1

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents___________________________________________________________

Index of Authorities_________________________________________________________

Statements of Jurisdiction____________________________________________________

Statement of Facts___________________________________________________________

Statements of Issues_________________________________________________________

Summary of Arguments______________________________________________________

Arguments Advanced__________________________________________________

[Link] the SPECIAL LEAVE PRTITION [ SLP] filled in the Supreme Court of kindia
is maintainable or not? _________________________________________11-16

2. Whether the right to privacy of the petition guaranteed under article 21 of Constitution
of kindia is violated? ___________________________________________________17-19

3. CLASS ROOM CHATTING BE TREATED AS UNBECOMING OF A STUDENT?

___20-22

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITY

BOOKS REFERRED:
1.M P JAIN “INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW”, LEXIS NEXI, 7th edition
2016
[Link].J.N. PANDEY “CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA”, CENRAL LAW AGENCY, 55TH
edition [2018]
[Link].H.O. AGARWAL “HUMAN RIGHTS”, CENTRAL LAW PUBLICATIONS 16TH edition
2016
[Link]. FAROOQ AHMAD “CYBER LAW IN INDIA [LAW ON INTERNET] NEW ERA
PUBLICATION 5TH edition 2019

LIST OF WEBSITES REFERRED:

1.[Link]
[Link]
3.[Link]

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 4

LIST OF CASE

Sl.n Name of the case citiation

o

1 Mani Subbarao v. Ganeshappa AIR 1978 SC 1061

2 Bolun Chetia v. Jagdish Bhuyan {2005]6 SCC 81

3 Daryao v. State of U. P AIR 1961 SC 1457, (1962) 1

SCR 574

4 Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd v. CIT West Bengal AIR 1955 SC 65

(1989) 1 SCC 637

5 Dhirendra Chamoli v State of U. P
AIR 1950 SC 169
6 Pritam Singh v. State

2000 6 SCC 359

Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala
7

(1981) 2 SCC (Cri) 471

Kirit Kumar Chaman Lal Kundaliya v. State of
8 Gujrat

9 Abbai Maligai Partnership firm v K. Santha 1998 7 SCC 386

kumaran

10 Gobind v. State of M. P 1975 2 SCC 148

11 Mr. X v Hospital Z 2003 1 SCC 500

12 Writ petition (civil) No

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 5

Justice K.S Puttaswamy & another v. Union of India

and others1
1963AIR1295 ,1964SCR
[1]332
13

Kharak Singh v. State of U.P [1954]1SCR1077

14
1994 AIR 2372 1994 SCC
M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (2) 734
15 AIR 1981 SC 487
T.M.A Pai v. State of Karnataka

16 AIR 1997 KANT 261

Ajay hasia v. Khalid mujib

17
T.T Chakravarthy Yuvaraja and others principal, Dr.
B. R Ambedkar medical college

INDEX OF ABBREVATIONS

1. AIR: all India reporter

2. ART: article
3. HC: high court
4. SC: supreme court
5. Hon’ble: honorable

1
Writ petition (civil) No

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 6

6. i.e.: that is
7. SCC: supreme court cases
8. SEC: section
9. V: verse

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble SC of kindia has the jurisdiction under Art 1362 of the
kindia Constitution to hear the appeal and decide the matter according the decision of HC.

Article 21 of the Indian constitution reads as follows

No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure
established by law.

2
136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court –
[1] notwithstanding anything in this chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal
from any judgement, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or
tribunal in the territory of India.
[2] Nothing in clause [1] shall apply to any judgement, determination, sentence or order passed or made by any court
or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed forces

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 7

STATEMENTS OF FACTS

[Link] Bose and Ruchika Sen are final-year law students at kindia National law school.

[Link] a lecture on “privacy rights”, prof. Sanath Raj caught Ruchika using her smartphone
and seized it. Avinash admitted they were chatting, leading to an argument with prof. Raj.

[Link] vice chancellor referred the incident to the student disciplinary committee [SDC].

[Link] SDC in its report found “the class room conduct of both Avinash Bose and Ruchika Sen
unbecoming of a student which recommended rustication for the said semester term.

5. Avinash Bose and Ruchika Sen challenged the decision of rustication in the High Court and its
division bench dismissed their writ petition and appeal, and imposed a rupees 1,00,000 penalty.

[Link] accepted the rustication and joined an international trekking of law students going to
Himalayas. While Ruchika filled a special leave petition {SLP}in the Supreme Court for
challenging the order of Appellate Court in the same matter.

[Link] Sen alleged that, the very act of prof. Raj in seizing her smart phone and investigating
it was unwarranted and constituted a breach of her privacy as a violation of Art 21of the
constitution of kindia.” she averred that -class-room chatting can’t be treated as unbecoming of a

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 8

student of the university, particular the law school’, she prayed for setting aside of the order of
rustication, and challenges breach of her privacy under Art 21of the constitution

[Link] Supreme Court of kindia by an interim order staying the rustication and posted the matter
for final hearing X October,2018.

STATEMENTS OF ISSUES

ISSUE 1

WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF

KINDIA IS MAINTANABLE OR NOT?

ISSUE 2

WHETHER THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF THE PETITIONER GUARANTEED UNDER

ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KINDIA IS VIOLATED?

ISSUE 3

CLASS ROOM CHATTING BE TREATED AS UNBECOMING OF A STUDENT?

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 9

SUMMARY OF ARUGUMENTS

ISSUE 1
WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
KINDIA IS MAINTANABLE OR NOT?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that the special leave petition is not
maintainable. The High Court and Apex court has dismissed the writ petition the appellants. The
decision of Rustication given by the college is reasonable. The Supreme Court’s appellate
jurisdiction, Art 136[1] empower the Supreme Court to grant, in its discretion, special leave to
appeal from any judgment, decree, determination sentence or order in any cause or matter passed
or made by any court or turbinal in the territory of India.
ISSUE 2
WHETHER THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF THE PETITIONER GUARANTEED
UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KINDIA IS VIOLATED?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that the right to privacy of the petition is not
violated under the Art 213 of the Indian Constitution. Right to privacy is a fundamental right and
integral to right to life and personal liberty. Prof Raj’s unwanted inspection of smartphone was a
clear breach of right and was intrusion to her personal space.
ISSUE 3
CLASS ROOM CHATTING BE TREATED AS UNBECOMING OF A STUDENT?

3
Protection of personal life and liberty- No person shall be deprived if his life or personal liberty except according
to procedure established by law.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 10

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that the punishment of rustication imposed on
Ruchika Sen for chatting in class is proportionate to the infraction committed in the class.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1

WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF

KINDIA IS MAINTANABLE OR NOT?
The Counsel on the behalf of respondent humbly submits that the High Court and the Division
Bench of High Court dismissed the writ appeal is maintainable, because there is no matter is
involved to the violation of the FUNDEMENTAL RIGHT of the petitioner. The HC dismissed
the appeal there is no ground of facts.

4
Mani Subbarao v. Ganeshappa

New Plea – In the appeal under Article 136, the Supreme Court does not allow the appellant to
rise new plea for the first time.

The petitioner can’t arise new question of law in this case the petitioner seeking the breach of
privacy but it’s not maintainable. Because there is no breach of privacy

[1.1] Dismissal of Special Leave Petition

The process of filing an SLP is not a right given to any person but it’s just a liberty given to a
person.

The hon’ble Supreme Court can dismiss the Special Leave Petition filed without giving a reason

4
AIR 1978 SC 1061

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 11

Bolun Chetia v. Jagdish Bhuyan 5

It is by the respondent that the petitioner must show that exceptional circumstances must exist
and that if there is no interference, it will result in substantial and grave injustice and the case has
sufficient gravity to warrant review of the decision appealed against, on merits.

Only then the court would exercise its overriding powers under Article136 of the Indian
Constitution. Special leave will not be granted when there is no failure of justice or when
substantial justice is done.

In the case there is no exceptional and special circumstances have been shown by the petitioner.
The judgement was already passed by the High Court and the apex courts. There is no special
circumstance shown here.

Further, it is not possible to define the limitations on the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction
vested with Supreme Court under Article 136. It has to be exercised sparingly with caution only
in special and extra ordinary situations6. The provision does not give right to the party to appeal
to the Supreme Court but rather it confers a wide discretionary power on the Supreme Court to
interfere in suitable cases7.

It is contended by the respondent that the appeal doesn’t involve any question of law rather it
only involves a question of fact. Hence it is not maintainable.

Question of fact cannot be permitted to be raised unless there is material evidence which has
been ignored by the High Court.

Generally, on finding of fact, no interference should be made. Even in cases where conclusions
are reached without propre discussion, yet if it involves finding on fact, no interference of
Supreme Court is called for.

Daryao v. State of U. P8

Gajendragadkar j delivered the judgement in the above case as the judgement of this court
elaborately discussed the rule of res judicata and ultimately held that where the High Court

5
{2005]6 SCC 81
6
Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd v. CIT West Bengal AIR 1955 SC 65
7
ibid
8
AIR 1961 SC 1457, (1962) 1 SCR 574

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 12

dismisses a writ petition after hearing the matter on the merits on the ground that no
Fundamental Right was proved or contravened a subsequent petition to Supreme Court under
Article 32 on the same facts and for the same relief filed by the same party would be barred by
the general principles of res judicata

By using the principle of res judicata that is the matter that has been finally juridically decided
on merits and cannot be litigated on same parties. Here the case was already decided and they
used proper grounds for deciding the case so the principles of res judicata applies here.

Dhirendra Chamoli v State of U. P9

In this case Per Dutt, J held that

When Supreme Court gives reasons while dismissing a Special Leave Petition under article 136
the decision becomes one which attracts Article 141. But when no reason is given and the
Special Leave Petition is summarily dismissed, the court does not lay down any law under article
141.

The effect of speaking order of dismissal of Special Leave Petition without anything more
indicating the grounds or reasons of its dismissal must, by necessary implication, be taken to be
that Supreme Court had decided only that it was not a fit case where Special Leave Petition
should be granted.

The high court held that the issue which was raised by the petitioner was not of great importance
and to save the time and increase the efficiency of the court it gave a proper decision.

1.2] EXCEPTION AND SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES

Pritam Singh v. State10

The Constitution bench observed that the Supreme Court is vested “wide and discretionary
power” under this Article and this power is required “to be exercised sparingly and only in
exceptional cases”.

9
(1989) 1 SCC 637
10
AIR 1950 SC 169

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 13

The court also observed that a more or less uniform standard should be adopted in granting
special leave in wide range of matters which can come up under this Article.

The court further observed that this court should not grant special leave unless it is shown that
exceptional and special circumstances exist. That substantial and grave injustice has been done
and case in question presents features of sufficient gravity to a warrant a review of a decision
appealed against the power conferred upon the Supreme Court of india is residual and is a
residuary power.

Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala11

The apex court in the land mark decision of Kunhayammed case has clearly laid out the instances
when the said doctrine gets triggered in the event of disposing SLP under Article 136 of the
Constitution.

While disposing SLP under Article 136 there are various possibilities in which such disposal
takes place

SLP gets dismissed in limine without any reason i.e., non-speaking order dismissal of SLP
without granting leave to appeal

SLP gets dismisses in limine with reasons i.e., speaking order dismissal SLP without granting
leave to appeal

SLP is allowed but appeal is dismissed without reasons i.e., non-speaking order after granting
leave to appeal

SLP is allowed but appeal is dismissed with reasons I.e., speaking order after granting leave to
appeal

SLP is allowed and appeal is also allowed (either modifies or reverses the order of lower forum)

The SLP filed by the respondent can be dismissed by the Supreme Court in the following above
ways and mainly it will be based on a non-speaking order and will be dismissed in limine as
there was already enough evidence for it and proper order was passed by high court.

11
2000 6 SCC 359

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 14

Kirit Kumar Chaman Lal Kundaliya v. State of Gujrat12

It is not possible to accept the submission because the special leave petition against the Delhi
High Court judgements have been dismissed by Supreme Court, the judgements may be final
between the parties, but the benefit of that wrong decision should not be conferred on the future
employees of Supreme Court as the court being a court of law as well as court of equity.

If there be any violation of Fundamental Rights by virtue of any judgement, the Supreme Court
can strike down the same.

1.3] Doctrine of Merger

According to the doctrine of merger, whenever a higher forum passes an order in the course of
appeal from the order of a lower forum, the order of lower forum gets merged into the order of
higher forum.

Here the court have already dismissed the Ruchika Sen’s writ petition and they have the
reasonable ground to come to that conclusion that Ruchika Sen’s petition is not maintainable and
the Hon’ble Supreme Court can use the doctrine of merger and give the same decision.

Abbai Maligai Partnership firm v K. Santha kumaran13

In the matter of eviction proceedings initiated before the rent controller the order passed there in
was subjected to appeal a revising before the High Court. SLP were preferred before the
Supreme Court. Both sides were heard and SLP was dismissed.

A petition for grant of special leave to appeal may be rejected for several reasons such as;

The petition is time barred;

Defective presentation;

Petitioner lacks Locus Standi to file the petition;

Conduct of the petitioner disentitles him to indulge by the court.

12
(1981) 2 SCC (Cri) 471
13
1998 7 SCC 386

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 15

The question raised in the petition is not considered fit for consideration by the court, or does not
deserve to be dealt with by the apex court.

ISSUE – 2

WHETHER THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF THE PETITIONER GUARANTEED

UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KINDIA IS VIOLATED?

The Constitution does not grant in specific and express terms any right to privacy as such. Right to
privacy is not enumerated as a Fundamental Right in the Constitution.

The right to privacy which is guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution is
not violated.

The act of Ruchika Sen using the phone during the class hours distracted the Professor and
disrupt his class. When Prof Sanath Raj took the phone from Ruchink Sen, just the act of took
the phone from her does not mean that her Right to privacy is violated, he seized the phone from
her and started to question her immediately, and just moments after he asked her question
Avinash Bose started to retaliate for the questions asked by the Professor. The professor didn’t
know that she was chatting with Avinash Bose, till the moment he interrupted him and he
himself told the professor that he was chatting with Ruchika Sen. If professor saw anything in
that phone, he can directly question about it So it clear that he didn’t saw anything in their phone
and did not violate any of her rights.

A definite legal definition of privacy is not yet available. Yet some legal experts tend to define
privacy as human right enjoyed by every human by virtue of their existence.

Privacy can also extend to other aspects including bodily integrity, personal anatomy, dignity,
confidentially, and freedom to dissent or move or think.

In short right to privacy has to be determined on a case – by – case basis.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 16

In the case of Gobind v. State of M. P14 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that

“Privacy dignity claims deserve to be examined with care and to be denied only when an
important countervailing interest is shown to be superior. If the court does find that a claimed
right is entitled to protection to fundamental privacy right, a law infringing in it must satisfy the
compelling state interest test

1.1] Right to privacy is not absolute right

Govind v state of Madhya Pradesh15 in this case, Mathew J observed that

“The right to privacy in any event will necessarily have to go through the process of case-by-case
development. Therefore, even assuming that the right personal liberty, the right to move freely
through out the territory of India and the freedom of speech create an independent right of
privacy as an emanation from them which one can characterize as a Fundamental Right, we do
not thing that the right is absolute.”
Mr. X v Hospital Z16
It was held that right to privacy is not an absolute right and it can be subverted to serve the large
public interest and public health.
Supreme Court in writ petition of Justice K.S Puttaswamy & another v. Union of India and
others17

The court stated that the right to privacy is inherent and integral part III of the Constitution,
which guarantees Fundaments Right and right to privacy and right to privacy is not absolute
right. Any invasion of privacy by state or non-state actors must satisfy the following triple test

[Link] aim

[Link]

[Link]

The unanimous decision of the nine judge also held that

The decision in M.P Sharma v Satish Chandra, which held that right to privacy is not protected
by the Constitution of india, is overruled

14
1975 2 SCC 148
15
ibid
16
2003 1 SCC 500
17
Writ petition (civil) No

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 17

The decision in Kharak Singh, to the extent that it hold that the right to privacy is not guaranteed
by Prat III, is also overruled

Kharak Singh v. State of U.P 18

The court recognized that while the right to privacy is not explicitly mentioned in the
Constitution of India, it is implied in the broader concept of autonomy and personal liberty under
Article 21.

In the words of SUBBA RAO, J.

“Further, 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 a Fundamental Right.”

In the above cases it is clear that the right to privacy is not absolute and it is decided case – by –
case and has taken different meaning every time. So Ruchika Sen accusing Professor Raj that he
violated her right to privacy is not correct.
1.2] M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954)19

In this case Supreme Court held that the power of search and seizure is not a violation of right
privacy, as no such right is guaranteed by the Constitution.
The SCOI observed that search and seizure is only a temporary interference with the right to hold
the property searched and the articles seized. It also observed that it has a statutory recognition
and thus cannot be said to be unconstitutional.
Prof Sanath took the phone from Ruchika Sen and it was not permanently done but only as a
temporary response for the action of Ruchika Sen.

18
1963AIR1295 ,1964SCR [1]332
19
[1954]1SCR1077

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 18

ISSUE – 3
CLASS ROOM CHATTING CAN BE TREATED AS UNBECOMING OF A STUDENT?
When Prof Raj was taking the class, he was interrupted by Ruchika Sen’s act of using the phone
while sitting in the front row. He was distracted and he moved near her and caught her in the act.

There will be a regulatory framework in prestigious kindia Law School and will have an
established code of conduct, which has to be maintained by the students to maintain the decorum
and discipline especially during the class hours

This is essential for conductive learning environment and is binding on all the students.

The rules and regulations of Prestigious Kindia Law School explicitly prohibits behaviors that
disrupt the teaching process, which includes inattentiveness and use of electronic devices
(mobile Phone) during class hours.

Such rules are clearly communicated to the students and they are made well aware not to do such
things.

The concept of maintaining classroom discipline is universally recognized and it is explicitly

mentioned in the case of T.M.A Pai v. State of Karnataka20

It highlighted the importance of institutional anatomy enforcing discipline to maintain academic

standards.

It impacts the learning environment of the class by disrupting the flow of teaching and
distracting other students. It creates an environment where learning is compromised.

Whenever a student is in the class, he/she will have some responsibilities that they have to follow
and keep up.

The disciplinary act of rusticating the students for a semester as recommended by the Student
Disciplinary Committee is a proportionate response aimed to reinforce the importance of

20
1994 AIR 2372 1994 SCC (2) 734

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 19

discipline and it serves as an example to other students also that they have to maintain high
academic standards every time when they are in class.

If such behavior is tolerated in the 1st place it will lead to breakdown of discipline and will
become difficult to maintain the standards necessary for effective education.

There was Support from the members of the Student Disciplinary Committee as they recognized
the importance of morality and discipline in the classroom

The educational institutions have an institutional authority to enforce the rules and regulations
that ensure the integrity of the hon’ble kindia law school. This authority includes the power to
discipline the students whose behavior goes against the moral and decency of the educational
institution.

Upholding of academic standards is very important for every educational institution and
disciplinary measures against such disruptive behavior are necessary to protect the standards and
ensure that all students can benefit from undisturbed environment.

So, we can say that the act of chatting in the classroom is justified as unbecoming of student in
esteemed institution. Such behavior disrespects the teacher and sets a negative impact on the
institution.

Rustication serves not only as a punishment but also an example for other students. It also sends
a clear message about the importance of following the norms of the classroom and the
consequences of failing to do so.

The disciplinary action taken by the university is reasonable and is aimed at upholding the
academic integrity of the institution.

T.T Chakravarthy Yuvaraja and others principal, Dr. B. R Ambedkar medical college21

The punishment of rustication from college could be imposed by head of the college.

The judge said that college being run by a trust is not a state or instrumentality of state for
purpose of art 12 of the constitution of India rejected the same relying upon the decision of

21
AIR 1997 KANT 261

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 20

supreme court in Ajay hasia v. Khalid mujib22 and it was also noticed that principal of the
college was exercising certain statutory power.

In corpus Juris Second volume 14, it is stated that

“Broadly speaking, the right of a student to attend a public or private college or university is
subjected to the condition that he complies with its scholastic and disciplinary requirements, and
the proper college authorities may in the exercise of a broad discretion formulate and enforce
reasonable rules and regulation in both respects. The court will not interfere in the abuse of such
discretion”.

The court held that “the courts has upheld the validity of a regulation reserving to the university
the right to dismiss a student at any time for any reason.”

22
AIR 1981 SC 487

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 21

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

In the light of issue raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited the counsel for
petitioner most humble and respectfully praised before this Hon’ble Court
That it may be pleased to adjudge and declare that

1 Dismiss the Special Leave Petition Filed by the petitioner

2 uphold the decision of the Student Disciplinary Committee and the high court of India
3 impose cost on the petitioner for filing frivolous petition

AND
The court may also pass any such order, as it deem fit, in light justice, equity and good
conscience. All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.
And this act of kindness, your lordship’s, respondent shall as duty bound ever humbly pray

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
____________________________
COUNSEL OF RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT

 22

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT