TEAM CODE T028

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF WESTROS

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF WESTEROS

________________________________________

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) OF 2019

ROOSE BOLTON ………………………………………….PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF WESTEROS ………….........................................RESPONDENT

________________________________________

BEFORE SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS

COMPANION JUDGES OF

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF WESTEROS

________________________________________

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

________________________________________

1
 TABLE OF CONTENT
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ……………………………………………………………….3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ……………………………………………...............................4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ……………………………………...............................7

STATEMENT OF FACTS ……………………………………………………………….......8

STATEMENT OF ISSUES ………………………………………………………………….10

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ……………………………………………………………11

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

ISSUE 1 …………………………………………………………………………………….

WHETHER THE VALIDITY OF SUCH AN ORDINANCE BE QUESTIONED IN A

PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION? ........................13

1.1 Whether the petitioner has the locus standi to file the present Writ petition?.………13

ISSUE 2 …………………………………………………………………………………….

WHETHER AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT MADE BY AN AUTHORITY UNDER A

CRIMINAL STATUTE WHICH IS INTRA VIRES OPEN TO CHALLENGE AS
REPUGNANT TO ARTICLE 21 ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS BASED ON A
MISCONSTRUCTION OF A PROVISION OF THE ACT OR OF A NOTIFICATION
ISSUED THERE UNDER? ………………………………………………………………...16

2.1 Whether Sansa’s law is infringing the Fundamental Rights of individuals who have
completed their sentence? .......................................................................................................16

2.2 Whether criminal laws can be implemented with retrospective effect?............................20

ISSUE 3…………………………………………………………………….

WHETHER MR ROOSE BOLTON’S RIGHT TO PRIVACY HAS BEEN BREACHED? 23

ISSUE 4 ……………………………………………………………………………………..

WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF SANSA’S LAW ARE ARBITRARY IN NATURE? 28

PRAYERS …………………………………………………………………………………..33

2
 LIST OF ABBREVAITIONS

SR.NO ABBREVIATIONS EXPANSIONS

1 & And
2 AIR All India Reporter
3 Anr. Anothers
4 Art. Article
5 ASORA Alaska Sexual Offender
Registration Act
6 Const. Constitution
7 ECHR European Commission on
Human Rights
8 Edn. Edition
9 Govt. Government
10 HC High Court
11 Hon’ble Honourable
12 i.e. That Is
13 Ltd. Limited
14 M.P Madhya Pradesh
15 Ors. Others
16 P&H Punjab and Haryana
17 Para Paragraph
18 SC Supreme Court
19 SCC Supreme Court Cases
20 SORA New York's Sex Offender
Registration Act
21 T.N Tamil Nadu
22 U.P Uttar Pradesh
23 UOI Union of India
24 US United States
25 v. Versus
26 WP Writ Petition

3
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES

1. The constitution of Westeros in pari materia with Constitution of India, 1950.

2. Alaska Sexual Offender Registration Act (ASORA)
3. New York's Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA)
4. Right to Information Act, 2005.

INDIAN CASES

1. Anjali Roy v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1952 Cal 825

2. Ashutosh Gupta v State of Rajasthan, (2002) 4 SCC 34

3. Ashutosh Gupta v State of Rajasthan, (2002) 4 SCC 34

4. Asokan v. State of Kerala, 1997 SCC OnLine Ker 268: (1998) 1 KLT 330

5. Choteylal v. State of U.P, AlR 1951 All 228

6. Coimbatore Stock Exchange Ltd v T.N Electricity Regulatory Commission, (2014) 13

SCC 358

7. Coimbatore Stock Exchange Ltd v T.N Electricity Regulatory Commission, (2014) 13

SCC 358

8. Consumer Action Group v. State of T.N., (2000) 7 SCC 425

9. Govind v. State of M.P., (1975) 2 SCC 148

10. Kanaiyalal v Indumati, AIR 1958 SC 444

11. Kharak Singh AIR, 1963 SC 1295

12. Kharak Singh v. State of U.P, AIR 1963 SC 1295

13. Malak Singh v. State of P&H, (1981) 1 SCC 420

14. Onkar Lal Bajaj v UOI, (2003) 2 SCC 673

15. Permjit Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 209 P&H 7

16. Ratan Tata v. State of Maharashtra, WP No 1238 of 2019

17. Road Metal Industry vs. The Secretary to Government of A.P. & Ors, W.P. No. 13942
of 2001

18. State of Madhya Pradesh (M.P) v. Mandawara, AIR 1954 SC 493

4
19. UOI v International Trading Corporation, (2003) 5 SCC 437

20. UOI v International Trading Corporation, (2003) 5 SCC 437

21. UOI V. M.V. Valliappa, 1999 6 SCC 259

22. Veerappa Pill v. Raman Rtimin Ltd, AIR 1952 SC 192

23. Western UP Electric Power v. State of UP, 1969 1 SCC 1817

INTERNATIONAL CASES

1. Beazell v. Ohio, 269 U.S. 167 (1925)

2. Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe, 538 U.S. 1 (2003)
3. Doe v. Alaska Department of Public Safety, 92 P.3d 398
4. Falter v. U.S. 23 F.2d 420
5. Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960)
6. Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103 (1990)
7. S. & Marper v. The United Kingdom, (2008) ECHR 1581
8. Shaw v. Director of Public Prosecutions, 323 F.3d 1198, 2003
9. Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003)
10. Smith v. Doe, 538 US 84 (1999)
11. Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557
12. State of Louisiana v. Trosclair, 89 So. 3d 340 (La. 2012)

OTHER AUTHORITIES

1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/09/07/sex-
offender-laws-and-the-6th-circuits-ex-post-facto-clause-
ruling/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8308ec027e22
2. 26 NLSI Rev 127 (2014), State Surveillance and the Right to Privacy in India: A
Constitutional Biography by Gautam Bhatia
3. Child pornography: A Nuisance by Vinod Kumar and Priya Nagpal.
4. https://www.financialexpress.com/india-news/what-fundamental-right-to-privacy-
means-and-what-it-doesnt-10-points-from-supreme-court-verdict/823334/
5. https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/privacy-vs-public-interest/269664
6. http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l191-Retrospective-Operations-Of-
Criminal-Law.html.

5
COMMENTARIES AND DIGEST

1. Bryan .A. Garner, Black Law Dictionary, (8th Edn. 2004)

2. Durga Das Basu, Commentary on Constitution of India, (8th Edn. 2012)

3. H.M Seervai, Constitutional Law, (4th Edn.)

4. M.P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, (6th Edition, 2013)

5. V.N Shukla, Constitution of India (13th Edn. 2016)

6
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner humbly submits before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this memorandum of the
present writ lies under Article 32 of the Constitution of Westeros. The Petitioner submits this
memorial which sets forth the facts & the laws on which the claims are based. All the parties
shall accept any judgment of the court as final and binding upon them and shall execute it, in
its entirety and in good faith.

Art. 32 Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part -

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

(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs
in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo 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

7
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

-Introduction to Democratic Republic of Westeros-

 The present case has come up in The Democratic Republic of Westeros (hereinafter
referred to as Westeros) the Constitution of which is pari materia with the
Constitution of India, 1951. The Constitution of Westeros mandates constitutional
supremacy over parliamentary supremacy
 Westeros consists of 10 states and 1 National Capital Territory (Oldtown) and has its
90% population following “Faith Of First Man” (FOFM), 8% of population praying
to R’hollor the lord of light, while the balance 2% follow a number of minor religions
based on paganism.
-Incident of Ms Sansa Stark-
 In 2015, Ms Sansa Stark, a child of 14 years, who was a resident of a suburb of
Oldtown, was reported to be missing. After nearly 2 days, Sansa’s body was found
buried in a field about 15 kms from her home. On further investigation, it was found
that Sansa had been brutally beaten, molested, raped, sodomised before being
murdered. The police arrested Mr. Ramsay Bolton within 10 days in connection with
the rape and murder of Ms Sansa Stark.
 Following the incident the leading daily newspaper “The Raven” circulated a report
that Mr. Ramsay Bolton had been convicted of sexually molesting a minor in the past
and had served a five year sentence in prison followed by other media houses. The
Raven published a report stating that about 65% of the convicted sex offenders were
being followers of “R’hollor”.
-Action taken by the Government-
 This lead to major public outrage and demand for stringent action against sexual
offenders cropped up. Accordingly The Government of the day, considering the
protests introduced a public notification statute by way of an ordinance named
“Sexual Offenders Disclosure Act, 2018”, commonly known as Sansa’s Law with
retrospective application.
-Enactment of Sansa’s Law and its provisions-
 The said Law was passed to enable parents and guardians of children under the age of
18 years to ask law enforcement authorities to provide them with information
regarding persons residing in their locality who have a criminal record of child sexual

8
 offences, whereby a written application can be filed by enquirer to the enforcement
authority for discloser of such information
 It contained a clause which states that the person who receives such information is
required to sign a nondisclosure form stating that the information would not be
disclosed to any third party.
-Guidelines laid down by Sansa’s Law-
 According a Reviewing Committee was formed and a three-tire ranking system based
on the gravity of the offence for which the person is convicted and had the likelihood
to commit the offence again was kept where their personal information and biological
data was stored for 15 years, 25 years or for entire lifetime owing to the possessed
danger rank group i.e. low, moderate and habitual/violent offenders. It also laid down
various other guidelines.
-Effect of Sansa’s Law on Mr Roose Bolton-
 Mr. Roose Bolton, a resident of Sunspear, a city located in the state of Dorne was a
janitor at the local hospital. Mr. Roose Bolton had been previously convicted of
possessing child pornography and had been convicted under the “Prevention of
Sexual Offences against Children Act, 2013” and had served a prison sentence of
three years in the past.
 After the passage of Sansa’s Law, Mr Roose Bolton registered with the local police
station within the stipulated period. Subsequently he felt that he was being ostracized
by the management and other staff members of the hospital. After some time he was
fired from his job by the hospital on the grounds of non-performance.
 Mr Roose Bolton termination was followed by brutal beating from some unknown
assailants and he suspects that they were none other than his former colleagues and
the treatment was a direct result of his registration under Sansa’s Law.
-Filing of Present Petition-
 Being aggrieved by the provisions of Sansa’s Law, Mr Bolton approached the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of Westeros under Article 32 of the Constitution of Westeros
challenging the constitutional validity of Sansa’s Law.
 The matter has been admitted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and notice has been
issued to the Union of Westeros. All pleadings have been completed and the matter is
listed for final hearing.
 Hence, the present petition.

9
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE 1

1. WHETHER THE VALIDITY OF SUCH AN ORDINANCE BE QUESTIONED

IN A PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION?

ISSUE 2

2. WHETHER AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT MADE BY AN AUTHORITY

UNDER A CRIMINAL STATUTE WHICH IS INTRA VIRES OPEN TO
CHALLENGE AS REPUGNANT TO ARTICLE 21 ON THE GROUND THAT
IT IS BASED ON A MISCONSTRUCTION OF A PROVISION OF THE ACT
OR OF A NOTIFICATION ISSUED THERE UNDER?

ISSUE 3

3. WHETHER MR ROOSE BOLTON’S RIGHT TO PRIVACY HAS BEEN

BREACHED?

ISSUE 4

4. WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF SANSA’S LAW ARE ARBITRARY IN

NATURE?

10
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1

WHETHER THE VALIDITY OF SUCH AN ORDINANCE BE QUESTIONED IN A

PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION?

It is humbly submitted that the present petition is not maintainable under article 32 of the
Constitution of India as the provision clearly specifies intelligible differentia and Art. 15 (3)
of the Constitution allows the legislature to make laws for the benefit of women and children.
The present petitioner does not have the locus to file the present writ petition against Sansa’s
law because it’s made for the public interest and welfare of the society.

ISSUE 2

WHETHER AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT MADE BY AN AUTHORITY UNDER A

CRIMINAL STATUTE WHICH IS INTRA VIRES OPEN TO CHALLENGE AS
REPUGNANT TO ARTICLE 21 ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS BASED ON A
MISCONSTRUCTION OF A PROVISION OF THE ACT OR OF A NOTIFICATION
ISSUED THERE UNDER?

It is humbly submitted that the Sansa’s law is made for the interest of public at large and it
can be seen that the retrospective effect of the law is justified keeping in mind the intention of
the legislator before making such a law. It is well known that Sansa’s law is made to ensure
the safety of children in the society against sexual offences. Amending a criminal law
depends on the rational link between the issue at hand and the legislature’s stated goal of
protecting the public from the high risk of recidivism.

ISSUE 3

WHETHER MR ROOSE BOLTON’S RIGHT TO PRIVACY HAS BEEN

BREACHED?

It is humbly submitted that Mr. Roose Bolton’s invasion of right to privacy is justified
keeping in mind the public interest and keeping a record of his personal data is for the
welfare of the society. The invasion of right to privacy is fair, just and reasonable. There is no
discrimination done on the basis of the law and it applies to each and every individual who
falls within the bracket of this law.

11
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 4

WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF SANSA’S LAW ARE ARBITRARY?

It is humbly submitted that Sansa’s law is not arbitrary as it fulfils the criteria of rational
nexus and intelligible differentia. It has been mentioned that the law has been made for the
benefit of the women and children of the society. Also, Art. 15 (3) of the Constitution states
that nothing can prevent the state from making any law for the welfare of women and
children.

12
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1- WHETHER THE VALIDITY OF SUCH AN ORDINANCE CAN BE

QUESTIONED IN A PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE INDIAN
CONSTITUTION?

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Westeros (hereinafter

referred as Hon’ble SC) that the writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 32
(Art 32.) of the Constitution of Westeros (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution),
which is pari materia to the Constitution of India.1
2. It is humbly submitted that the present petition is not maintainable on the grounds of
Art.14 of the constitution as it clearly specifies the provision of intelligible differentia
which allows the legislation to pass laws for the benefit of women and children as
mentioned in Art 15 (3) of the Constitution.2
1.1) Whether the petitioner has the locus standi to file the present Writ petition?
3. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble SC that the present petition is filed to
challenge the Sansa’s law which has been brought in by the legislature to protect the
minor girls who are vulnerable to the sexual offences and hence is not maintainable as
this law is a step taken by the government in order to protect the interest of this
vulnerable section of society.
4. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble SC that the present petition is also not
maintainable on the ground that the petitioner has not exhausted all its remedies
available under the Constitution and has directly approached the Hon’ble SC for
enforcement of his fundamental rights.
5. The counsel would like to reiterate some facts of the present case, the government had
come up with the Sexual Offenders Disclosure Act, 2018 commonly known as
Sansa’s law to protect the minor children under the age of 18 years and enable parents
and guardian of such children to obtain information about the past offender who are
present in their locality.3

1
Const. of India, 1950.
2
Supra note 1
3
Para. 9 of the Fact sheet

13
 6. It is humbly submitted that this was done to protect the interest of such minor children
and their concerned parents with the advent of instances of rape of minor children
coming to light in the society with the incident of Ms Sansa Stark in 2015.
7. In the case of Doe v. Alaska Department of Public Safety4 the petitioner was a
previously convicted sexual offender and under the Alaska Sexual Offender
Registration Act (ASORA) had to register himself with the public safety department
annually, however this procedure was changed and offenders had to register quarterly,
the petitioner in this case challenged it before the SC of Alaska as violation of his
fundamental rights. However the SC in this matter held that the petitioner (Doe) must
register under ASORA.
8. In the present case we can see similar facts wherein Mr Roose Bolton (the petitioner)
has filed a writ for mandamus as against the loss of job and harassment faced by him.
However the counsel would like to bring to the notice of the Hon’ble court the fact
that the provision in the law was enacted to protect the interest of the children under
the age of 18 years which is well defined in Art 15 (3) of the Constitution5 which
enable the legislation to make laws for the betterment of women and children.
9. In the case of Smith v. Doe6 the New York court held that even after a person is
acquitted from the accusation can be compelled to register under New York's Sex
Offender Registration Act (SORA), as the alleged crime to figure in a defendant's risk
level even when there is not enough evidence for a guilty verdict.
10. In the present case it is therefore requested that the petition is not maintainable as the
petitioner had already been convicted for possessing child porn material and hence
can possess the risk to the society.
11. It is humbly submitted that the law is not punitive in nature; however it is only a form
of ensuring public safety especially of the minor children from such offences and does
not infringing the right of Mr Roose Bolton as he has approached the Hon’ble SC
with unclean hands and hence the present petition is not maintainable.
12. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh (M.P) V. Mandawara7 The applicant must
have the right to compel the performance of some duty case upon the authority.
Mandamus will not be issued if the duty is merely discretionary in nature.

4
Doe v. Alaska Department of Public Safety, 92 P.3d 398
5
Indian Const. 1950.
6
Smith v. Doe, 538 US 84 (1999)
7
State of Madhya Pradesh (M.P) V. Mandawara, AIR 1954 SC 493

14
 13. The Supreme Court rejected the plea to compel the Government to direct the payment
of dearness allowance to its employees at a particular rate.
14. In the present case it can be seen that the legislation is merely using its discretionary
power to protect the children from the sexual offences and the register is the means of
implementing such laws effectively.
15. In the case of Choteylal v. State of U.P.8 Mandamus will not issue to a legislature to
forbid it from passing legislation repugnant to the fundamental rights.
16. Veerappa Pillai v. Raman Rtimin Ltd9 it was held that the courts are duty bound to
protect the fundamental rights and therefore mandamus is issued. It is only when
mandamus is issued "for any other purpose" that the existence of an alternate remedy
bars its issuance.
17. In the present case the counsel pleads that as the petitioner has not exhausted all his
remedies i.e. the petitioner directly approached the SC without approaching the High
Court (HC).
18. Therefore it is humbly submitted that the petitioner does not have the locus to file the
present petition as the provision clearly specifies intelligible differentia and Art. 15
(3) of the Constitution10 allows the legislature to make laws for the benefit of women
and children. The present petitioner does not have the locus to file the present writ
petition against Sansa’s law because it’s made for the public interest and welfare of
the society

8
Choteylal v. State of U.P, AlR. 1951 All 228
9
Veerappa Pillai v. Raman Rtimin Ltd, AIR. 1952 S.C. 192: (1952) SCR 583
10
Const. of India, 1950.

15
ISSUE 2: WHETHER AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT MADE BY AN AUTHORITY
UNDER A CRIMINAL STATUTE WHICH IS INTRA VIRES OPEN TO
CHALLENGE AS REPUGNANT TO ARTICLE 21 ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS
BASED ON A MISCONSTRUCTION OF A PROVISION OF THE ACT OR OF A
NOTIFICATION ISSUED THERE UNDER?

1. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble SC that the notification issued by the
Government (Govt.) under the Sansa’s law is in the interest of the public at large and is a
method to ensure safety of minor children in the society. It can be seen that retrospective
application of such laws is justified as it is the past record of such offenders which will
help the Govt. to achieve its aim.

2.1) Whether Sansa’s law is infringing the Fundamental Rights of individuals who have
completed their sentence?

2. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble SC that the Sansa’s law is enforced to ensure
the safety of children in the society against sexual offences and thus it is of utmost
importance that the data of such offenders is made available to the relevant authorities
and the concerned parents or guardians.
3. In the case of Flemming v. Nestor11 it was held that where a legislative restriction is an
incident of the state’s power to protect the public health and safety, it will be considered
as evidencing intent to exercise that regulatory power and not a purpose to add to the
punishment.
4. In the present case it can be seen that the government is only exercising its regulatory
authority in order to protect the public safety and not imposing unjust regulations on such
offenders as it is the data which will ultimately help the Govt. to track down these
offenders.

11
Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960)

16
5. It is further stated that the enforcement of Sansa’s law is not creating any new penalties
on the sexual offenders rather it is a preventive measure taken by the Govt. in order to
protect the vulnerable sections of the society.
6. It is further stated that Art 21 of the Constitution12 provides the necessary protection
against the ex post facto law. It has two parts: no person is to be convicted of an offence
except for violating a law in “force” at the time of the commission of the act charged as
an offence. A person is to be convicted for violating a law in force, when the act charged
is committed. A law enacted later making an act done earlier as an offence, will not make
the person liable for being convicted under it.13
7. It is humbly submitted that Mr Roose Bolton is being registered under the Sansa law for
the protection of women from any further sexual offences that might pose a threat to their
life as well as dignity. It is basically for the welfare of the women and children who are a
vulnerable group to stay in a protected environment.
8. It is humbly submitted that this law is not exposing Mr Roose Bolton to any further
punishment from the state but merely asking him to give his details for security purposes,
so that he could be prevented from committing any heinous crime such as Rape if his
mind tends to flip towards his past crime of possessing child pornography.
9. In the case of, Kharak Singh v. State of U.P14 the majority were unreceptive to the idea
of recognizing a right to privacy and dismissed the claim on the ground that there could
be no fundamental right to protect “mere personal sensitiveness”. Their view was based
on the conclusion that the infringement of a fundamental right must be both direct as well
as tangible and that the freedom guaranteed under Article 19(1) (a) 15was not infringed by
a watch being kept over the movements of a suspect.
10. Sansa’s law is not infringing the fundamental rights of the individuals who have
completed their conviction as only their data has been kept with the State for the welfare
of the women and children. There is an exception to Art 2116 that if a law is made for the
benefit of women and children it won’t lead to infringement of fundamental rights.
11. The question here is whether a State interest is of such a paramount importance as would
justify an infringement of the right. Obviously, if the enforcement of morality were held
to be a compelling as well as permissible State interest, the characterization of a claimed

12
Constitution of India, 1950
13
Kanaiyalal v Indumati, AIR 1958 SC 444
14
Kharak Singh v. State of U.P, AIR 1963 SC 1295
15
Supra11
16
Supra11

17
 right as a fundamental privacy would be of far less significance. The question whether
enforcement of morality is a State interest sufficient to justify the infringement of a
fundamental privacy need not be considered for the purpose of the present case.
12. In the case of Smith v. Doe17, the Court held that the registration and public notification
provisions of Alaska’s SORA didn’t constitute ex post facto imposition of punishment
because they were not “punitive,” but rather “regulatory”: “clearly intended as a civil,
non-punitive means of identifying previous offenders for the protection of the public.”
13. The “stigma and adverse community reactions” that could result from registration did not
render the Act punitive because “the dissemination of the registration information, which
was largely a matter of public record, did not constitute the imposition of any significant
affirmative disability or restraint.”18
14. Privacy primarily concerns the individual. It therefore relates to and overlaps with the
concept of liberty. Privacy interest in autonomy must also be laced in the context of other
rights and values. The right to privacy in any event has to go through a process of case-
by-case development. Depending upon the character and antecedents of the person
subjected to surveillance as also the objects and the limitation under which surveillance is
made, it cannot be said surveillance by domiciliary visits would always be unreasonable
restriction upon the right of privacy. Assuming that fundamental rights explicitly
guaranteed to a citizen have penumbral zones and that the right to privacy is itself a
fundamental right, that fundamental right must be subject to restriction on the basis of
compelling public interest.
15. Regulation 855 empowers surveillance only of persons against whom reasonable material
exists to induce the opinion that they show ‘a determination, to lead a life of crime’-
crime in this context being confined to such as involve public peace or security only and
if they are dangerous security risks. Mere convictions in criminal cases where nothing
gravely imperilling the safety of society is involved cannot be regarded as warranting
surveillance under this regulation. Similarly, domiciliary visits and picketing by the
police should be reduced to the clearest cases of danger to community security.19

17
Smith v. Doe, 538 US 84 (1999)
18
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/09/07/sex-offender-laws-and-the-6th-
circuits-ex-post-facto-clause-ruling/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8308ec027e22
19
26 NLSI Rev 127 (2014), State Surveillance and the Right to Privacy in India: A Constitutional Biography by
Gautam Bhatia

18
16. S. & Marper v. The United Kingdom20 decided by the European Court of Human Rights
which held that holding DNA samples of individuals arrested but who are later acquitted
or have the charges against them dropped is a violation of the right to privacy under the
European Convention on Human Rights. However, an exception exists for the authorities
to retain samples if the individual is suspected of certain sexual or violent offences
(Retention Guidelines for Nominal Records on the Police National Computer 2006).
17. Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe21 was a United States Supreme Court case
regarding the constitutionality of the Connecticut Sex Offender registration requirement
which required public disclosure of information on sex offenders after they had been
released from incarceration. In a unanimous opinion, the Second Circuit Court’s
judgment was reversed on the basis that due process of law does not require the
opportunity to prove a fact that is not material to the State’s statutory scheme. Injury to
reputation in itself, even if defamatory, does not constitute deprivation of liberty.
18. Smith v. Doe22 was a court case in the United States which questioned the
constitutionality of Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act’s retrospective requirement.
Supreme Court held that because the Alaska Sex Offenders Registration Act is non-
punitive and its retroactive violation does not violate the ex post facto clause.
19. In Stanley v. Georgia23, Stanley was found with three reels of pornographic material in
his house and later was charged with possession of obscene materials, a crime under
Georgia law. The conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court of Georgia. The right to
privacy to pornography is not absolute.
20. It is humbly submitted that the petitioner was in possession of child pornographic
material for which he had registered under the sansa’s law to the local police authorities.
Thus, the petitioner claim of his right to privacy being infringed does not stand strong as
he might possess further risk to the society.
21. In Osborne v. Ohio24, the Supreme Court upheld a law which criminalized the mere
possession of child pornography. The Court held that by outlawing the possession of child
pornography the government seeks to eradicate legitimate harms by discriminating the
market for child pornography. These harms include the psychological damage to children.

20
S. & Marper v. The United Kingdom, (2008) ECHR 1581
21
Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe 538 U.S. 1 (2003)
22
Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (2003)
23
Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557
24
Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103 (1990)

19
22. It is humbly submitted that the steps taken by the Govt. are justified as they seek to
eradicate legitimate harms caused to the society. In the present case the petitioner is in
possession of child pornographic material and may possess the risk in future.
23. Child pornography is considered a crime in India. Information and Technology Act, 2000
and Indian Penal Code, 1860 provides protection to children from child pornography.
Child is a person below 18 years and the I.T. Bill was passed in February, 2009 which
made production, creation and transmission of child pornography illegal and punishable.25
24. It is humbly submitted that the petitioner was in possession of child porn material in the
past which is illegal and punishable under the I.T, Act. The Constitution provides that the
authorities have a right to receive information from an individual if they are contrary to
public interest.
2.2 Whether criminal laws can be implemented with retrospective effect?
1. It is humbly submitted that the Sansa’s law is applied retrospectively in order to fulfil the
purpose of this law as its implementation can be effectively done only when there is a
proper data base of all offenders available with the enforcement authorities.
2. In the case of State of Louisiana v. Trosclair26 the Supreme Court found that the state
appellate court had "placed disproportionate value under the Mendoza-Martinez
framework on the punitive aspects of supervision, which is traditionally considered to be
a lenient form of punishment, and insufficient value on the rational link between the
[statute] at issue and the legislature's stated goal of protecting the public from the high
risk of recidivism."
3. The Court concluded in its decision that "we find the provisions at issue here are
predominantly non- punitive in both intent and effect, and their retroactive application to
this defendant does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clauses of either the United States or
Louisiana Constitutions." Hence, Trosclair was required to be placed on lifelong
community supervision.
4. It is stated that in order to protect the vulnerable group of society i.e. the children from
the menace of sexual exploitation the Govt. has come up with the prospect od maintain a
register for data base in order to keep a check on risk of recidivism

25
Child pornography :A Nuisance by Vinod Kumar and Priya Nagpal
26
State of Louisiana v. Trosclair, 89 So. 3d 340 (La. 2012)

20
5. It is further stated that Art 15 (3)27 recognises the fact that women in India have been
socially and economically handicapped for centuries and as a result thereof, they cannot
fully participate in the socio economic activities of the nation on a footing of equality.
6. The purpose of art.15 (3) is to eliminate this socio economic backwardness of women and
to empower them in such a manner as to bring about effective equality between men and
women. The object of Art 15 (3) of the constitution is to strengthen and improve the
status of women.
7. In the decision of the House of Lords in Shaw v. Director of Public Prosecutions 28in 1961
and the Commonwealth's "bottom of the harbour" tax legislation of 1982. In each case,
the actions of the defendants were considered so morally repugnant that the principle of
non-retroactivity was relaxed so as to allow them to be punished.
8. These examples differ in the extent to which the retrospective aspect of each has been
accepted: the Nazis tried at Nuremberg are generally said to have been adjudged fairly;
the decision in Shaw's case has been criticized widely; and the "bottom of the harbour"
tax legislation has attracted both critics and champions.
9. The fundamental question raised by these three examples is this: is the right to protection
from retroactive criminal law an absolute human right, or should its application be
qualified by reference to the circumstances in each case? Despite the criticism that these
examples provoked, none of them could easily be characterized as a miscarriage of
justice.
10. It is humbly submitted that in each instance, the defendants were punished for committing
acts which were not criminal at the time that they committed those acts: they were found
guilty retrospectively. Clearly, then, the right to protection from retroactive criminal law
is not an absolute human right but it is a qualified human right.
11. Retrospective operation is an inaccurate term and opens to various interpretations. The
best instances of retrospective laws are those in which the date of commencement is
earlier than the enactment or which validates some invalid law; otherwise every states
effects rights which would have been in existence but for the statute.29
12. It is humbly submitted that in the case of Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan 30 it was held that
when a female employee’s grievance was a writing of a sensuous letter expressing love to
her, admiring her qualities and beauty, and extending unsolicited help, it was held that

27
Const. of India, 1950
28
Shaw v. Director of Public Prosecutions, 323 F.3d 1198,2003
29
http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l191-Retrospective-Operations-Of-Criminal-Law.html
30
Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011

21
 female employees grievance ought to be looked according to the directions given in this
Case.
13. It is humbly submitted that, an ex post facto law is one that provides for punishment for
an act that was not punishable when it was committed or that imposes an additional
punishment to that in effect at the time the act was committed.
14. In comparison, a law retrospective in its operation is “one which creates a new obligation,
imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability with respect to transactions or
considerations already past. It must give to something already done a different effect from
that which it had when the act transpired.”
15. In Falter v. United States31, a case involving the extension of a limitation period for an
unexpired statute, Judge Learned Hand opined that "certainly it is one thing to revive a
prosecution already dead, and another to give it a longer lease of life."' 2 ' Thus, "the
question turns upon how much violence is done to our instinctive feelings of justice and
fair play., 22
16. In Beazell v. Ohio32, Justice Stone wrote: It is settled, by decisions of this court ... that
any statute which punishes as a crime an act previously committed, which was innocent
when done; which makes more burdensome the punishment for a crime, after its
commission, or which deprives one charged with crime of any defence available
according to law at the time when the act was committed, is prohibited as ex post facto.
17. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that Sansa’s Law is not violative of petitioner’s
fundamental rights, but an initiative to protect public interest and it can be seen that the
retrospective effect of the law is justified keeping in mind the intention of the legislator
before making such a law.

31
Falter v. United States, 23 F. 2d 420
32
Beazell v. Ohio, 269 U.S. 167 (1925)

22
ISSUE 3 WHETHER MR ROOSE BOLTON’S RIGHT TO PRIVACY HAS BEEN
BREACHED?

1. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble SC that in the present case the privacy of
Mr Roose Bolton is being encroached upon for avoiding the greater harm that is being
prohibited by Sansa law. It is for the benefit of women and children that a track record
of sexual offenders or closely related to the same is being tapped down according to
this law.
2. In the context of Art 21 of the Constitution33, an invasion of privacy must be justified
on the basis of a law which stipulates a procedure which is fair, just and reasonable.34
Similarly in this case as well Mr Roose Bolton is being registered because he was
convicted for possessing child pornography and this law applies to all the people who
have been convicted of sexual offences or related offences in the past. There is no
discrimination being done on the basis of this law. It applies to each and every
individual who falls within the bracket of this law.

3. In the case of John Doe v. Alaska, Department of Public Safety35 The Alaska
Supreme Court concluded ASORA’s registration requirements could constitutionally
be applied to out-of-state offenders. The Court also concluded ASORA violated due
process, but its defect could be cured by providing a procedure for offenders to
establish their non-dangerousness.

4. Moreover according to the Supreme Court, a law which encroaches upon privacy will
have to withstand the touchstone of permissible restrictions on fundamental rights.The
law must also be valid with reference to the encroachment on life and personal liberty
under Art 21 of the Constitution36.
5. An invasion of life or personal liberty must meet the three-fold requirement of (i)
legality, which postulates the existence of law; (ii) need, defined in terms of a
legitimate state aim; and (iii) proportionality which ensures a rational nexus between
the objects and the means adopted to achieve them.
6. According to the above stated three fold requirements, Sansa law qualifies all the
three this is because according to the facts this law has been approved by the

33
Const. of India, 1950.
34
https://www.financialexpress.com/india-news/what-fundamental-right-to-privacy-means-and-what-it-doesnt-
10-points-from-supreme-court-verdict/823334/
35
John Doe v. Alaska, Department of Public Safety, 92 P.3d 398
36
Supra8

23
 government of the day. Its need has been clearly defined stating that it has been
passed to enable parents and guardians of children under the age of 18 years to ask
law enforcement authorities to provide them information regarding persons residing in
their locality who have a criminal record of child sexual offences so that they could
ensure a secure environment for their children who might be at risk from these
convicts.
7. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble SC that there is clearly a rational nexus
between the object and the means taken achieve the same as no random person is
being asked by this law to register under this statute but only people who have a past
criminal record so that the reviewing committee would rank these convicts of sexual
offences against minors into a three-tiered ranking system. This ranking is done on the
basis of the gravity of the crime committed by the person who was convicted and his
near possibility of committing that crime again in the future.
8. It is humbly submitted that Art.2137 of the constitution provides the necessary
protection against the ex post facto law. It has two parts: no person is to be convicted
of an offence except for violating a law in “force” at the time of the commission of
the act charged as an offence. A person is to be convicted for violating a law in force,
when the act charged is committed. A law enacted later making an act done earlier as
an offence, will not make the person liable for being convicted under it.38
9. Mr Roose Bolton is being registered under the Sansa law for the protection of women
from any further sexual offences that might pose a threat to their life as well as
dignity. It is basically for the welfare of the women and children who are a vulnerable
group to stay in a protected environment.
10. This law is not exposing Mr Roose Bolton to any further punishment from the state
but merely asking him to give his details for security purposes, so that he could be
prevented from committing any heinous crime such as Rape if his mind tends to flip
towards his past crime of possessing child pornography.
11. In the case of Ratan Tata v. State of Maharashtra39 invasion of privacy filed a writ
petition before the Supreme Court of India alleging that the unauthorised publication
of his private conversations with Nusli Wadia was in violation of his right to privacy.
The writ, filed by the industrialist, did not challenge the action of the Directorate-

37
Const. of India, 1950.
38
Kanaiyalal v Indumati, AIR 1958 SC 444
39
Ratan Tata v. State of Maharashtra, WP No 1238 of 2019

24
 General of Income Tax to record the private conversations for the purpose of
investigations. It was challenging the publication of the private conversations that
took place between the industrialist and Nusli Wadia by the media.
12. It is humbly submitted that the petitioner registration with the local police authorities
is not in violation of his fundamental rights as it is for the purpose of future
investigation in case if any incident which might occur in future.
13. In the case of Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India,40 P.
Venkatarama Reddy J. observed: By calling upon the contesting candidates to
disclose the assets and liabilities of his/her spouse, the fundamental right to
information of a voter citizen is thereby promoted, when there is a competition
between the right to privacy of an individual and the right to information of the
citizens, the former right has to be subordinated to the latter right as it serves larger
public interest.
14. It is humbly submitted that in the present case the petitioner right to privacy i.e.
confining his personal information will take subsequent position with respect to right
to information of the citizen i.e. to be aware of such offenders, as there is a larger
public interest involved in the latter right.
15. It is humbly submitted that if a privacy interest in nondisclosure exists, the public
interest in disclosure, if any, is weighed against that privacy interest. Even if the
interest in protecting privacy is substantial, the importance of the public interest must
still be considered because unless the invasion of privacy is clearly unwarranted, the
public interest in disclosure must prevail.41
16. It is humbly submitted that the right to privacy is available against the disclosure of
information about private or personal life of the public or private person. Protection
under privacy cannot be extended to criminal activities, conspiracies and attempts to
manipulate political and governance related policies. Disclosure of Public information
in the hands of Government is matter of state duty and right of citizen. (Right to know
as part of right to life and Right to Information Act, 2005)42
17. It is humbly submitted that the protection for private information from disclosure is
not available if there is overwhelming public interest in disclosure. Overweighing
public interest in non-disclosure should be proved for not considering public interest

40
Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India, (1997) 1 SCC 301.
41
https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/privacy-vs-public-interest/269664
42
ibid

25
 in disclosure. In such conflicts privacy is not prime concern. If a privacy interest in
nondisclosure exists, the public interest in disclosure, if any, is weighed against the
privacy interest.43
18. It is humbly submitted that any information that is being shared in the interest of the
public or for the benefit of the public is not weighed along the lines of encroaching a
person’s right to privacy. Even if the interest in protecting privacy is substantial, the
importance of the public interest must still be considered because, unless the invasion
of privacy is clearly unwarranted, the public interest in disclosure must prevail.
19. It is humbly submitted that while effectively finding a right to privacy in the
constitution, the court expressly declined to frame it that way. In examining police
action which involved tracking a person’s location, association and movements, the
court held it, holding that “the right of privacy is not a guaranteed right under our
constitution and therefore the attempt to ascertain the movements of an individual
which is merely a manner in which privacy is invaded is not an infringement of
fundamental right guaranteed by part III.”44
20. In Govind v. State of M.P.45 which marks the watershed moment for Indian privacy
law in the Constitution, the Court found that the Regulations did have statutory
backing and Section 46(2) (c) of the Police Act46, which allowed State government to
make notifications giving effect to the provisions of the act, one of which was the
prevention of commission of offences. The surveillance provisions in the impugned
regulations, according to the court, were indeed for the purpose of preventing
offences, since they were specifically aimed at repeat offenders. To that extent, then,
the court found that there existed a valid ‘Law’ for the purposes of Art 19 and Art 21
of the constitution.47
21. In united states the court examined the grounds for limiting the right to privacy and it
held “ assuming that the fundamental rights explicitly guaranteed to a citizen have
penumbral zones and that the right to privacy itself a fundamental right, that
fundamental right must be subject to restriction on the basis of compelling public
interest.”48

43
ibid
44
Kharak Singh AIR, 1963 SC 1295
45
Govind v. State of M.P, (1975) 2 SCC 148
46
S. 46(2) (c), Police Act, 1861.
47
Const. of India, 1950.
48
(1975) 2 SCC 148, 157

26
 22. “Compelling state interest” is for public interest which is a ground for fundamental
rights restriction and it suggests a stricter standard of review for an Art 21 privacy
violation than Art 19 violation, the Court ended by observing that “a law imposing
reasonable restrictions upon it for a compelling interest of state must be upheld as
valid”49
23. In the case of Stanley v. Georgia,50 The Georgia home of Robert Eli Stanley, a
suspected and previously convicted bookmaker, was searched by police with a federal
warrant to seize betting paraphernalia. They found none, but instead seized three reels
of pornographic material from a desk drawer in an upstairs bedroom, and later
charged Mr Stanley with the possession of obscene materials, a crime under Georgia
law. The conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court of Georgia.
24. It is humbly submitted that in the present case Mr Roose Bolton was in possession of
child porn material and hence there was a valid ground for his registration with local
police authorities as he may possess risk in future. Thus the steps taken by the Govt.
can be said to be reactive to the incident of Ms Sansa’s Stark.
25. In the case of Osborne v. Ohio51 the Supreme Court upheld a law which criminalized
the mere possession of child pornography. "Given the importance of the State's
interest in protecting the victims of child pornography, we cannot fault Ohio for
attempting to stamp out this vice at all levels in the distribution chain."
26. In Malak Singh v. State of P&H52 the constitutionality of police powers of
surveillance, under the Police Act and the Punjab Police Rules was challenged. The
Court upheld the regulations that authorised surveillance for the prevention of crime
and justified the maintenance of “history sheets” and surveillance registers as
confidential documents. It did observe that surveillance of persons who did not fall
within the category mentioned under the impugned regulation, or for reasons
unconnected with prevention of crime or excessive surveillance would entitle a citizen
to the protection of the Court. But the law on privacy was taken no further.
27. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that said restriction is not violative of article 21 of
the Constitution as they serve larger public interest.
28.

49
Supra.
50
Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969)
51
Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103 (1990)
52
Malak Singh v. State of P&H, (1981) 1 SCC 420

27
ISSUE 4: WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF SANSA’S LAW ARE ARBITRARY?

1. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble SC that the Sansa’s law is not arbitrary as it
fulfils the criteria of reasonable classification and intelligible differentia under Art. 14
of the constitution53. Also the intention of the legislature was not to infringe any
fundamental right of the individuals of the society but to protect the women and
children of that society.
2. It is humbly submitted by the counsel that the rule of law mentioned under Art 14 of
the constitution54 has a number of exceptions and ‘equality before law’ does not
means that the powers of the private citizens are the same as the powers of the public
officials, this is no violation of constitutional law as a police official has the power to
arrest while no private person has this power. In the present case also if police is
given some right then it does not lead to violation of fundamental right and it’s an
exception to it.
3. It is humbly stated that the mentioned law has been made for the benefit of the women
and children of the society and there is a reasonable nexus and intelligible differentia
given by the State for making such a law, that by making such guidelines and keeping
the record of previous rape convicts it’s going to be easier for the government to find
out the actual culprit and it’ll be time saving as well. Also, the records of convicts
being kept with the government is going to maintain some fear in the minds of
convicts before committing such a crime again that they can be caught easily.
4. Article 15 (3) of the Constitution55 states that: It is one of the exception which says
that nothing in Article 15 shall prevent the state from making any special provision
for women and children. Women and children require special treatment on account of
their very nature. Article 15 (3) of the Constitution56 empowers the state to make
special provisions for them.
5. It is further stated that the reason is that “women’s physical structure and the
performance of material functions place her at a disadvantage in the struggle for
subsistence and her physical well-being becomes an object of public interest and care
in order to preserve the strength and vigour of the race. Like, it would not be violation
of Article 15 if educational institutions are established by the State exclusively for

53
Const. of India, 1950.
54
Supra50
55
Supra50
56
Supra50

28
 women. The reservation of seats for women in a college does not offend against
Article 15(1) of the Constitution57.
6. In Anjali Roy v. State of West Bengal58, it was held Article 15(3) provides for only
special provisions for the benefit of women and children and does not require that
absolutely identical treatment as those enjoyed by males in similar matters must be
afforded to them. Therefore, in the present case also if the guidelines are made for the
benefit of women and children it is considered a valid law and it won’t be considered
arbitrary neither unequal it is said in law that there should be equality between equals
and inequality between unequal.
7. It is humbly submitted that in the present case it is seen that the steps taken by the
Govt. are aligned to the aim of protecting the children who are vulnerable to such
sexual offences and there is a clear distinction between such offenders and other male
members of the society.
8. In Permjit Singh v. State of Punjab59 , it was held that if a seat is reserved for
scheduled caste then both women and men can contest for elections belonging to that
category. Women cannot be discriminated on the basis that she had been a Panch and
cannot stand for the election of sarpanch from the reserved seat of the said category
(women). Such a position would be violation of Article 15 of the Constitution 60which
prohibits discrimination of sex. These are some of the reasons why women needs to
be protected and such guidelines like Sansa’s law are made for the protection of
women and children.
9. The Supreme Court in the case of UOI V. MV V Valliappan 61 has observed “it is
settled law that differentiation is not always discriminatory. If there is a rational nexus
on the basis of which differentiation has been made with the object sought to be
achieved by particular provision, then such differentiation is not discriminatory and
does not violate the principles of article 14 of the constitution.”
10. Existence of power does not mean to give one on his mere asking. The entrustment of
such power is only for the public good and for the public cause. While exercising such
power the authority keeps in mind the purpose and the policy of the act. So, every

57
Supra50
58
Anjali Roy v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1952 Cal 825
59
Permjit Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 209 P&H 7
60
Supra50
61
UOI V. MV V Valliappan, (1999) 6 SCC 259

29
 time the government exercises its powers it has to examine and balance before
exercising such a power.
11. Every individual right including fundamental right is within reasonable limit but if it
makes inroads into public rights leading to public inconvenience it has to be curtailed
to that extend. Thus, whenever any power is exercised, the government must keep in
mind, whenever such a grant would recoil on the public or not and to what extent. 62

12. In the case of Asokan v. State of Kerala63, the Abkari Act (1 of 1077) is the legislation
which consolidates and amends the law relating to the import, export, transport,
manufacture, sale and possession of intoxicating liquor and intoxicating drugs in the
State of Kerala. Sale of arrack (an item of liquor) was prohibited with effect from
1.4.1996 and all arrack shops were closed from 1.4.1996.

13. There was no auction of arrack shops from 1.4.1996. In spite of the serious steps
taken by the authorities under the Act, manufacture and sale of illicit arrack were
rampant. It was also found that other forms of liquor were adulterated and sold. This
resulted in many tragedies. Often it was the poor section of the population who fell
prey to such spurious liquor. An ordinance was passed and all offences under the act
were made cognizable, the punishments were increased and the bail conditions were
made more stringent.

14. The petitioners contented that the said ordinance is arbitrary and vague. The
respondents said that the intention of the legislature should be kept in mind and the
said ordinance was passed in the interest of the public. The Court after considering the
arguments of both the parties dismissed the petition stating that they did not find any
merit in the case. There was a valid intelligent differentia and reasonable nexus given
by the court.

15. It is humbly submitted that in the present case it can be seen that despite the laws for
rape there were instances of children being raped, hence in order to protect such
children the Govt. had come up with the sansa’s law. Thus it can be construed that if
the existing law is misused by the offenders then the legislation can make provision
by amending the existing laws or bringing in new legislation on the same lines which
creates a reasonable nexus.

62
Consumer Action Group v. State of T.N., (2000) 7 SCC 425
63
Asokan v. State of Kerala, 1997 SCC OnLine Ker 268 : (1998) 1 KLT 330

30
 16. Road Metal Industry vs. The Secretary to Government of A.P. & Ors64 it was held that
“Basically, the Government being the owner of the land can allot it for any purpose,
which is conducive to the welfare of the State. There are also some statutory
provisions, which provided inter alia for such assignment e.g. Board's Standing Order
No. 24.
17. These provisions are not exhaustive and it is respectfully submitted that the
Government can grant any Government land on such terms as it deems fit to subserve
public good.”
18. This article bars discrimination and prohibits discriminatory actions against any
arbitrary or discriminatory state action. The horizon of equality as embodied in article
14 has been expanding as a result of judicial pronouncements and art. 14 have now
come to have a “highly activist magnitude”, but in the present case there is a clear cut
intelligible differentia and reasonable nexus given by the legislators while making the
Sansa law. This reasonable nexus is with respective to the individuals who were
convicted of a sexual offence in the past and only they are supposed to share their
details which required by this law.
19. A basic and obvious test to be applied in cases where administrative action is attacked
as arbitrary is to see whether there is any discernible principle emerging from the
impugned action and if so, does it really satisfy the test of reasonableness 65 though
art. 14 mandates that state shall not discriminate between similarly situated persons,
but that does not mean that all persons should be subjected to similar treatment. From
a positivistic point of view, decision/ action taken by state or its instrumentality/
agency to accord favourable treatment to a particular class of persons on ground of
economic deprivation / disparity and like factors cannot be held to be violative of
article 14.66
20. Persons who are in the like circumstances should be treated equally. On the other
hand, where persons or group of persons are not situated equally, to treat them as
equals would itself be violative of art. 14 as this would itself result in inequality. As
all persons are not equal by nature or circumstances, the varying needs of different
classes or sections of people require differential treatment. This leads to classification
among different groups of people and differentiation between such classes.

64
Road Metal Industry vs. The Secretary to Government of A.P. & Ors, W.P. No. 13942 of 2001
65
UOI v International Trading Corporation, (2003) 5 SCC 437
66
Coimbatore Stock Exchange Ltd v TN Electricity Regulatory Commission , (2014) 13 SCC 358

31
 Accordingly, to apply the principle of equality in a practical manner the courts have
evolved the principle that if the law in question is based rational classification it is not
regarded as discriminatory.67
21. The clubbing of those dealers against whom there was no allegation with the handful
of those against whom there were allegations of political connection and patronage,
results in treating unequal as equals.68
22. A legislature is entitled to make a reasonable classification and treat all in one class
on an equal footing. The Supreme Court has underlined this principle thus, “article 14
of the constitution ensures equality among equals; its aim is to protect persons
similarly placed against discriminatory treatment. However, operate against rational
classification. A person setting up a grievance of denial of equal treatment by law
must est. that between people similarly circumstance, some were treated to their
prejudice and the differential treatment had no reasonable relation to the object sought
to be achieved by the law.”69
23. The Supreme Court in the case of UOI V. MV V Valliappan70 has observed “it is
settled law that differentiation is not always discriminatory. If there is a rational nexus
on the basis of which differentiation has been made with the object sought to be
achieved by particular provision, then such differentiation is not discriminatory and
does not violate the principles of article 14 of the constitution.”71
24. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that restriction is not violative of article 14 of the
Constitution and article 15(3) of the Constitution72 provides the legislature to make
laws for women and children therefore is not arbitrary.

67
Ashutosh Gupta v State of Rajasthan, (2002) 4 SCC 34
68
Onkar Lal Bajaj v UOI, (2003) 2 SCC 673
69
Western UP Electric Power and Supply Corporation Ltd v. State of UP (1969) 1 SCC 1817
70
UOI V. MV V Valliappan, (1999) 6 SCC 259
71
Const. of India, 1950.
72
Supra70

32
 PRAYER
Wherefore in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is humbly
prayed that this Hon’ble SC may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:

1. That the petitioner does not have a locus standi to file the present writ petition.
2. That Sansa’s Law is not violative of petitioner’s fundamental rights, but an
initiative to protect public interest.
3. That the said restriction is not violative of article 21 of the Constitution.
4. That the restriction is not violative of article 14 of the Constitution and article
15(3) of the Constitution provides the legislature to make laws for women and
children therefore is not arbitrary.

And pass any other order that this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit in the interests of
justice, equity and good conscience.

All of which is most humbly prayed

Counsel on behalf of the Respondent

Team Code - T028

33