Moot

Before
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ATHEA
ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

Writ Petition (civil) no. _________ of 2016
UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ATHEA
IN THE MATTER OF:
JAN RAKSHA, YUVA ROZGAR AND ORS …………….PETITIONER

versus
UNION OF ATHEA ...………..... RESPONDENT
1. UNION OF ATHEA
THROUGH ITS CABINET SECRETARY……………………………... RESPONDENT NO. 1
2. MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAY, ATHEA

THROUGH ITS SECRETARY…………………….………………….. RESPONDENT NO. 2
3. MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING

THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY……………………………RESPONDENT NO. 3
4. MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY...………….………………RESPONDENT NO. 4
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION

JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ATHEA
8TH M.K NAMBYAR MEMORIAL NATIONAL LEVEL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2018
[TABLE OF CONTENTS]
Table of Contents
List of Abbreviations .....................................................................................................3
Index of Authorities.......................................................................................................4
Statement of Jurisdiction ............................................................................................. 10
Statement of Facts ....................................................................................................... 11
Questions Presented ....................................................................................................12
ISSUE 1 : WHETHER THE PIL PETITION FILED UNDER ART. 32 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF ATHEA IS MAINTAINABLE……………….………..15

1.1 That the Instant Case is maintainable ................................................................14
1.2 That the Petition has been Filed In Public Interest & therefore Maintainable as
Public Interest Litigation ................................................................................... 14
1.3 That The the Petitioner has Locus Standi. .........................................................16
1.4. that The Rule Of Exhaustion of Alternate Remedies is not Binding on This
Hon’ble Court & not Equally Efficacious. ........................................................ 16
ISSUE 2 : WHETHER THE MOTOR VEHICLE (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2018 BROUGHT BY
THE UNION OF ATHEA IS CONSTITUTIONAL…........ ............... .......................20
2.1 That The Amendment is Prima-Facie Arbitrary. ................................................ 20

2.3 The Amendment Violate The FRs Of The People. ............................................ 21
2.4 That the DPSP Should Be In Harmony with Fundamental Right ......................22
2.5 That The Amendment stated Lack Safeguard Procedures. ................................. 22
ISSUE 3: WHETHER THERE IS VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARD. ........... 23
3.1 That the Rules Framed are in Contravention to the FR to Life of the Citizens of
Athea. ............. ………………………………………………………………….24
3.2 That the Rules Framed Are In Contravention To The FR To Privacy Of The
Citizens Of Athea ............................................................................................. 24
3.3 That the Rules Framed Are In Contravention To The Fundamental Right To
Livelihood Of The Citizens Of Athea. ............................................................... 36
PRAYER…………………………………………………………………………………39
2|Page
Memorandum On Behalf Of Petitioner
[LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS]
LIST OF A B B RE VI A TI O N S
Vol. Volume
Ed. Edition
Co. Company
Ltd. Limited
Sec. Section
v. Versus
AT Automotive Technology
Hon’ble Honourable
A.I.R All India Reporter
Co. Company
Ors. Others
SC Supreme Court
U.O.I Union of India
Art. Article
Pg. Page no.
UDHR Universal declaration of Human Rights
¶ Paragraph
DPSP Directive Principles Of State Policy
AV Autonomous Vehicle
Govt. Government
ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights
3|Page
[INDEX OF AUTHORITIES]
I ND E X OF A UT H O RI T I E S
LIST OF CASES
1. A.K.Gopalan v. State of Madras,1950SCR88.

2. ABC v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2015) 10 S.C.C. 1
3. Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963).

4. Anjan Kumar v. Union of India, A.I.R. 2006 S.C. 1177.
5. Asha Ranjan v. State of Bihar, 2016 S.C.C. Online SC 988 (India).
6. Ashok v. Collector , AIR 1980 SC 112.
7. AvishekGoenka v. U.O.I , AIR 2012 SC 2226 :
8. Bachan Singh v.State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684.
9. Banari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. CTO (2005) 1 SCC 625
10. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. UOI, AIR 802, SC (1986).
11. Basheshar Nah v. I.T. Commissioner, AIR 149 SC (1959) ;
12. Bhabani Prasad Jena v. State Commission for Women, (2010) 8 S.C.C. 633;
13. Bhajankaur v. Delhi administration , 1996 AIHC 5644
14. Bishan Das v. State of Punjab, AIR 1961 SC 1570 (1575).
15. Bishan v. Govt. of Punjab, (1962) 2 SCR 69.
16. CFEFS v. U.O.I (2011) 5SCC 676 : (2010) 3 SCALE 489.
17. Chameli Singh v. State of U.P., (1996) 2 SCC 549.
18. Chandra Bhavan Boarding & Lodging v. State of Mysore, AIR 1970 SC 2042.
19. Charanjit Lal v. U.O.I, AIR 1951 SC 41.
20. D.A.V. College v. State of Punjab,(1971) 2 SCC 261.
21. D.AV college v. State of Punjab , AIR 1971 SC 1731.
22. D.D.H.E.U v. Delhi Admn.,(1992) 4 SCC 99.
23. D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A Industries, (1993) 3 SCC 259.
24. D.S Nakara v. Union of India , AIR 1983 SC 130.
25. Daily Casual Labour v. Union of India, (1986) 1 SCC 122.;
26. Dale & Carrington Invt. Ltd. v. P.K. Prathapan, (2005) 1 SCC 212.
27. Daryao v. State of U.P, AIR 1961 SC 1457.
28. DDHEU v. Delhi Admn., AIR 1992 SC 789 : (1992) 4 SCC 99.
29. Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.P. Mazdoor Congress, 1991 I CLR 152I 394.
4|Page
30. Dr.HairajL.Chulani v. BCM, AIR 1996 SC 1708: (1996) 3 SCC 345.
31. Dr.Mehmood Nayyar Azam v. State of Chhattisgarh1(2012) 8 SCC 1.
32. E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555 ; ( 4 SCC 31974 )
33. E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of AP, A.I.R. 2005 S.C. 162. OR (2005) 1 SCC
34. FCI v. Kamadhenu Cattle Feed Industries, AIR 1993 SC 1601.
35. Federation of Bar association in Karnataka v. U.O.I, AIR 344, (SC 1981).
36. Francis Coralie Mullin v. UT of Delhi (1981) 1 S.C.C. 608
37. Gobind v. State of M.P. and Ors. (1975) 2 SCC 148.
38. Gopalan v. State Of Madras, (1950) SCR 88 : AIR 1950 SC 272.
39. Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003).
40. GuruvayurDevasworm Managing Committee v. C.K. Rajan, AIR 2004 SC 561.
41. Harminder v. U.O.I , AIR 1986 SC 1527.
42. Haryana State Industrial Corp. v. Cork Mfg. Co., (2007) 8 SCC 359.
43. Her Majesty, the Queen v. Brandon Roy Dyment [1988] 2 S.C.R. 417.
44. Himmatlal v. State of M.P., (1954) SCR 1122.
45. Hindustan Times v. HC of Allahabad, (2011) 13 S.C.C. 155.
46. In Re Amarnath Shrine,(2013)3SCC247.
47. In Re Sant Ram, AIR 1960 SC 932 ; (1960)3 SCR 499.
48. Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd.v. Workmen, (2007) 1 SCC 408.
49. Jacob v. Kerela Water Authority ,AIR 1990 SC 2228.
50. JagatDhar Sharma v. State Of Assam, AIR 2003 Gau 101.
51. Jeeja Ghosh v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 761.
52. Jolly George Verghese v. Bank of Cochin, AIR 1980 SC 470.
53. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 996.
54. KanubhaiBrahmbatt v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1987 SC 1159.
55. KathiRanningRawat v. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1952 SC 123.
56. KedarNathBajoria v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1953 SC 404.
57. Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461.
58. Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 1295.
59. Khedat Mazdoor ChetnaSangath v. State of M P, (1994) 6 SCC 260.
60. Kiloskar Brothers Ltd. v. ESI Corp. (1996) 2 S.C.C. 682.
61. KK Kochunni v. State of Madras, AIR 1959 SC 725 .
62. Kumar ShrilekhaVidyarthi v. State of U.P, AIR 1991 SC 537.
5|Page
63. KushumLata v. Union of India , AIR 2006 SC 2643.
64. M Nagaraj v Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212..
65. M.P.Sharma&Ors. v. Satish Chandra, DM, Delhi &Ors.,1950 SCR 1077.
66. M.S. Jayaraj v. Commissioner of Excise, Kerala AIR 2000 SC 3266.
67. Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar, (1996) 5 S.C.C. 125.
68. MUHS v. Satchikitsa Prasarak Mandal (2010) 3 S.C.C. 786.
69. Malak Singh v State of Punjab & Haryana, (1981) 1 SCC 420.
70. Malak Singh v. State Of Punjab &Haryana, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 760.
71. Manganbhai v. UOI , AIR 1969 SC 783.
72. Manoj Narula v. U.O.I, (2014) 9 S.C.C. 1
73. MC Mehta v. U.O.I , AIR 1987 SC 1086.
74. Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC, 497 U.S. 547 (1990).
75. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. U.O.I, 1980 SCC (3) 625
76. Mohammed Ishaq v. S. Kazam Pasha, 2010 (1) SCC (Cri) 721.
77. Nar Singh Pal v. UOI ,3 SCC 589,(SC 2000).
78. National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 438. Done
79. National Media Ltd v Jooste 1996 (3) SA 262 (A).
80. NilabatiBehera v. State of Orissa, AIR 1993 SC 1960
81. Obergefill v. Hoges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015).
82. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn., AIR 1986 SCC 180 : (1985) 3 SCC 545
83. Onkar Lal Bajaj v. Union of India, (2003) 2 SCC 673.
84. P.N. Kumar v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi , (1987) 4 SCC 609.
85. Pathumma v. State of Kerala, (1978) 2 SCC 1.
86. Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2003)11 SCC 241.
87. People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (1997) 1 SCC 301.
88. Pratap Singh v. State of Jandkhand , AIR 2005 SC 2731.
89. Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, U.P., AIR 1963 SC 996,
90. PUDR v. UOI, AIR 1473,( SC 1982).
91. R K Dalmia v. Justice Tendulkar, AIR 1958 SC 538.
92. R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 SCC 632;
93. RajaNarain Singh v. Central Board of Direct Taxes , AIR 1975 SC 1816.
94. Raja Ram Pal v. Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha, (2007) 3 SCC 184.
95. Ram Jethmalani v. Union of India, (2011) 8 S.C.C. 1
6|Page
96. Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. IAAI &Ors, (1979) AIR(SC) 1628.
97. Rambhadraih v. Food & Agri Dept,AIR 1981 SC 1653 : (1981) 3 SCC 528.
98. RameshThappar v. State of Madras , AIR 1950 SC 124.
99. RamlilaMaidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union of India, (2012) 5 SCC 1
100. Re Special Courts Bill Case, AIR1978 SC 478.
101. Roop Chand v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 1503 SC 1314.
102. S.P Gupta v. UOI, AIR 1982 SC 149; 1982 2 SCR 365.
103. SC Advocates-on-Record v. Union of India , AIR 1994 SC 264.; (2016) 5 SCC 1
104. Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263.
105. Shabnam v Union of India, (2015) 6 SCC 702.
106. Sharda v. Dharmpal, (2003) 4 S.C.C. 493.
107. Sir Chunilal Mehta & Sons, Ltd. v. CSM Co. Ltd., 1962 AIR 1314.
108. Smt Ujjam Bai v. State of U.P, (1963) 1SCR 778..
109. State of Karnataka v. Uma Dev, (2006) 4 SCC 1: AIR 2006 SC 1806.
110. State of Madras v. Champakam Dorarirajan, AIR 1951 SC 228.
111. State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shanti Lal Shah, (2008) 13 S.C.C. 5,
112. State of Mysore v. V.K. Kangan, AIR 1975 SC 2190 ;
113. State Of Tamil Nadu Etc v. State Of Karnataka &Ors., 1991 SCR (2) 501.
114. State of U.P v. Mohammad Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 86.
115. State of W.B. v .CFPDR, AIR 2010 SC 1476 : (2010) 3 SCC 571.
116. T.N GodavarmanThirumulpad v. U.O.I , AIR 2006 SC 1774.
117. T.P. MoideenKoya v. Government of Kerala &Ors, (2004) 8 SCC 106.
118. Tata Iron & Steel co. v. Sarkar, AIR 1961 SC 65 (68) : (1961) 1 SCR 379.
119. Thalappalam Service Coop. Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (2013) 16 S.C.C. 82.
120. The Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar v. U.O.I, AIR 1981 SC 344.
121. Union of India v. Paul Manickam, AIR 2003 SC 4622.
122. United States v. Jones, 565 US 400 (2012).
123. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. U.O.I, (1996) 5 S.C.C. 647.
124. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011;
125. Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949).
7|Page
LEGISLATIONS REFERRED
 THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988.

 THE CONSTITUTION OF ATHEA, 1950.
 THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950, as modified up to the 1.12.2007(100th AM).
 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2008.
 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (PROCEDURE AND SAFEGUARDS FOR INTERCEPTION,
MONITORING AND DECRYPTION OF INFORMATION) RULES, 2009.
 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (REASONABLE SECURITY PRACTICES AND
PROCEDURES OF SENSITIVE DATA OR INFORMATION) RULES, 2011.
TREATIES & CONVENTIONS
 The Geneva Convention, 1949.

 Vienna Convention on Road Traffic, 1968.
 European Data Protection Directives, 1955.
 European Convention of Human Rights, 1953.
 Declaration on the Right to Development, 1986.
 United Nations Declaration on Human Rights, 1948.
 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966.
 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966.
BOOKS REFERRED
 H.M. SEERVAI, Constitutional Law of India (4th Ed. 1985)(1).

 H.M. SEERVAI, Constitutional Law of India (4th Ed. 1985)(2).
 APARNA VISHWANATHAN, Cyber Law (Lexis Nexis, New Delhi).
 D.D. BASU, Commentary on The Constitution Of India (8th Ed. 2012)(1).
 D.D. BASU, Commentary on The Constitution Of India (8th Ed. 2012)(2).
 ARVIND P. DATAR, Commentary on The Constitution of India (2nd Ed. 2010).
 PREM & CHATURVEDI, Law of Writs & Other Constitutional Remedies (2016).
 M.P JAIN, Indian Constitution Law (Lexis Nexis Butterworth, Nagpur) (6th Ed.
Reprint 2012).
8|Page
ARTICLES, REPORTS AND JOURNALS
 WILLIAM JETHRO BROWN, “The underlying principles of modern legislation”.

 ROBERT SOLOW, “Mass Unemployment as a Social Problem”.
 KAUSHIK BASU , “In choice, welfare & development : A Festschrift” in honour
of K. Amartya Sen.
 ROBERT W. PETERSON, “New Technology-Old Law: Autonomous Vehicles &
California's Insurance Framework”.
 KYLE GRAHAM, “Of Frightened Horses & Autonomous Vehicles: Tort Law &
Its Assimilation of Innovations.”
 STEPHEN P. WOOD, Jesse Chang, Thomas Healy, John Wood, “The Potential
Regulatory Challenges of Increasingly Autonomous Motor Vehicles” Santa Clara
Law Review.
ONLINE RESEARCH DATABASE
 www.jstor.org
 www.scconline.com
 www.manupatra.com
 www.heinonline.com
 www.westlawindia.com
 www.lexisnexis.com/in/legal
9|Page
[STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION]
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Petitioner humbly submits to the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court under Art.32 of
the constitution. The petitioner has approached this Hon’ble court in apprehension of
the violation of rights that inevitably occur. Therefore, the petitioner maintains that the
jurisdiction of Article 32 of the constitution, which protects the Citizens of Athea from
any violation of their Fundamental Rights, is applicable in the present case.
Art.32 Constitution of Athea, 1950.
Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part :

(1) The right to move the SC by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights
conferred by this Part is guaranteed
(2) The SC 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 SC 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 SC under clause ( 2 )
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise
provided for by this Constitution
THE PRESENT MEMORANDUM SETS FORTH THE FACTS, CONTENTIONS AND

ARGUMENTS IN THE PRESENT CASE.
10 | P a g e
[ STATEMENT OF FACTS]
S T AT E ME NT OF FACTS
THE BACKGROUND OF THE COUNTRY

Athea is a fast growing South Asian country with an extensive populace of 1.324 billion.
It is the second most populated nation on the planet with different dialect, religion and
culture. Athea has been endeavoring towards drawing in speculations to reinforce its
economy and to fabricate great exchange relations with different countries.
THE LEGISLATION FOR ADVANCEMENT

Attracted by the latest technology in autonomous vehicles, the C.A.M.A strives towards
advancement of AT and to provide quality service to auto industry. The C.A.M.A
approached the Minister of Road Transport & Highways for allowing AV on Athea roads
as it would make Athea on par with the American & European countries. The Department,
introduced a Bill in the parliament to insert a new chapter related to the AV in the Athea
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which is verbatim same as the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 of
India, contained 217 Sections and 14 chapters prior to the amendment.
THE ACCIDENT
Meanwhile, Mr. John Brown of Ohio, U.S.A. who owned a AV for 9 months, was killed
in a car crash while he was in an AV on highway. This raised a furor among the public as
it substantiated the doubts raised by the A.A.V.C. By this incident, A.A.V.C started
gaining public confidence.
NGO AND RIGHTS OF CITIZENS

“Janrakshan” an N.G.O. fighting for the rights of the people, approached the Supreme
Court of Athea claiming that the Athea Motor Vehicles Act, 2016 is unconstitutional
inasmuch as it infringes the Fundamental Rights to Life guaranteed under art.
“Yuva Rozgaar” is an N.G.O. based in Delhi, provides technical training along with a
driving course to marginalised students, and alleges that it is injustice to these poor
underprivileged persons who are looking forward for jobs as drivers in companies. They
claim that it will be surely affecting the Rights of Livelihood of these persons.
Hence the Matter Is Before This Hon’ble Court.
11 | P a g e
[ QUESTION PRESENTED]
Q UE S TI O N S P R E S E NT E D
T HE P E T I T I O N ER V E R Y R E S P E C TF U L L Y PUT F OR T H T O T HE H ON ’ B L E
S UP R EM E C OU R T T HE F O LL OWI NG Q UE RI E S .
I SS U E 1. : WHETHER THE PIL PETITION FILED UNDER ART. 32 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF ATHEA IS MAINTAINABLE.
I S S UE 2. WHETHER THE MOTOR VEHICLE (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2018 BROUGHT BY

THE UNION OF ATHEA IS CONSTITUTIONAL..
I S S U E 3. WHETHER THERE IS VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARD.
12 | P a g e
[SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS]
S U M MA R Y OF P L E A D I NG S
ISSUE 1: ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ART. 32 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF ATHEA MAINTAINABLE.
The petitioner most humbly submits that the petition filed under Art.32
of the Constitution is maintainable as PIL, which has been filed with the
apprehension of violation of Fundamental Rights enshrined under Part III
of the Constitution in the present matter. Thus, the petition is
maintainable.
ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICY DECISION OF UNION OF

INDIA VIOLATES PROVISIONS OF VARIOUS ACTS
The petitioner most humbly submits that the Amendment act was
brought by the legislature of the state the said amendment violate the
Fundamental Rights of the people.
ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE RIGHTS OF LIFE OF PEOPLE ARE INFRINGED BY THE

AMENDMENT
The petitioner most humbly submits that Framed Are in Contravention to

the Fundamental Right to Life, Livelihood and Privacy enshrined under
Part III of the Constitution in the present matter.
13 | P a g e
[ PLEADINGS ]
PLEADINGS
ISSUE 1. THAT THE WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ART. 32 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF ATHEA IS MAINTAINABLE.
1.1 THAT THE INSTANT CASE IS MAINTAINABLE
(¶1.)The right to approach this hon’ble court in case of violation of fundamental right is
itself a fundamental right enshrined in Art 321. In Prem Chand Garg case it was held that
this right is absolute and may not be impaired on any ground. 2The power conferred under
Article 32 is the most potent weapon in the hand of our Supreme Court and that is the
duty of the Supreme Court to use it in a case properly coming under this Article 3. In
discharging the duties assigned to it, this Court has to play a role of a “Sentinel on the qui
vive” and it must always regard it as solemn duty to protect the said fundamental rights
“Zealously and vigilantly”4. The Supreme Court cannot refuse an application under
Article 32 on the grounds that there is some other adequate alternative remedy available
to the petitioner5 or such application has been made to the Supreme Court in the first
instance, without resort to a HC under Article 2266. Thus, in the present case the said
amendment is violating the fundamental rights enshrined under part III of the constitution
and thus maintainable.
1.2 THAT THE PETITION HAS BEEN FILED IN PUBLIC INTEREST & THEREFORE
MAINTAINABLE AS PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
1
Constitution of India Art.32 (1950).
2
Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commisssioner , AIR 1963 SC 996.
3
Kochunni v. State of Madras, AIR 1959 SC 725.
4
Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, U.P., AIR 1963 SC 996; Raja Ram Pal v. Hon’ble Speaker,
Lok Sabha, (2007) 3 SCC 184.
5
Id at 3; Himmatlal v. State of M.P., (1954) SCR 1122; Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC
1295.
6
A.K Gopalan v. State of Madras, (1950) SCR 88; Bishan v. Govt. of Punjab, (1962) 2 SCR 69.
14 | P a g e
[ PLEADINGS ]
(¶2.)To invoke the writ jurisdiction of the SC is not necessary that the fundamental right
must have been actually infringed – a threat to the same would be sufficient.7 and also it
is not necessary for the petitioner to wait till the actual threat takes place.8Applying the
Doctrine of “Reasonable Apprehension”, this Hon’ble Court may interfere directly in the
said case. The petitioner has filed the case as the matter deals with grave public interest9
,where relief may not be denied on mere technical grounds.where findings are entered
without considering relevant materials& without following proper legal procedure,
interference of SC is called for.10.It is well-settled that illegality must not be allowed to
be perpetrated& failure by the SC to interfere with the same would amount to allowing
the illegality to be perpetuated,11ergo, a duty is enjoined upon the SC to exercise its power
by setting Right the illegality in legislation.
(¶3.)The Constitutional obligation of this Hon'ble Court as the guarantor of FRs has been
interpreted broadly12, & it is the duty13 of the SC to grant Relief under Art.32, where the
existence of a FR & its breach , actual or threatened,14 is prima facie established , however
laudable the object of the respondent might be15that the jurisdiction conferred under
Art.32 on the SC is corrective one & not a restrictive one16& can be invoked when a
question of law of general public importance arises,17 by filing a PIL Petition.
Consequently, it is submitted that a refusal to entertain the instant petition would be
inconsistent with the aforesaid obligation.18.PIL petition under Art.32 as PIL by public
spirited organisation on behalf of persons belonging to socially & economically weaker
7
Roop Chand v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 1503 ; Manganbhai v. UOI , AIR 1969 SC 783; D.AV
college v. State of Punjab , AIR 1971 SC 1731.
8
D.A.V. College v. State of Punjab,(1971) 2 SCC 261
9
Public Interest is defined as follows ; something in which the public, the community at large, has some
pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal Rights or liabilities are affected. Black Law
Dictionary (6thEd)
10
Dale & Carrington Invt. Ltd. v. P.K. Prathapan, (2005) 1 SCC 212.
11
Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2003)11 SCC 241; See also, H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of
India,Vol. 1, 832 (4th ed., Universal Law Publishing, New Delhi, 2010); See also, Halsbury’s Laws of
India, Vol. 35,564 (2nd ed., Lexis-Nexis Butterworth Wadhwa, Nagpur, 2007).
12
MC Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086.
13
Kochunni v. State of Madras, AIR 1959 SC 725 (729) ; State of Mysore v. V.K. Kangan, AIR 1975 SC
2190 ; Raja Jgdambika Pratap Narain Singh v. Central Board of Direct Taxes , AIR 1975 SC 1816; Ashok
v. Collector , AIR 1980 SC 112.
14
Tata Iron & Steel co. v. Sarkar, AIR 1961 SC 65 (68): (1961) 1 SCR 379.
15
Bishan Das v. State of Punjab, AIR 1961 SC 1570 (1575).
16
Haryana State Industrial Corp. v. Cork Mfg. Co., (2007) 8 SCC 359.
17
Sir Chunilal Mehta & Sons, Ltd. v. Century Spinning & Manufacturing Co. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1314.
18
Kharak Singh v. State of U.P , AIR 1963 SC 129 ; Romesh Thappar v. The State of Madras, AIR 1950
SC 124; NilabatiBehera v. State of Orissa, AIR 1993 SC 1960;.
15 | P a g e
[ PLEADINGS ]
sections of society & complaining violation of their Human Right is maintainable.19In the
instant matter, the Right to Privacy, which is an integral part of the Right to Life,20 is
violated by the state & their personal information will be shared,21 which is a matter of
General Public Concern & ergo, calls for intervention by the SC
1.3 THE PETITIONER HAS LOCUS STANDI.
(¶4.)It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the petitioner has a locus
standi to file the writ petition. In M.S. Jayarajv. Commissioner of Excise,Kerala22 the
Court held that “We do not wish to nip the motion out solely on the ground of locus
standi”.“A right without a remedy is a legal conundrum of a most grotesque kind” Art.
32 confers one of the “highly cherished rights.”23 In S.P Gupta v. UOI24 the court
observed that, “any member of the public having sufficient interest can maintain an action
for judicial redress for public injury arising from breach of public duty or from violation
of some provisions of the constitution or the law and seek enforcement of such public
duty and observance of such constitutional or legal provision”.
1.4. THE RULE OF EXHAUSTION OF ALTERNATE REMEDIES IS NOT BINDING ON

THIS HON’BLE COURT & NOT EQUALLY EFFICACIOUS.
(¶5.)Admittedly, cases such as Paul Manickam,25Kanubhai,26 and PN Kumar,27require

the exhaustion of local remedies before approaching the court under Art.32. However, it
is submitted Hon’ble court must not be constrained by these decisions for the following
reasons: First, this self -imposed restraint is merely a rule of convenience and
discretion28and does not oust the jurisdiction of this court under Article. 3229. Secondly,
19
D.S Nakara v. Union of India , AIR 1983 SC 130.
20
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.), & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors, AIR 2015 SC 3081.
22
AIR 2000 SC 3266.
23
The Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 344.
24
S.P Gupta v. UOI, AIR 149, (SC 1982); PUDR v. UOI, AIR 1473 SC (1982); Bandhua Mukti Morcha
v. UOI, AIR 802,SC (1986).
25
Union of India v. Paul Manickam , AIR 2003 SC 4622.
26
Kanubhai Brahmbatt v. State of Gujrat, AIR 1987 SC 1159.
27
P.N. Kumar v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi , (1987) 4 SCC 609.
28
State of U.P v. Mohammad Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 86.
29
Mohammed Ishaq v. S. Kazam Pasha, 2010 (1) SCC (Cri) 721.
16 | P a g e
[ PLEADINGS ]
these cases are per incuriam, as they were rendered in ignorance of previous decisions by
higher benches of this Hon’ble Court that expressly rejected such a rule. Finally, Art.
32(4) specifically provides that this right may not be suspended except by constitutional
provision.30
(¶6.)The contention that for enforcement of FR, as a matter of orderly procedure, the
aggrieved person should first resort to the HC which exercises concurrent jurisdiction
under Art.226, was negatived by the SC. It was held that unlike Art.226 which confers
power on the HC, Art.32 confers aFR on the individual & on obligation on the SC to
protect the FR.31
(¶7.)Since both the HC& the SC have jurisdiction to entertain an application for the issue
of a writ the question arises whether a person can apply direct to the SC without first
applying to the HC.32As far as possible, the anxiety & endeavour of the court should be
to remedy the injustice when it is brought to its notice rather than to deny relief to an
aggrieved party on purely technical & narrow procedural grounds.33Furthermore,
different problems may have to be dealt with differently.34
(¶8.)Under Art. 32,35 the aggrieved party36 can go straight to the Supreme Court37 without
having to undergo the dilatory process of proceeding from the lower to the higher court38
as he had to do in ordinary litigation39. A rule of self-imposed restraint by the judiciary
that requires exhaustion of alternate remedies constitutes an extra-constitutional partial
suspension and is therefore, unconstitutional.
30
Constitution of India Art. 32(4) , 1950.
31
RomeshThappar v. State of Madras , AIR 1950 SC 124.
32
Durga Das Basu, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, EDN 8th, 3875.
33
Rambhadraih v. Secretary , Food & Agricultural Department , AIR 1981 SC 1653 : (1981) 3 SCC 528.
34
GuruvayurDevasworm Managing Committee v. C.K. Rajan, AIR 2004 SC 561 ; T.N
GodavarmanThirumulpad v. Union of India , AIR 2006 SC 1774; KushumLata v. Union of India , AIR
2006 SC 2643.
35
T.P. Moideen Koya v. Government of Kerala & Ors, (2004) 8 SCC 106.
36
State Of Tamil Nadu Etc v. State Of Karnataka & Ors., 1991 SCR (2) 501.
37
Supra note 16.
38
Charanjit Lal v. UOI, AIR 1951 SC 41.
39
Daryao v. State of U.P, AIR 1961 SC 1457.
17 | P a g e
[ PLEADINGS ]
ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE MOTOR VEHICLE (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2018 BROUGHT BY

THE UNION OF ATHEA IS CONSTITUTIONAL.
(¶9.)The Rule stated in Annexure -I ,Sec.218. clause 2(e) sub-sub clause (iv) and
Annexure-II clause (f.) framed by Department40 were substantially ultra vires the
Constitution as it was arbitrary, unjust and unfair. Therefore, considering that when a
law is per se violative of a constitutional provision the same cannot be upheld 41,the rules
must be obliterated. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the Rights
contained in Part III have been considered by the judiciary, which is a guardian of
Fundamental Right, as paramount42, sacrosanct43,transcendental44,inalienable &
inviolable.45 It is not a mere power of the Court but a constitutional obligation to protect
& prevent the infringement of Fundamental Right.46When the law is silent & there is a
vacuum, the court in exercise of its power under Article 32 & 14247 can interfere & issue
directions.48.In the landmark case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India49, Justice P.N.
BHAGWATI stated that-
“We are also of the view that this Court under Art.32(1) is free to devise any
procedure appropriate for the particular purpose of the proceeding, namely,
enforcement of a Fundamental right& under Art.32(2) the Court has the implicit power
to issue whatever direction, order or writ is necessary in a given case, including all
40
Factsheet, ANNEXURE –I (C).
41
E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, A.I.R. 2005 S.C. 162.
42
A.K.Gopalanv.State of Madras,1950 SCR 88.
43
State of Madras v.ChampakamDorairajan,1951SCR525.
44
Govindv.State of M.P.,(1975)2SCC148.
45
Smt. Ujjam Bai v. State of U.P.,(1963)1SCR778.
46
M.C.Mehta v. Union of India,(1987)1SCC395.
47
Art 142. Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and unless as to discovery, etc ( 1 ) The
Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary
for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, and any decree so passed or orders so
made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in such manner as may be prescribed by or under
any law made by Parliament and, until provision in that behalf is so made, in such manner as the President
may by order prescribe
(2) Subject to the provisions of any law made in this behalf by Parliament, the Supreme Court shall, as
respects the whole of the territory of India, have all and every power to make any order for the purpose of
securing the attendance of any person, the discovery or production of any documents, or the investigation
or punishment of any contempt of itself.
48
In Re Amarnath Shrine,(2013)3SCC247.
49
(1987)1SCC395.
18 | P a g e
[ PLEADINGS ]
incidental or ancillary power necessary to secure enforcement of the Fundamental

Right.”
(¶10.) In the recent case of K.S. Puttaswamy50,the Hon’ble SC accepted the Right to
Privacy as Fundamental Right . It is an integral part of Right to Life& Personal Liberty
& any restriction imposed on it should be in accordance with procedure established by
law, id est., it must satisfy the requirements of Art14 & 19. Also, the law imposing such
restrictions should be just, fair & reasonable. As per the facts & circumstances of the
present case, the restrictions imposed by the Department51on the Exercise of Right to
privacy of people, is arbitrary & unreasonable. Information sought from the people,
severely violates the bodily & mental integrity of the people, in addition to having no
relation to the objective of the Act. It is also pertinent to note that the restrictions imposed
on Right to Life & Right to Livelihood are not in proportion to the objective of the Act.
(¶11.) Further, the advent of Automotive Technology (AV52) deprives the people of their
choice; while putting them under constant surveillance of the state. This is a grave
violation of Right to Life as it infringes upon the dignity of the individual, which is the
basic element of the Constitution. No law can be made to give effect to DPSP, which
gives absolute primacy to the principles, infringing the FR of the people.
(¶12.)It is an accepted notion that “A subordinate legislation or circular issued contra
constitutional provisions are ultra vires & it cannot be treated as a “law” & no reliance
can be placed on the same.53It is humbly submitted ante the Hon’ble SC that the
Amendment brought by the Union of Athea is unconstitutional as it is in violation of FR
guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. The Rules framed did not take into
consideration the same, violated other statutes & were unreasonable, arbitrary &
incomplete & hence ultra vires the Constitution.
50
2017 SCC OnLine SC 996.
51
Annexure-II clause 1(c).
52
A vehicle that travels from point A to point B without any human input for a particular duration of time
is classified as an autonomous vehicle. Such vehicles employ sensory, control & navigation technologies
that respond to the environment accordingly, thereby eliminating the need for human interference.
53
Anjan Kumar v. Union of India, A.I.R. 2006 S.C. 1177.
19 | P a g e
[ PLEADINGS ]
2.1 THAT THE AMENDMENT IS PRIMA-FACIE ARBITRARY.

(¶13.) In Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority Of India & Ors54the
expression ―Arbitrarily means: in an unreasonable manner, as fixed or done capriciously
or at pleasure, without adequate determining principle, not founded in the nature of things,
non-rational, not done or acting according to reason or judgment, depending on the will
alone. Further, no proper guidelines have been laid in the Act for its implementation by
the executive rendering it arbitrary55which is the antithesis of Right to Equality
guaranteed to the people by the Constitution.56.
(¶14.)When the court is prima facie satisfied about violation of any constitutional Right
of a group of people belonging to the disadvantaged category, it may not allow the state
Govt.to raise the question as to the maintainability of the petition.57The requirement that
every state action must satisfy the test of fairness,58 consideration of every legitimate
expectation59,in decision making in necessary to satisfy the rule of non-arbitrariness &
absolute power on any individual is undemocratic.60Discretionary action taken without
the application of mind will be annulled as an arbitrary exercise of power.61when the
government exercises discretion arbitrarily , such exercise is to be struck down. 62 Every
state action must be informed by reason and it follows that an act not informed by reason
is per se arbitrary.63 In present case as well rules are framed in arbitrary manner and such
exercise should be struck down.
54
(1979) AIR(SC) 1628 ).
55
Kathi Ranning Rawat v. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1952 SC 123; See also, Re Special Courts Bill Case,
AIR1978 SC 478; KedarNathBajoria v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1953 SC 404.
56
E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555.
57
Durga Das Basu, COMMENTARY ON CONSTITUTION OF INDIA , Edn 38th,3835 , ¶ 5.
58
Kumar Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P, AIR 1991 SC 537.
59
FCI v. Kamadhenu Cattle Feed Industries, AIR 1993 SC 1601.
60
Raja Ram Pal v. Hon’ble Speaker LokSabha, (2007) 3 SCC 184; SC Advocates on Record v. Union of
India , AIR 1994 SC 264.
61
Onkar Lal Bajaj v. Union of India, (2003) 2 SCC 673.
62
Harminder v. Union of India , AIR 1986 SC 1527.
63
Banari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. CTO (2005) 1 SCC 625.
20 | P a g e
[ PLEADINGS ]
2.2 THE AMENDMENT VIOLATE THE FR OF THE PEOPLE.

(¶15.) The fundamental rights are fundamental in the sense that human liberty is
predicated on their availability and vice versa, and thus they cannot be waived.64 The
Right to Privacy &Right to Life has been recognized as a Fundamental Right & the AV
Policy brought by the respondent is in violation of Arts. 14, 19(1) g, 21 & 37 of the
Constitution.
(¶16 .) The court must take note of the present day scenario & having regard to
international treaties &conventions. Court is not hesitant in referring to international law
in finding new Rights in the context of constitution. It was held that Part III of the
constitution protects both substantive & procedural Rights & implications arising
therefrom must be protected by the judiciary. Political, social, & economic development
can throw light on its meaning.65It is now an established principle of constitutional
interpretation that where municipal law is silent on a particular issue, international
humanitarian law should be resorted to for interpretation66.
(¶17.) Right to Livelihood is expressly mentioned as a right in various covenants of

international law that include the ICCPR,196667 and the UDHR, 194868. Both of these,
having been ratified by the Parliament are binding law in India and even otherwise are
customary rules of international law. Also ICCPR69, UDHR70 and ICESCR71 recognizes
right to life and adequate standard of living. Violation of fundamental rights is sin qua
none of the exercise of the right conferred by art.3272When once the court is satisfied that
the petitioner’s fundamental right has been infringed, it is not only its right but also the
duty to afford relief to the petitioner, and he need not establish either that he has no other
adequate remedy, or that he has exhausted all remedies provided by law, but has not
64
Basheshar Nah v. I.T. Commissioner, AIR 149, (SC 1959) ; Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporaion,
AIR 180, (SC 1986) ; Nar Singh Pal v. UOI ,3 SCC 589,(SC 2000).
65
Pratap Singh v. State of Jandkhand , AIR 2005 SC 2731.
66
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011; Jolly George Verghese v. Bank of Cochin, AIR 1980
SC 470.
67
INDIA CONST. art. 14, cl.2.
68
INDIA CONST. art. 11, cl.1.
69
Article 6, ICCPR.
70
Articl 3, UDHR.
71
Artcle , ICESCR.
72
Federation of Bar association in Karnataka v UOI, AIR 344, (SC 1981).
21 | P a g e
[ PLEADINGS ]
obtained proper redress. When the petitioner establishes infringement of his FR, the court
has no discretion but to issue an appropriate writ in his favors 73
2.3 THAT THE DPSP SHOULD BE IN HARMONY WITH FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
(¶18.) As per the respondent the main aim of the AV is to ensure increased safety,
improve productivity and reduce crime The Motor vehicle (Amendment) Act, 2018 has
been brought to give effect to DPSP. Though, DPSP are important in realizing the goals
of the Constitution, the same should not override the FR guaranteed to the people.74Art.
37 of the Constitution of Athea provides that though directive principles are Fundamental
in governance of the country, they are expressly made non- justiciable. On the other hand,
FR are enforceable by the Courts,75 and the courts are bound to declare as void any law
that is inconsistent with the FR. The DPSP has to conform and run as a subsidiary to the
chapter on FR and in case of any conflict between FR and DPSP, FR would prevail.76 In
the case of Champakam v. State of Madras,77 held that DPSPs cannot override the
provisions of Part III of the constitution. As per the Judgement, the DPSPs have to run
subsidiary to the Fundamental Rights and have to conform that.
The Constitution is founded on the bedrock of the balance between Part III and Part IV,78
but one should not be given absolute primacy over the other. The goals set out in the Part
IV have to be achieved without the abrogation of the means provided for by Part III. To
destroy the guarantees given by Part III in order to achieve the goals of Part IV is plainly
to subvert the Constitution.79Ergo, it is the responsibility of the govt. to come up with a
scheme which adequately preserves the FR of the citizen of Athea.
2.4 THAT THE AMENDMENT STATED LACK SAFEGUARD PROCEDURES.
(¶19.) In other jurisdictions there are specific laws when it comes to electronic
surveillance but Athea lacks the same. For the current rules AV in Athea can share same
73
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. U.O.I, 2006 WP(C) No. 202 of 1995.
74
R K Dalmia v. Justice Tendulkar, AIR 1958 SC 538.
75
Art. 32, The Constitution of Athea, 1950.
76
State of Madras v. ChampakamDorarirajan, AIR 1951 SC 228.
77
AIR 1951 SC 228.
78
Granville Austin, Cornerstone of a Nation (Indian Constitution) 75 Oxford India (1999).
79
Minerva Mills v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789.
22 | P a g e
[ PLEADINGS ]
road80 with Normal Drivers (after testing) plus CCTVs are installed anywhere there are
no guidelines that control their working, decide who is supposed to in, the specifications
& features & hence, the extent of intrusion. If we do not provide for safeguards then the
administrative discretion can become Arbitrary & can intrude into our private domains.81
Careful & regular monitoring is critical to ensure that legislation is implemented
effectively & does not have any adverse unanticipated effects thereby identifying areas
in need of legal reform.82
ISSUE 3: THAT THERE IS VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARD.
(¶20.) The state is obliged to protect the life of every person and could not shake off its
hands on the ground that it is the case of exception of a person.83Art.21 is not restricted
to violation of right to life and liberty committed84 by state above but it is also to be
protected from being interfered with by private individuals. Also contemplates the right
to safety against crime by motor vehicles as instruments of crime. 85The right to life and
personal liberty is paramount. Likewise, if arts. 14 and 19 are put out of operation, art 32
will be drained of its blood.86
(¶21.) In Gopalan’s case87 it was held that Art.21 was attracted only in cases of
‘deprivation’88 the words “deprived ” and “deprive” have been used in 5th89 and 14th90
80
Factsheet.
81
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, 2017 S.C.C. Online S.C. 996.
, 82 UNITED NATIONS, HANDBOOK FOR REFORM OF LEGISLATION OF VIOLENCE CONTRA
WOMEN 21 (United Nations, New York 2010).
83
Jagat Dhar Sharma v. State of Assam, AIR 2003 Gau 101.
84
Bhajan Kaur v. Delhi Administration , 1996 AIHC 5644 (Del.).
85
Avishek Goenka v. U.O.I , AIR 2012 SC 2226.
86
State of W.B. v. Committee For Protection Of Democratic Rights, AIR 2010 SC 1476 : (2010) 3 SCC
571.
87
Gopalan v. State Of Madras, (1950) SCR 88 : AIR 1950 SC 272.
88
Ibid.
89
AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [V.] No
person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or
indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in
actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be
twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against
himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property
be taken for public use, without just compensation.
90
AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [XIV]
SECTION. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
23 | P a g e
[ PLEADINGS ]
American amendments91. According to Black’s law dictionary, (6thedn.)deprivation

means a taking away or confiscation as the deprivation off a constitutional right .“without
due process of law”.92But in order to constitute ‘deprivation’ , there must be some direct,
overt and tangible act which threatens the fullness of the life of a person or members of
the community, as distinguished from vague or remote acts threatening the quality of life
of people or at large.93
3.1 THAT THE RULES FRAMED ARE IN CONTRAVENTION TO THE FR TO LIFE OF

THE CITIZENS OF ATHEA.
(¶22.) While AV, such as Google’s self-driving car, could reduce road casualties by
eliminating human error, they could also increase the risk of accidents amongst motorists
who continue to use manual cars if they are allowed to mix on the same roads. Recent
research conducted in driving simulators has shown that human drivers change their
behaviour when using the same road as autonomous cars by copying the driving styles
and leaving less space between the vehicles in front. In the Olga Tellis case it was held
that any person who is deprived of his right to livelihood except according to just and fair
procedure established by law, can challenge the deprivation as offending the right to life
conferred by Art.2194
3.2 THAT THE RULES FRAMED ARE IN CONTRAVENTION TO THE FR TO PRIVACY

OF THE CITIZENS OF ATHEA.
are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any
law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within
its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
91
AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
92
Black law dictionary.
93
DD Basu, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, Edn 9th,4722, para 4.
94
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn., AIR 1986 SCC 180 : (1985) 3 SCC 545 ; see also D.K. Yadav
v. J.M.A Industries , (1993) 3 SCC 259 ; Dr.Hairaj L.Chulani v. Bar Council of Maharashtra , AIR 1996
SC 1708: (1996) 3 SCC 345.
24 | P a g e
[ PLEADINGS ]
The duty of the state is to safeguard the ability to take decisions – the autonomy of the
individual – & not to dictate those decisions.95
3.2.1 THE AMENDMENT INFRINGES RIGHT TO PRIVACY:
(¶23.) It is most humbly submitted that as societies have evolved, so have the
connotations & ambit of privacy.96Right to Privacy is one of fundamental importance and
value of the same in today’s times with the rapid technological advances is undoubtedly
uncompromising. It is submitted that the right to privacy invariably means the
inviolability of the person97.98
(¶24.) It is submitted that the need to protect the privacy of the being is no less when
development & technological change continuously threaten to place the person into
public gaze & portend to submerge the individual into a seamless web of inter-connected
lives.99 The introduction of AV is completely violating the FR to privacy. Right to Privacy
is the basic inalienable Right of an individual100concomitant of his Right to exercise
control over his personality and is essential for his development as a human being. The
Liberty of an Individual is a matter of Fundamental natural law, a private preserve and
must be safeguarded from unnecessary interference101. Privacy102 is an individual
condition of Life characterized by exclusion from the public & publicity. The condition
embraces all those personal facts which a person concerned has determined him to be
excluded from the knowledge of outsiders & in respect of which he has the will that they
be kept private.103A person may not want to reveal his/her travelling plans, but,
autonomous cars can track the people without their consent & get to know where they are
now.
95
K.S Puttaswamy Judgement, part I, page 99, para 106.
96
K.S Puttaswamy judgment, part F, page 31, para- 35.
97
The expression ‘person’ includes the body as well as the inviolate personality.
98
Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963).
99
K.S Puttaswamy Judgement, part H, page 34, para 39.
100
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.), and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 2015 SC 3081.
101
Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. (1975) 2 SCC 148.
102
According to Black’s Law Dictionary, Privacy has been defined as, “Right of a person to be free from
any unwarranted publicity; Right to live freely from any unwarranted interference by the public in matter
with which public is not necessarily concerned”.
103
National Media Ltd v Jooste 1996 (3) SA 262 (A).
25 | P a g e
[ PLEADINGS ]
3.2.2 THE ATHEAN CITIZEN’S RIGHT TO PRIVACY ARE PROTECTED UNDER PART III
(¶25.) Recently Right to privacy is guaranteed as a Fundamental Right the landmark case
of K.S Puttaswamy v. Union of India104which held that,
“Let the Right of privacy, an inherent Right, be unequivocally a Fundamental
Right embedded in part-III of the Constitution of India, but subject to the
restrictions specified, relatable to that part. This is the call of today. The old
order changes the yielding place to new.”
(¶26.) As the landmark case of R. Rajagopalan105came to hold, the expansive

interpretation of the phrase- personal Liberty, the Right to privacy has been read into
Art.21 of the Indian Constitution. In some cases, the Right has been held to amalgam of
various Rights106. Therefore, illegitimate intrusion into privacy of a person is not
permissible. The Right has come to be recognized in many of the recent judgments107as
well. Privacy is about the freedom of thought, conscience and individual autonomy and
none of the fundamental rights can be exercised without assuming a certain sense of
privacy.108 In the present matter the Right to privacy of the citizens were in threat by act
of legislature which is not permissible.
3.2.3 THAT THE RIGHT TO LIFE& PERSONAL LIBERTY INCLUDES RIGHT TO PRIVACY
(¶27.)It is most humbly submitted ante this Hon’ble court that the “Right to privacy has
been held to be a FR of the citizen being an integral part of Art. 21 of the Constitution by
this Court.109 Illegitimate intrusion into privacy of a person is not permissible as Right to
104
2017 S.C.C. Online S.C. 996.
105
R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N., (1994) 6 S.C.C. 632; Sharda v. Dharmpal, (2003) 4 S.C.C. 493; Manoj
Narula v. Union of India, (2014) 9 S.C.C. 1; Thalappalam Service Coop. Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala,
(2013) 16 S.C.C. 82.
106
Sharda v. Dharmpal, (2003) 4 S.C.C. 493 (India); Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263; Manoj
Narula v. Union of India, (2014) 9 S.C.C. 1.
107
State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shanti Lal Shah, (2008) 13 S.C.C. 5; Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Orissa State
Commission for Women, (2010) 8 S.C.C. 633; Ram Jethmalani v. Union of India, (2011) 8 S.C.C. 1;
Hindustan Times v. HC of Allahabad, (2011) 13 S.C.C. 155; PUCL v. Union of India, (1997) 1 S.C.C. 301;
ABC v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2015) 10 S.C.C. 1; Asha Ranjan v. State of Bihar, 2016 S.C.C. Online SC
988.
108
Anusha Soni, In democracy, liberty cannot exist without right to privacy, Gopa lSubramanium argues in
Supreme Court¸ India Today (Aug. 23, 2017, 3:30 AM), http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/right-to-
priv.acy-aadhaar-supreme-court-gopal-subramanium/1/1005668.html.
109
Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., (1975) 2 SCC 148; See also, R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil
Nadu, (1994) 6 SCC 632; People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (1997) 1 SCC 301; Kharak
26 | P a g e
[ PLEADINGS ]
privacy is implicit in the Right to Life & Liberty guaranteed under our Constitution.110
The autonomous cars are directly or indirectly interfering in the personal day to day Life
of common people &ergo violating article 21 of the constitution. Ergo, the serious
encroachments on privacy impinge upon personal Liberty& the freedom of movement. 111
That the Right to Privacy is an Element of Human Dignity:-
“...If dignity or honor vanishes what remains of Life...”112
(¶28.) Dignity is an integral part of the Constitution.113 Reflections of dignity are found
in the guarantee contra arbitrariness,114 the lamps of freedom115 and in the Right to Life
and personal Liberty116.The Right to privacy is an element of human dignity.117
Privacy ensures that a human being can lead a Life of dignity by securing the inner
recesses of the human personality from unwanted intrusion.118Privacy may be understood
as the antonym of publicity and upholding the dignity of an individual.119
(¶29.)No exact definition of human dignity exists.120Privacy ensures the fulfilment of
dignity & is a core value which the protection of Life &Liberty is intended to achieve.121
The sanctity of privacy lies in its functional relationship with dignity. Dignity as a
constitutional value finds expression in the Preamble of the Constitution. The dignity of
the individual is a core constitutional concept.122 The present Amendment by the Union
grossly violate the dignity of the people123. The ability of an individual to make choices
lies at the core of the human personality.124
Singh v. State of UP, AIR 1963 SC 1295; Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union of India,
(2012) 5 SCC 1, 119-120 , ¶ 312.
110
Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union of India, (2012) 5 SCC 1.
111
Malak Singh v State of Punjab & Haryana, (1981) 1 SCC 420.
112
Khedat Mazdoor Chetna Sangath v State of M P (1994) 6 SCC 260.
113
Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 1746.
114
Art. 14, The Constitution of India, 1950.
115
116
117
Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461.
118
119
Francis Coralie Mullin v. UT of Delhi (1981) 1 S.C.C. 608 (India).
120
M Nagaraj v Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212.
121
Jeeja Ghosh v Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 761.
122
Maharashtra University of Health Sciences v Satchikitsa Prasarak Mandal, (2010) 3 SCC 786.
123
124
27 | P a g e
[ PLEADINGS ]
(¶30.)Thus, Right to live as a human being is secured only when a human being is assured
of allFacilities to benefit himself,125 which includes privacy. The govt. by depriving
people of their privacy of mind and body is stripping them of their dignity. InDr.
Mehmood Nayyar Azam v. State of Chhattisgarh126, this Court noted that,
“When dignity is lost, Life goes into oblivion.”
3.2.4 INTERNATIONAL TREATIES & PRIVACY:
(¶31.) It is most humbly submitted ante this Hon’ble court that Art.51 (c)127 of the
Constitution, which forms part of the DPSP, requires the State to endeavor to “foster
respect for international law & treaty obligations in the dealings of organized peoples
with one another”. Canada128, France129& the USA130 have recognized the Right to
privacy & both India & Athea are bound & obliged to uphold its purpose as is shown by
the recognition to privacy in various laws of the countries & several treaties as well.
UDHR recognizes the Right to privacy which states Everyone has the Right to Life,
Liberty and Security of person131 and no one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference
with his privacy132 which is backed by an effective remedy by the competent national
tribunal for acts violating the FR granted him by the constitution or by law133,
125
Chameli Singh v. State of U.P., (1996) 2 SCC 549.
126
(2012) 8 SCC 1.
127
Art.51(c) in The Constitution Of India 1949:(c) foster respect for International law & treaty obligations
in the dealings of organised peoples with one another; & encourage settlement of international disputes by
arbitration Part IV A Fundamental Duties.
128
Federal statute - The Personal Information Protection & Electronic Documents Act, 2000 governing the
private sector; Provincial laws governing private entities particularly in the health sector.
129
Loi Informatique Et Libertes Act No 78-17 of 6 January 1978 – regulates processing of personal data by
public & private entities to ensure that there is no violation inter alia of Human Rights, privacy or individual
or public liberties.
130
The Cable Communications Policy Act, 47 U.S.C. s.551 (1984) – regulates cable companies &
incorporates specific privacy measures; Videotape Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. s.2710 (1988) –
prohibits video stores disclosure of customer records; Telecommunications Act, 47 U.S.C. s. 609 (1996) –
privacy measures to limit marketing by telephone companies.
131
UDHR,Art.3: Everyone has the Right to Life, Liberty and security of person.
132
UDHR,Art.12: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or
correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the Right to the protection of
the law contra such interference or attacks.
133
UDHR,Art.8: Everyone has the Right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts
violating the FR granted him by the constitution or by law.
28 | P a g e
[ PLEADINGS ]
(¶32.)These are binding in accordance with Art.51 & 253 of the Constitution & as it is a
“part of customary international law &ergo, part of Indian law.”134 In some of the
cases135 the Court has held that the requirements of Art.6 of the ICCPR are substantially
similar to the guarantees contained in Art.20 & 21 of the Constitution, not only this, Court
has also found that the international conventions were not inconsistent with the FR
guaranteed by the Constitution & must be recognized & followed.136 In Vishaka v. State
of Rajasthan137, this Court observed that in the absence of domestic law, the Convention
on the Elimination of Discrimination Contra Women (CEDAW) is applicable. Moreover,
it was reiterated in the cases Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar138and Kirloskar Brothers
Ltd. v. ESI Corpn.139That judges have referred to international legal documents & treaties
in order to do justice in absence of any law or authority available on the point.
3.2.5 REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY & PRIVACY IN PUBLIC PLACES:
(¶33.)There is a reasonable expectation of privacy when the self-driving cars or any other
AV put a regular track on the movement of the people on a public roads. Moreover, if
dignity is the underlying feature, the basis of recognizing the Right to privacy is not
denuded in public spaces140 since the ‘trespass doctrine’ became irrelevant when it was
held that what is protected under the Right to privacy is “people, not places”.141 Privacy
is not lost or surrendered merely because the individual is in a public place. It attaches to
the person since it is an essential facet of the dignity of the human being.142 To protect
privacy only in the home is to shelter what has become, in modern society, only a small
part of the individual's daily environmental need for privacy.143It is on the desire of people
to choose freely under what circumstances and to what extent they will expose
themselves, their attitude and their behaviour to others.144
134
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 S.C.C. 647 (India).
135
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684.
136
National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 438.
137
(1997) 6 SCC 241.
138
Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar, (1996) 5 S.C.C. 125 (India).
139
Kiloskar Brothers Ltd. v. ESI Corp. (1996) 2 S.C.C. 682 (India).
140
Wolf v. Colorado 338 U.S. 25 (1949).
141
Obergefill v. Hoges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015).
142
143
Her Majesty, the Queen v. Brandon Roy Dyment [1988] 2 S.C.R. 417.
144
Alan Westin, Privacy and Freedom (1967) in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.), and Anr. v. Union of
India and Ors., AIR 2015 SC 308.
29 | P a g e
[ PLEADINGS ]
3.2.5.1 Unwarranted Surveillance
(¶34.)It is most humbly submitted ante this Hon’ble court that in the case of in United
States v.Jones145, it was held unanimously that installing a Global Positioning System
(GPS) tracking device on a vehicle & using the device to monitor the vehicle's movements
constitutes a search under the 4thAmd. of US Constitution. In the case ofM.P.Sharma &
Ors. v. Satish Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi & Ors.146, the decision of court says
that the FRto privacy is analogous to 4thamendment of the US constitution. Various
judgments of the Court have also analysed technological developments which have made
surveillance more pervasive & affecting citizens’ privacy. In all these cases, the Court
has tried to balance the interests of the individual in maintaining the Right to Privacy with
the interest of the State in maintaining law & order. In the case of AV, the GPS is installed
which can easily track anyone’s location without their consent which directly hampers
their privacy & privacy with its attendant values assures dignity to the individual & it is
only when Life can be enjoyed with dignity can Liberty be of true substance.In the case
of 147it was held that:
“Right to privacy is an integral part of Right to Life. This is a cherished

constitutional value, & it is important that human beings be allowed domains of
freedom that are free of public scrutiny unless they act in an unlawful manner.”
(¶35.)In the present case the people who will be under surveillance neither they are
suspected criminals nor they are publicly scrutinized after getting warrant. It was held
that the surveillance on domiciliary visits need not always be an unreasonable
encroachment on the privacy of a person owing to the character & antecedents of the
person subjected to surveillance as also be object & the limitation under which the
surveillance is made. The Right to privacy deals with persons not places” 148Surveillance
has to be unobtrusive and within bounds.149So, the Self-driving cars are evil to the Part
145
565 US 400 (2012).
146
1950 SCR 1077.
147
(2011) 8 SCC 1.
148
Indian Bar review Vol. XLIII (3) 2016 , pg no.167.
149
Govind v. State of M.P., A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1378 (India).
30 | P a g e
[ PLEADINGS ]
III of the constitution because it infringesFR of common people. Mass surveillance is

considered a global issue.150.“Surveillance may be intrusive & it may so seriously
encroach on the privacy of a citizen as to infringe his FR to personal Liberty guaranteed
by Art.21 of the Constitution & the freedom of movement guaranteed by Art.19(1) (d).
That cannot be permitted.”151
3.2.6 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY RULES:
(¶36.)Sec. 23 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception,

Monitoring and decryption of Information) Rules, 2009 stating that video footage must
not be saved for more than 6 months unless it is specifically needed is violated by rules
mandating 1 year of preservation without legal grounds for regulation, however,
indiscrete collection of personal visual information by AV CCTV might cause serious
legal problems such as violation of portrait rights and invasion of privacy. 152
3.2.7 TRANQUILITY OF MIND:
(¶37.)It is most humbly submitted ante this Hon’ble court that in an uncivilized society
where there are no inhibitions, only physical restraints may detract from personal Liberty,
but as civilization advances the psychological restraints are more effective than physical
ones. The scientific methods used to condition a man's mind are in a real sense physical
restraints, for they engender physical fear channelling one's actions through anticipated
& expected grooves.153Surveillance by then every random people who move in roads
have a fear in their mind that they are under the eyes of someone. They cannot freely
move because they are in consistent psychological fear, which is nothing but a
psychological restraint. Ergo, human dignity is infringed if a person’s Life, physical or
mental welfare is alarmed.154
150
Kuehn, Kathleen. The Post-Snowden Era: Mass Surveillance and Privacy in New Zealand 47 (Bridget
Williams Books, ISBN 9780908321087).
151
Malak Singh v. State Of Punjab &Haryana, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 760.
152
Gheon Sang et al, A Guideline to Protect Privacy from CCTV Recording in Taxi Services, 38 KIISE,
223, 230.
153
154
Shabnam v Union of India, (2015) 6 SCC 702.
31 | P a g e
[ PLEADINGS ]
In case of Selvi v.State of Karnataka155, it was laid down that:

“...we must recognize that a forcible intrusion into a person's mental processes is also
an affront to human dignity &Liberty, often with grave & long-lasting consequences…”
(¶38.)Even though no one is doing anything wrong, surveillance makes a person

uncomfortable & vulnerable. A forcible intrusion into a person's mental processes is also
an affront to human dignity &Liberty, often with grave & long-lasting consequences.156
3.2.8 DATA PROTECTION & PROTECTION OF PERSONAL INFORMATION
COMMITMENT OF STATE TOWARDS THE INDIVIDUAL
(¶39.)It is most humbly submitted ante this Hon’ble court that the state157 has amended
the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 to include the impugned act on AV, but, this introduction of
the provisions related to Self-driving cars are simultaneously violating FR of Athean
people, which shows that the state has not taken due care of Part III of the constitution &
arbitrarily formed laws as C.A.M.A impressed upon the minister about the potential
benefits158of AV. The Rights, liberties & freedoms of the individual are not only to be
protected contra the State, they should be facilitated by it.It is the duty of the State not
only to protect the human dignity but to facilitate it by taking positive steps in that
direction.159The duty of the state is to safeguard the ability to take decisions-the
Autonomy of the Individual – & not to dictate those decisions.Art.17 of the ICCPR casts
an obligation on states to respect, protect & fulfil its norms. The duty of a State to respect
mandates that it must not violate the Right. The duty to protect mandates that the Union
must protect it contra interference by private parties.In the absence of an express clause
to deal with such information with enough safeguards, an implied obligation persists117
which is protected by the Act.160
(¶40.)Usually, various data that is collected is stored across multiple sources, and data
required fora particular purpose is being taken from individuals at one time. This leads to
155
(2010) 7 SCC 263.
156
Maharashtra University of Health Sciences v. Satchikitsa Prasarak Mandal (2010) 3 S.C.C. 786 (India).
157
Art. 12 in The Constitution Of India 1949.
158
Factsheet, page no.1.
159
M Nagaraj v Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212.
160
KARNIKA SETH, Computer, Internet And New Technology Law 312 (2d ed. 2016).
32 | P a g e
[ PLEADINGS ]
the creation of informational silos.161 The Amendment by the Union is devoid of adequate
security measures to guarantee the security of data collected for the feasibility of AV on
Athea Roads. The respondent is yet to bring substantive law for the protection of data. 162
There are no security measures in place to ensure the protection of data; thereby, giving
rise to grave violation of the privacy of the people as the large database of the AV Project
remains largely unprotected.
(¶41.)Such action is only justified in case where the person is accused of some offence,
otherwise regular surveillance of day to day transaction by govt. of general public is not
just and fair in any manner and constitutes a violation of Right to Life of the people.163
With regard to telephone tapping, the SC observed in Kharak Singh,164that, while
telephone interception of guilty person by the police through lawful means is justified in
larger public interest, the same is not justified when an innocent citizen is involved and
will amount to violation of Right to Privacy, of the person. The Union has not taken
adequate measures to secure the data collected. While, penalties have been imposed for
breach of data protection & leakage of data, there is lack of adequate measures at the
preventive stage itself, which makes it susceptible to identity theft & other like offences.
3.2.9 REASONABILITY OF LEGISLATION:
(¶42.)Parliament cannot under Art.368 expand its power of amendment so as to confer

on itself the power to repeal, abrogate the Constitution or damage, emasculate or destroy
any of the FR or essential elements of the basic structure of the Constitution or of
destroying the identity of the Constitution.165Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.in K.S Puttaswamy
v. UOI166 held that it is, ergo, the duty of the Courts & especially this Court as sentinel
on the qui vive to strike a balance between the changing needs of the Society & the
protection of the Right s of the citizens as & when the issue relating to the infringement
of the Rights of the citizen comes up for consideration. It was held in the case of
161
USHARAMANTHAN, A Unique Identity Bill, Vol. 45(30) Economic and Political Weekly, 10-14 (2010).
162
Fact sheet.
163
Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1975)2 SCC 148; See also, Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. and
Ors.,AIR 1963 SC 1295.
164
Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors., AIR 1963 SC 1295.
165
Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr. (1973) 4 SCC 225.
166
Ibid.
33 | P a g e
[ PLEADINGS ]
Kesavananda Bharti167 that; “We are unable to agree with the contention that in order
to build a welfare State, it is necessary to destroy some of the human freedoms. That, at
any rate is not the perspective of our Constitution.”
3.2.10 TEST OF REASONABILITY IN THE PRESENT CASE
(¶43.)An invasion of Life or personal Liberty (and hence, Privacy) 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; & (iii) proportionality which ensures a rational nexus
between the objects & the means adopted to achieve them.168 This was also postulated
under UDHR Art.29; General Comment No. 27, Adopted by The Human Rights
Committee under Art. 40, Paragraph 4, Of The ICCPR.
3.2.11 THE ACT WAS ILLEGITIMATE AND UNNECESSARY
(¶44.)The rules do not meet the requirement of legality, being ultra vires and there is a
need for regulations but the same is not satisfied by the current law making it unnecessary.
Also, it found that CCTV schemes in city and town centre, public housing and public
transport did not have as insignificant effect on crime.169A report prepared for the Scottish
office concludes that CCTV has not succeeded in making the streets safer or in making
people feel safer.170Moreover, CCTV is not always a good evidence for a crime since the
images can be easily distorted171and cannot actually prevent the happening of an
unfortunate crime since it is in only few cases that the potential criminals are deterred as
they are frequently intoxicated. CCTV systems are the second most prevalent internet
connected devices172, and too often are vulnerable to hacking because they don’t have
even the most basic security protections in place.173
167
100 Supra note 32.
168
169
“Effects of Closed Circuit Television Surveillance on Crime”, Campbell Systematic Reviews, 2008.
170
PROF. JASON DITTON, "The effect of Closed Circuit Television on recorded crime rates and public
concern about crime rates in Glasgow", Published by the Scottish Office, ISBN 07480 85416.
171
Bachmann, T., Identification of spatially quantized tachistoscopic images of faces: How many pixels
does it take to carry identity? 3, 87—103 European J. Cog. Psych.
172
ADAM BANNISTER, Hijack of nearly 1.5m surveillance cameras a wake-up call for security industry,
E-HACKING (Aug, 14, 2017, 10:04 AM), https://www.ifsecglobal.com/hijack-surveillance-cameras-
wake-up-call-security-industry/.
173
ZayaedAlzaberi, Hacking CCTV Camera System in 30 Seconds!, E-HACKING (Aug, 14, 2017, 10:04
AM), http://www.ehacking.net/2016/08/hacking-cctv-camera-system-in-30-seconds.html.
34 | P a g e
[ PLEADINGS ]
Recommendations of WCD Ministry included in the New Taxi Policy Guidelines include
such alternatives174and recommended that the CCTV camera to be focused towards the
drivers and not on the passengers. In this regard, it was clarified that no CCTV cameras
are being recommended by the committee.175
3.2.12 FATAL REPERCUSSIONS
(¶45.)The legislation, in such small duration of its enactment, witnessed grave

repercussions. There is grave outcome that in common parlance attracts violation of and
punishment under Sec. 66 E, Sec. 67 A and Sec. 69 B of IT Act, 2000, Sec. 4 of Indecent
representation of Women’s Act and Sec. 292, 354C and 294 IPC, 1908. Rules that pose
such great threats are not, in any manner, proportionate to the objective to be achieved.
3.2.13 THE RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY THE GOVT. ON THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

OF PRIVACY OF THE PEOPLE IS NOT PROPORTIONAL TO OBJECTIVES OF THE ACT.
(¶ 46.) In the present case the legislature was unable to frame laws according to the, the
‘Principle of Proportionality’ that envisages that a govt. ought to maintain a sense of
proportion between its particular goals and the measure it takes to achieve those goals, so
that its actionimpinges on the individual Rights to the minimum extent so as to preserve
public interest.176The govt. requires the people to part with basic information about
oneself,which is integral to one’s personality which could have as well been handled
through other methods, given the facts and circumstances. A safeguard therefore court
has to examine with strictness the “substance” of any legislation.
The Amendment Is Not In Accordance With Narrow Tailoring Test:
174
The taxis should be mandatorily fitted with GPS panic devices. •For the safety of women and child
passengers, the central locking system in the taxis should not be allowed. •The driver's identification along
with the photo and registration number of the vehicle should also be prominently displayed in the taxi.
•Violation of the stipulated rules by the taxi operators/drivers should be strictly dealt in accordance with
law. •Sharing of seat should be subject to willingness of passengers.
175
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED TO PROPOSE TAXI POLICY GUIDELINE TO
PROMOTE URBAN MOBILITY, Govt. of India Ministry of Road Transport and Highways REPORT,
December 2016.
176
Ajoy P.B., Administrative Action and the Doctrine of Proportionality in India, Vol. 1(6) International
Organization of Scientific Research Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 16-23 (2012) available at
www.iosrjournals.org; See also, M.R.F Ltd. v. Inspector of Kerala Govt., (1998) 8 SCC 227.
35 | P a g e
[ PLEADINGS ]
(¶47.)The counsel further submits that, the measures taken by the govt. were not the
leastrestrictive measures, The compelling state interest177of the govt.id est.to fulfil the
objectives through collection of personal information should undergo great scrutiny that
is one Right should not suffer from another that is there must be a balance should be
stricken between Public Right and Individual Right and the measures so taken should be
tailored in amanner that infringes the Right in narrowest mannerid est, it should satisfy
narrow tailoringtest178 to achieve its goals with minimal interception.179
ISSUE 3.3 THAT THE RULES FRAMED ARE IN CONTRAVENTION TO THE
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD OF THE CITIZENS OF ATHEA.
“You take my life, When you do take the means whereby I live”
-SHAKESPEARE
(¶48.)While interpreting the scope of National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005.
The court said that the act has clearly placed the ‘right to livelihood’ at a higher pedestal
than a mere legal right.180The Athean Constitution provides guarantee under Art. 19 (1)
(G) to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
Occupation means regular work, profession, job, principal activity, employment, business
or a calling in which the individual is engaged181
(¶49.)The idea that entitlement to basic necessities of life comes from work or sacrifice
is long recognized in Indian thoughts. “AI-driven changes in the job market in the United
States will cause some workers to lose their jobs, even while creating new jobs elsewhere.
The economic pain this causes will fall more heavily upon some than on others.
Policymakers must consider what can be done to help those families and communities get
back on their feet and assemble the tools they need to thrive in the transformed economy
177
Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1975) 2 SCC 148; See also, Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. Federal
Communications Commission, 497 U.S. 547 (1990).
178
Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003).
179
Gautam Bhatia, “State Surveillance and the Right to Privacy in India: A Constitutional Biography”, Vol.
26(2) National Law School of India Review, 148 (2014).
180
Centre For Environment & Food Security v. U.O.I (2011) 5SCC 676 : (2010) 3 SCALE 489. But see
state of Karnataka v. Uma Dev, (2006) 4 SCC 1 (para .51) : AIR 2006 SC 1806.
181
Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority Of India , (1979) 3 SCC 489.
36 | P a g e
[ PLEADINGS ]
and share in its benefits.”182It is the duty of the state, acting through its instrumentalities
to ensure that no person in a vulnerable position is exploited.183
(¶50.)Many legends of the world professes right to work as an essential part of our life.
For instance,PROF. LASKI was thus led to conclude that a ‘right to work’ ultimately
means the obligation of the state to provide ‘unemployment insurance’ under which a
person thrown out of employment would be maintained by the state ‘until employment
again offers the opportunity to work’.184 P.B .SAWANT, J. observed for majority, “The
Right to Life includes Right to Livelihood, that the right to livelihood cannot hang on to
the fancies of individuals in authority and the employment is not a bounty from them nor
can its survival be at their mercy and that the income is the foundation of many FR and
when work is the sole source of income, the right to work becomes as much
fundamental.”185Y.V.CHANDRACHUD, CJ. Observed for the court, “If the Right to
livelihood is not treated as a part of the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of
depriving a person of his right to life, would be to deprive him of his means of living to
the point of abrogation.
(¶51.)Thus it should be noted that the profession of drivers , and their livelihood which depends on this
profession is getting badly affected by the amendment and therefore violating the Fundamental Right of
Trade and Profession guaranteed under Art.19(1)(g) of the driver.While interpreting the scope of
National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005.The court said that the act has clearly
placed the ‘right to livelihood’ at a higher pedestal than a mere legal right.186
3.3.1 DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY (DPSP) & RIGHT TO WORK
(¶52.)By reading Art. 21, 39 (a) , and 41 together , the SC has included the right to
livelihood as a part of life under Art. 21.The general reality is that the number of available
jobs is limited and hence court must take a realistic view that the state shall not deprive
any person of his livelihood except according to just and proper procedure established by
182
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, AUTOMATION, AND THE ECONOMY,report was produced by a
team from the Executive Office of the President, pg.7 para 21.
183
Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority Of India , (1979) 3 SCC 489.
184
Prof Laski, AGrammer of Politics, 1976, p. 106.
185
In Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.P. Mazdoor Congress, 1991 I CLR 152I.
186
Centre For Environment & Food Security v. U.O.I (2011) 5SCC 676 : (2010) 3 SCALE 489. But see
state of Karnataka v. Uma Dev, (2006) 4 SCC 1 (para .51) : AIR 2006 SC 1806.
37 | P a g e
[ PLEADINGS ]
law.187The right to work, which includes the right of everyone to the opportunity to gain
his living by work which he freely chooses or accepts, as accepted internationally, is to
be granted so as to achieve the full realisation of the right.188 In the present case, the
amendment is preventing the drivers to work which he freely chooses or accepts. Art. 41
directs the state to make effective provisions for securing the right to work, but within the
limits of its economic capacity and development, thus, while directing the state to ensure
the right to work, the constitution makers thought it prudent to qualify it.189
(¶53.)Thus, we can conclude that the driver who earns their living by driving the cars are
snatched away by bring driverless cars. Their right to life which is incomplete without
right to livelihood is infringed by not enabling them to perform right to work.
3.3.2 TECHNOLOGICAL UNEMPLOYMENT
(¶54.)The most significant issue that will quickly become apparent to job creators will be
the loss of traditional jobs. Machines are replacing people not only in manufacturing
careers, but across all economic sectors, and positions that are more structured and routine
are particularly vulnerable to the phenomenon of “Technological Unemployment.”190
Some estimates predict that “just under half of the occupations (44%) and employees
(48%) face a high probability (over 70%) of replacement by technology” (Walden
2015:6). This will greatly impact our society and will continue to expand the gap between
low-skilled and high-skilled workers, with direct impacts on wages. 191
187
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation ., AIR 1986 SC 180.
188
Art.6, ICESCR,1966.
189
Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union v. Delhi Adm. AIR 1992 SC 789.
190
North Carolina Chamber Foundation.
191
Ibid.
38 | P a g e
[ PRAYER ]
P RA YE R
WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND

AUTHORITIES CITED, THE COUNSEL ON THE BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER MOST
HUMBLY PRAYS BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT TO DECLARE AND ADJUDGE THAT:
 THE PIL PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE

 THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF THE LAWS, TREATIES, LEGISLATIONS, CONVENTIONS
, ORDERS BY THE SAID AMENDMENT.
 THE AMENDMENT IS SUBSTANTIALLY ULTRA VIRES THE CONSTITUTION OF ATHEA
AND LIABLE TO BE REPEALED.
And to pass any order or relief in the Favour of the Petitioner which this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit in the larger interest of the Justice.
For this Act of Kindness, the Counsel Shall Remain Duty Bound Forever.
Sd/-
Counsel For Petitioner
39 | P a g e

Moot

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Moot

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Before

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ATHEA

ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ATHEA

IN THE MATTER OF:

JAN RAKSHA, YUVA ROZGAR AND ORS …………….PETITIONER

2. MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAY, ATHEA

3. MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING

4. MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION

CONSTITUTION OF ATHEA IS MAINTAINABLE……………….………..15

2.1 That The Amendment is Prima-Facie Arbitrary. ................................................ 20

A.I.R All India Reporter

U.O.I Union of India

Pg. Page no.

UDHR Universal declaration of Human Rights

DPSP Directive Principles Of State Policy

ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and

1. A.K.Gopalan v. State of Madras,1950SCR88.

3. Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963).

 THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988.

TREATIES & CONVENTIONS

 The Geneva Convention, 1949.

 H.M. SEERVAI, Constitutional Law of India (4th Ed. 1985)(1).

ARTICLES, REPORTS AND JOURNALS

 WILLIAM JETHRO BROWN, “The underlying principles of modern legislation”.

ONLINE RESEARCH DATABASE

Art.32 Constitution of Athea, 1950.

Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part :

THE PRESENT MEMORANDUM SETS FORTH THE FACTS, CONTENTIONS AND

THE BACKGROUND OF THE COUNTRY

THE LEGISLATION FOR ADVANCEMENT

NGO AND RIGHTS OF CITIZENS

Hence the Matter Is Before This Hon’ble Court.

I SS U E 1. : WHETHER THE PIL PETITION FILED UNDER ART. 32 OF THE

I S S UE 2. WHETHER THE MOTOR VEHICLE (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2018 BROUGHT BY

I S S U E 3. WHETHER THERE IS VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARD.

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICY DECISION OF UNION OF

ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE RIGHTS OF LIFE OF PEOPLE ARE INFRINGED BY THE

The petitioner most humbly submits that Framed Are in Contravention to

ISSUE 1. THAT THE WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ART. 32 OF THE

1.1 THAT THE INSTANT CASE IS MAINTAINABLE

1.3 THE PETITIONER HAS LOCUS STANDI.

1.4. THE RULE OF EXHAUSTION OF ALTERNATE REMEDIES IS NOT BINDING ON

(¶5.)Admittedly, cases such as Paul Manickam,25Kanubhai,26 and PN Kumar,27require

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE MOTOR VEHICLE (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2018 BROUGHT BY

incidental or ancillary power necessary to secure enforcement of the Fundamental

2.1 THAT THE AMENDMENT IS PRIMA-FACIE ARBITRARY.

2.2 THE AMENDMENT VIOLATE THE FR OF THE PEOPLE.

(¶17.) Right to Livelihood is expressly mentioned as a right in various covenants of

2.3 THAT THE DPSP SHOULD BE IN HARMONY WITH FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

2.4 THAT THE AMENDMENT STATED LACK SAFEGUARD PROCEDURES.

ISSUE 3: THAT THERE IS VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL SAFEGUARD.

American amendments91. According to Black’s law dictionary, (6thedn.)deprivation

3.1 THAT THE RULES FRAMED ARE IN CONTRAVENTION TO THE FR TO LIFE OF

3.2 THAT THE RULES FRAMED ARE IN CONTRAVENTION TO THE FR TO PRIVACY

3.2.1 THE AMENDMENT INFRINGES RIGHT TO PRIVACY:

(¶26.) As the landmark case of R. Rajagopalan105came to hold, the expansive

“...If dignity or honor vanishes what remains of Life...”112

“When dignity is lost, Life goes into oblivion.”

3.2.4 INTERNATIONAL TREATIES & PRIVACY: