in Art. 2140 of the Constitution
of Windia.
Similarly, The Court has held that “the right of an individual to exercise control over his personal
data and to be able to control his/her own life and his/her existence on the internet41”. This can be
interpreted as the right to be forgotten. The literal interpretation of this stance implicates that the
38
Art. 12 of UDHR & Art.17 of ICCPR
39
Justice KS Puttaswamy vs. Union of India [92017) 10 SCC 1]
40
No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by the law.
41
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union Of India [(2017) 10 SCC 1 ]
24 | P a g e
right to control personal data also means the right to control the sharing of personal information
of the online platform and also erasing and ceasing the sharing of such information.42
Since, law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within the territory of Windia43,
by this virtue, the principle established by Supreme Court in regards to right to privacy must be
taken into consideration and acknowledge the right to privacy as a fundamental right.
2. Right to Dignified Life
It is humbly submitted that Right to life44 is a fundamental right as well as a human right guaranteed
by Art.6 of the ICCPR which includes the ‘right to live with human dignity and decency’45. Right
to be forgotten ensures right to live with dignity by preventing stigmatization and unwarned harm.
It also forbids rewriting of history.
Since, Article 6 of the ICCPR guarantees the right to dignified life for all human beings, without
distinction of any kind, including for persons suspected or convicted of even the most serious
crimes46, the national laws, by virtue of ratification of International treaties and principle of pacta
sunt servanda, must recognize and protect Sachibai’s right to be forgotten. It is also the obligation
of the state to respect, protect and fulfill the human rights.
3. Right to Reintegration
It is contended that Every Suspect, accused and convicted of any criminal offense has right to be
reintegrated in the society. It is the fundamental principle of criminal justice system as well as core
42
Amit Meharia & Bhavna Sharma, “Right to be forgotten in India- Case Analysis of Jorawer Singh Mundy vs. Union
of India & ors”, Pg.1, MCO Legals, Published on 31 st Jan 2022, also available at:
https://www.mcolegals.in/kb/Cyber_Law_Issue_4_Right_to_be_forgotten_in_India_Jorawer_Singh_Case.pdf
43
Constitution of Windia, Art.141
44
Ibid, Art.21
45
Chandra Raja Kumar vs. Police Commissioner Hyderabad
46
General Comment No. 36 on Art.6 of Right to life
25 | P a g e
value of Restorative and Reformative justice system. Denying right to be forgotten causes an
impact on social life of the person. No person either convicted or suspect can lead a normal life
and start fresh in absence of right to erasure. A clean slate approach of right to be forgotten allows
individuals to mold their life on their own as opposed to being associated with the deeds from their
past that remain in the memory of others47. An individual should not be connected with outdated
negative data and should have an opportunity to not be identified in relation to the past48.
It is submitted that a party, if implicated in a criminal case is later, on investigation found to be

innocent and has no connection with the crime involved, such a party may be permitted to invoke
the right to erasure immediately to delete all details published online49. For those who are wrongly
accused and then found innocent, the judicial authorities should not only seal or remove
proactively the disadvantageous data, but also publicize the mistakes on the press to rectify his/her
repute proactively or upon request of the innocent.50
It is further contended that in any organized society, right to live as a human being is not ensured
by meeting only the animal needs of man. It is secured only when he is assured of all facilities to
develop himself and is freed from restrictions which inhibit his growth51. The word ‘life’ as
employed by Art.21 takes in its sweep not only the concept of mere physical existence but also all
finer values of life52.
47
J. E. McNealy, 'The Emerging Conflict between Newsworthiness and the Right to Be Forgotten', Northern Kentucky
Law Review, Vol. 39, No. 2, 119-135. 2012. p. 121.
48
Yulia Moshkovska, “TO BE OR NOT TO BE FORGOTTEN: A New Dimension of the Conflict between the Right
to Privacy and Freedom of Expression”, p.g.1, University of Vienna, Global Campus of Human Rights and European
Inter University Centre for Human Rights and democratization; A.Y. 2016/2017
49
Dr. Krishna Menon vs. High Court of Kerala
50
Zheng Xi, “Return of a Forgotten Right: Application of the Right to be Forgotten in Criminal Justice”, HSOA
Journal of Forensic, Legal and Investigative Sciences, ISSN: 2473-733X, Published on Nov 07, 2019, also available
at: https://www.heraldopenaccess.us/openaccess/return-of-a-forgotten-right-application-of-the-right-to-be-forgotten-
in-criminal-justice
51
Francis Coraile vs. UT of Delhi, AIR 1978 SC 597
52
D.K. Yadav vs. J.M.A. Industries, (1993) 3 SCC 258
26 | P a g e
CONCLUSION FOR THE THIRD ISSUE:
In the light of aforementioned contentions, it is firmly established that the Sachibai has the right
to be forgotten. Denying right to be forgotten means to deprive Sachibai from various
fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of Windia and violated recognized
principles of Judiciary. Thus, it is the responsibility of the State to guarantee Sachibai’s right to
be forgotten.
ISSUE IV: DID SACHIBAI HAVE A RIGHT TO MARRY AND IF YES, DID THAT
RIGHT OVERRIDE THE RIGHT OF HER POTENTIAL SPOUSE TO BE PROTECTED
FROM DEADLY DISEASES?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that Men and Women of full age, without any
limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family53. This
right is also guaranteed under Art.21; right to life and personal liberty by Constitution of Windia.
Mr. Bhajirao had reached out to Manoj and informed him that Sachibai was at high risk of sexually
transmitted diseases because one of the workers at the correctional facilities who had allegedly
come in sexual contact with Sachibai had been diagnosed with HIV AIDS54.
The important question that needs a kind attention of this Hon’ble Court is not if Sachibai has the
right to marry or not. The important question here is how credible and reliable is Bhajirao’s
statement and whether he has the right to make such statement.
The counsel submits that regarding the HIV AIDS status of Sachibai, there lacks credibility in Mr.
Bhajirao’s statement for following reasons:
i. Firstly, there is no strong conclusive evidence to support that there had been a sexual
intercourse between the petitioner and the worker at the correctional facilities.
53
Art. 16 of UDHR & Ar.23 of ICCPR
54
Moot Proposition, pg.3, para. 4
27 | P a g e
ii. Secondly, Bhajirao had previously proposed Sachibai for marriage and had faced
vehement rejection. He used to send constantly sexually colored calls and messages to
Sachibai. With these histories of Bhajirao, there arises a question mark in his intention.
His treatment towards Sachibai and statement against Sachibai is nothing but just a mere
prejudice which justifies his malafide intention. His act of approaching Manoj and making
such blatant comments on Sachibai amounts to defamation against her. Thus, statement
made with prejudice with intention of defaming someone cannot support the truth of the
fact.
iii. Lastly, according to Bhajirao, Sachibai have had sexual encounters inside the jail and that
she was at “high risk” of sexually transmitted diseases, as one of the workers at the
correctional facilities who had “allegedly” come in sexual contact with Sachibai had been
diagnosed with HIV-AIDS. If we observe Bhajirao’s statement carefully, the use of term
such as “high risk” instead of “she has STDs” and the use of term, “allegedly” makes it
even more doubtful. According to Oxford Dictionary, the term “allegedly” is used to
convey that something is claimed to be the case or have taken place, although there is no
proof. The statement itself is based on probability and lacks certainty. It cannot be
established beyond reasonable doubt whether there has been a sexual encounter between
Sachibai and the worker at correctional facility. The proposition itself is false and so is the
inference.
Even if we presume that Sachibai has HIV AIDS or was at high risk of HIV AIDS, Sachibai is
unaware of her health status. Even if there had been a sexual encounter between Sachibai and the
worker at the correctional facility, there is no possibility that Sachibai would know that the worker
has HIV AIDS. No one would declare their HIV AIDS status and make a sexual intercourse with
their partner nor would the partner accept to have sexual intercourse. In such situation, Sachibai is
the victim of venereal diseases. She is not the primary agent for potential transmission of sexual
28 | P a g e
diseases but is the victim of prohibited sexual intercourse. The failure of the State to prohibit
custodial rape and victimizing Sachibai portrays systemic harassment.
It is the right of Sachibai that she be the first person to know about her health status. If she is at
high risk of sexually transmitted diseases, she must be known about it first. Sachibai should be
communicated first about her HIV status. The state has failed to maintain confidentiality by
disclosing her HIV status to third party. Likewise, in context of public health and security, she
being an educated and responsible citizen, she herself would have adopted necessary measures for
public security. There was no necessity to interfere by the SI Bhajirao. Had she been informed
about it; she and her mother would have not faced humiliation from Manoj and his family. Bhajirao
has no right to interfere in Sachibai’s personal matter. He cannot intrude privacy of anyone and
respect the right to confidentiality.
It is humbly submitted that it is not only a non-ethical conduct but his act is beyond his jurisdiction.
Him approaching Sachibai’s fiancé and making statement on such a sensitive issue does not come
under his official duty. The act of Bhajirao resulted to calling -off of marriage by Manoj. This not
only deprived Sachibai the right to marry but also curtailed Sachibai’s right to dignified life and
personal liberty. He approaching Manoj before Sachibai proves his malafide intention to break
their marriage and cause dishonor to her family.
Delving into the issue raised before this Hon’ble Court whether Sachibai has right to marry and if
yes, did that right override the right of her potential spouse to be protected from deadly diseases,
and we can assert that Sachibai has the right to marry. However, there must be an informed consent
prior to marriage. If she had been informed about her health status before Manoj, she would have
herself informed Manoj about it. That would have prohibited humiliation for concealing material
information.
Similarly, in regards to right of spouse to be protected from deadly diseases, Sachibai’s potential
spouse has the right to be protected from any kind of deadly diseases. This is also validated by
Hindu Marriage Act which provides that “any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the
commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be
29 | P a g e
dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party has been suffering from venereal
disease in a communicable form55”
The aforementioned legal provision advances the right of spouse to be protected from transmission
of sexual diseases.
CONCLUSION FOR THE FOURTH ISSUE:
In the light of aforementioned contentions, it is firmly established that the Sachibai have a right
to marry and that right override the right of her potential spouse to be protected from deadly
diseases.
55
Sec. 13 (1) (v), Chapter on Nullity of Marriage and Divorce, Hindu Marriage Act 1955
30 | P a g e
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore in the light of facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the
petitioner humbly prays before this Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to adjudicate and:
i. Declare that Section 46 of the Unnat Pradesh Police Act 1949 and Unnat Pradesh
Crime Control Regulations, 2023 unconstitutional and void ab initio.
ii. Prohibit the delegation of investigative functions to private parties and declare it
unlawful
iii. Order the permanent erasure of the petitioner's past criminal records to uphold her
right to privacy, dignified life and right to reintegration in the society.
iv. Affirm the petitioner's right to marry and advocate for informed consent and
transparency in matrimonial prospects.
And pass any other order, direction or relief in favor of the petitioner which this Court may deem
fit and proper in the interests of justice, equity and good conscience as per the circumstances of
the case.
All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.
Counsels for the Petitioner
31 | P a g e

TC13 Petitioner

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TC13 Petitioner

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TC13 Petitioner

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Team Code: 13

Smt. SHAKUNTALA DEVI FIRST NATIONAL MOOT COURT

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF UNNAT PRADESH, WINDIA

UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF WINDIA

State of Unnat Pradesh…………………………………………...…. Respondent

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................... 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................ 5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ........................................................................................... 8

STATEMENT OF FACTS ......................................................................................................... 10

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ................................................................................................ 11

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ..................................................................................................... 13

UNNAT PRADESH CRIME CONTROL REGULATIONS, 2023 UNCONSTITUTIONAL? ..... 13

ISSUE II: CAN POLICE DELEGATE ITS INVESTIGATING FUNCTIONS TO PRIVATE

LEAD TO BREACH OF AN INDIVIDUAL’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS? ............................... 17

ISSUE III: DID SACHIBAI HAVE A RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN IN TERMS OF

PERMANENT ERASURE OF HER PAST CRIMINAL RECORDS? ........................................... 22

OVERRIDE THE RIGHT OF HER POTENTIAL SPOUSE TO BE PROTECTED FROM

DEADLY DISEASES? ......................................................................................................................... 27

PRAYER FOR RELIEF............................................................................................................. 31

ABBREVIATION FULL FORM

IAS Indian Administrative Service

ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

UDHR Universal Declaration on Human Rights

CrPC Criminal Procedure Code

GDPR General Data Protection Regulation

ALD Administrative Law Decisions

A.Y Assessment Year

SCC Supreme court Cases

CEO Chief Executive Officer.

CCTV Closed Circuit Television

HIV/AIDS Human immunodeficiency virus infection and acquired

PSO Police standing order

Ltd Limited company

Hon’ble The Honourable

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

• Unnat Pradesh Crime Control Regulations, 2023

4) INTERNATIONAL TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS

• General Comment No. 36

• Francis Coraile vs. UT of Delhi, AIR 1978 SC 597

6) ARTICLES AND RESEARCH PAPERS

• Chaurasia, S. (2023a) Right to be forgotten, Lexology. Available at:

• Zheng Xi, “Return of a Forgotten Right: Application of the Right to be Forgotten in

ISSUE II: CAN POLICE DELEGATE ITS INVESTIGATING FUNCTIONS TO PRIVATE

ISSUE III: DID SACHIBAI HAVE A RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN IN TERMS OF

A history sheet is a document pertaining to the personal information of an accused 3. However, a

i. Class A history-sheets for dacoits, burglars, cattle-thieves, railway goods wagon

As it imposes an unreasonable restriction on the enjoyment of fundamental rights guaranteed by

CONCLUSION FOR THE FIRST ISSUE:

ISSUE II: CAN POLICE DELEGATE ITS INVESTIGATING FUNCTIONS TO PRIVATE

CONCLUSION FOR THE SECOND ISSUE:

ISSUE III: DID SACHIBAI HAVE A RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN IN TERMS OF

2. Right to Dignified Life

It is submitted that a party, if implicated in a criminal case is later, on investigation found to be

CONCLUSION FOR THE THIRD ISSUE:

CONCLUSION FOR THE FOURTH ISSUE:

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.

Counsels for the Petitioner