Cover Page

Memorial for Respondent

Table of Contents

1
Memorial for Respondent

Index of Abbreviations

2
Memorial for Respondent

Index of Authorities

3
Memorial for Respondent

Statement of Jurisdiction

4
Memorial for Respondent

Statement of Facts

5
Memorial for Respondent

Issues Presented

6
Memorial for Respondent

Summary of Pleadings

7
Memorial for Respondent

Pleadings and Authorities

1 Forcible unlocking of phone through fingerprints is unconstitutional and

thus cannot be used as an evidence

1.1 Search of the house and seizures of her property by police is not in

accordance with Erewhon procedure code

1.1.1 Search in Elizabeth house was an illegal one

Section 165 of EPC gives the power to police to search any place even in the absence

warrant. But this section does not permit a general search. 1 A police officer must have

the reasonable grounds to believe that anything necessary for the purpose of

investigation has to be obtained, and not just reasonable suspicion. Here, the belief is

based on some definite fact.2

In casu, Elizabeth house was raided on mere suspicion of destruction of evidence. It is

pertinent to note that police only cited a possibility of destruction of evidence. 3 Ergo,

police had no definite fact present to prove that anything necessary could be obtained

by the search of house.

1.1.2 Police

1.2 Fingerprints taken by the police were unlawful

1 Lal Mea v Emperor, AIR 1926 cal 663

2 Partap Dr v. director of enforcement 1985 SCC (Cri) 312, 1985 3 SCC 72; Khaliqan v. Emperor, AIR
1945 Oudh 170

3 Moot Proposition [10]

1
Memorial for Respondent

1.2.1 Taking of fingerprints taken by the police violates Art. 20(3)

Art. 20(3) of the Indian constitution prohibits an accused to be a witness against

himself, and this includes to furnish an evidence. 4 According to SC, fingerprint of an

accused can be taken by the police. But it taken can only be taken for the purpose and

identification and comparison and not for compelling the accused to convey personal

knowledge.5

In casu, Elizabeth’s fingerprints were not taken by the police for identification or

comparison. They used her fingerprints to unlock her device, and take out the personal

information, without her due consent. 6 This comes under the meaning of conveying of

personal knowledge, and thus, is violative of Art. 20(3) of the Indian constitution.

1.2.2 Unlocking of phone violates the right to privacy of an individual

Right to privacy, which has been recently interpreted as a part of Art. 21 of Indian

constitution by the SC, has ruled that no individual can be deprived of his privacy. SC

has affirmed three aspects of fundamental rights to privacy, of which informational

privacy is one.7 It has been observed that personal data is one such area which falls

under the realm of privacy.8 It has been stated that information provides the whole

picture of human being, which best hidden with the individual only. 9

SC ruled that informational privacy is essential as it gives a person a control over the

dissemination of knowledge material to her and thus state is disallowed to use such

information in an unauthorized manner.10

4 Kathi Kalu Oghad

5 Selvi

6 Moot Proposition [15]

7 Para 82

8 Chalemeshwar dhoodna hai scc pe

9 DY 300

10 Para 82

2
Memorial for Respondent

In casu, by unlocking the phone and looking at the photographs, police accessed the

very personal information contained in Elizabeth’s phone. 11 As this unlocking of the

phone was done in contravention with article 20(3) of the Indian constitution, there was

an unauthorised use of information by the state. 12 Therefore, the act of unlocking of

phone constituted breach of right to privacy.

11 Moot Proposition [15]

12 Supra Argument [1.A.i]

3
Memorial for Respondent

4
Memorial for Respondent

Prayer