Advanced arguments:

1) WHETHER THE PETITION IS MAINTENABLE IN APEX COURT OF

FREEDONIA?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the Zuppi Public Safety Act, 2024 the
preventive detention provision is enforced to maintain law and order and to protect national
security and avoid internal disturbances. It is invoked with the intention to prevent individual
actions to undermine public order.
The counsel pleads that the Writ of Habeaus Corpus filed under article 32 of the Indian
Constitution 1950 by the petitioner is not maintainable since the act has not infringed any
fundamental right outside procedure of law granted by constitution.
The counsel pleads that the actions of the state were mere adherence to the constitutional
procedure of preventive detention and the legislative intent was clearly validated to protect
law & order.
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.
(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 warrant 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 clauses (1) and (2),
Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its
jurisdiction ill 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.

Writ of Habeas Corpus:

Writ of habeas Corpus is an order issued by the court of law. It directs a person having the
custody of the other to produce the person in custody before Hon’ble court. The legality of
the arrest is examined by the court of law.
The counsel pleads the petition is not maintainable by citing some legal precedents.
In the case ADM Jabalpur V Shivakant Shukla 1 It was held that a person during an
emergency can not approach court in protecting fundamental rights and the Writ of Habeas
Corpus shall not be entertained. Which however as overruled in the 44th amendment the
objective was to mitigate unlawful detention and illegal detainment of individuals which is
clearly not the case in Jack Miranda v. Union of Freedonia.

1 ADM JABALPUR
It is submitted that Art 32 can be invoked only when there is infringement of fundamental
rights2. Fundamental rights violation is a sine quo non3 of the exercise of right conferred by
Art 32. It generally held right that the person whose fundamental rights are enshrined in
Part Ⅲ of the Constitution has been infringed has locus standi to approach the apex court
under Art 32 for enforcement of this right4.
Applying the principles surrounding locus standi & maintainability to the facts of the present
case, it is submitted that the ZPSA 2024 does not infringe fundamental rights of the
petitioners above the constitutional restrictions and merely protects the public security. In
light of all the above, it is submitted that the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed in limine.
2) WHETHER THE IMPUGNED ACT IS INFRINGING THE
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE CITIZENS OF FREEDONIA?
The counsel humbly submits that the Fundamental rights under Part Ⅲ is not absolute
and is subject to constitutional restrictions. It is only after satisfying the various
procedures and conditions established by law. Hence the right to due process is
completely adhered to and other fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and
expression & freedom of personal life and liberty is all subject to factual situations.
It is submitted that the ZPSA 2024 does not infringe the FR granted by the
Freedonias constitution as passed in the BENNET COLEMAN TEST5 (EFFECT
TEST), if the act directly affects or infringes the FR then the subject matter is
irrelevant. The effect of the test is what hold the act valid and not the subject matter.
It is submitted that a persons right to life is not an absolute right, and it is limited by
‘process established by law’. India as a welfare state, cannot sacrifice one persons
interest at expense of another 6.
It is submitted that according to the facts of the case and section 6 & section 7 of the
ZPSA 2024 there is no failure in following the procedure of law and fulfilment of
legislative intent falling under the facet of Indian Constitution.
In the case of EP ROYAPPA V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU7 Justice Bhagwati had
rightfully held that “where an act is arbitrary ,it is implicit that which is unequal
according to political, logical, and constitutional laws violating Article 14”. There is
nothing arbitrary in the given act and all the procedures are followed submissive to
the constitutional demands and is not violative of art 14.
Article 21 renders special paramount importance to the preservation of human life. 8
Considering the need of the public security and maintenance of law & order at
national level the act of the Zupi state can be justified.

2 UJJAMBAI V. STATE OF UP
3 FEDERATION OF BAR ASSOCIATION IN KARNTAKA V UOI
4 SP GUPTA V PRESIDENT OF INDIA
5
BENNET V UOI CASE
6 NEELABATI BAHERA V STATE OF ORISSA
7
ROYAPPA
8 PT.PARAMANADA KAATARA V. UOI
2.1 Due process
The preventive detention law enforced by the Zupi government is considered constitutional as
it does not violate any principle of due process guaranteed by the constitution. The basic
procedural safeguards essential for a fair legal process is followed according to the provisions
of the act. Section 6 grants special grounds on base of which one can be detained and section
7 very rightly demands the need for ground conveyance and jurist opinion to time extension.
The grounds were not conveyed in this case on the base of protecting the public order as
permitted by Art 22 (6). Since Jack was a social right activist and conveying the grounds may
lead to a riot or set of protests by his followers disturbing internal peace.
Art 22 (5)When any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing
for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate
to such person the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest
opportunity of making a representation against the order.

(6)Nothing in clause (5) shall require the authority making any such order as is referred to in
that clause to disclose facts which such authority considers to be against the public interest to
disclose.

In the case of Maneka Gandhi v union of India 9 1978 the court ruled that procedure
established by law under article 21 must be reasonable, fair, just and emphasised that is
reasons must be provided for a individual for adverse administrative actions and an
opportunity to be heard before such actions are taken in this case Ms. Maneka’s passport
without providing enough reasons and an opportunity unity to be heard was held to be
arbitrary and violative of her fundamental rights.
Interpretation of article 21:
1. Valid law,
2. Must provide procedure,
3. Just fair unreasonable
It is submitted that the above conditions are fulfilled by the ZPSA 2024:
It is valid since it follows all the constitutional demand and is very much similar to the
present enforceable acts such as NSA 1980 & UAPA 1967
i) National security Act 1980
a. Section 3- Power to detain persons wrt security of state or maintenance of public
order
b. Section 10- The Advisory board may constitute any member who has been or
qualified to be a HC judge.
ii) UAPA 1967

9
MANEKA
 a. Section 15- definition of “terrorist act”. The ambit of the term is wide and inciting
communal violence/hatred may fall under its ambit
b. Section 43- Officers competent to investigate offences, hence allowing search &
seizure
c. Section 43A- Power to arrest, search, etc.
The objective of the acts is to mitigate unlawful detention and only lawfully detain accorf
It is submitted that Justice Krishna Iyer has rightfully professed “natural justice is a distillate
of due process”10 , such a process is not violated by the ZPSA 2024.
In the case of Sunil Batra V. UOI11 it was held that due process is a fundamental principle of
justice that requires fair treatment, respect for human dignity, and procedural safeguard even
in the context of prisoners. According to the facts of the case there is no instance where the
dignity or equality is infringed.
The court in the case of NAND LAL V. STATE OF PUNJAB12 held that judicial scrutiny of
COFEPOSA s3 (1) a (3) which allowed preventive detention on the ground of prejudicial
activities affecting the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. it
was held that the detenu has no right to legal assistance in proceedings before Advisory board
but permitting the detaining authority to be represented by counsel and denying such rights to
detenu is violaive of article 14 & 21. In this case Jack Miranda has been given all rights to go
for legal assistance and hence is valid.
In the case of Jolly George Varghese v Bank of Cochin13 It was held that Article 11
International covenant on civil and political rights along with Article 14 & 19 of the indian
constitution commands not to imprison a person except under law which is fair, just and
reasonable in procedure according to the high value of human dignity enshrined in Article 21
of the Indian Constitution.
But Article 19(3) of ICCPR places limitations on freedom of expression if necessary wrt
national security or public order.
Hence the case and the preventive detention law is just.
In the case of LIVERSIDGE V. ANDERSON14, it was held that the preventive
detention is not criminal conviction which can only be warranted by legal evidence.
Therefore production of legal evidence against the detenu is not necessary and mere
apprehension & suspiciousness on reasonableness would suffice
In the case of AK GOPALAN v. UOI15 the limited scope of due process was to procedural
aspects and later in maneka Gandhi v UOI16 expanded the concept to encompass both
procedural and substantive aspects of fairness, reasonableness, and justice.

10
Maneka
11
sunil
12
nan lal
13
jolly
14
LIVERSIDGE V. ANDERSON
15
AK Gopalan
16
Maneka gandhi
Additionally in the case of SARASWATHI SESHAJIRI V STATE OF KERALA 17 It was
held that Judicial scrutiny plays a crucial role in upholding due process.
In the case of Malak Singh v. State of Punjab 18, S23 of Punjab Police Act was held valid for
detaining people if they are suspected to be habitual offenders. Similarly the detenu here is
suspected to be a a habitual offender since he had done many such past activities according to
the para 10 of the proposition
The ZPSA 2024 does not infringe any due process methodology & is accomplished in
complete accordance to the constitution.
2.2 FREEDOM OF SPEECH & EXPRESSION
It is humbly submitted that Article 19(1)(a) provides that all citizens shall have the right to
freedom of speech and expression but this right is subject to limitations imposed under article
19 (2) which empowers the state to put reasonable restrictions.

Article 19(2) : Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation
of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as
such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred
by the said sub-clause in the interests ofthe sovereignty and integrity of India,
the security of the State, friendly relations with Foreign States, public order,
decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or
incitement to an offence.
In the case of Amit Sahni v. commissioner of police 19
Section 124a of the Indian penal code 1860 defines the offence of sedition as follows
whoever by words either spoken or written or by signs or by visible representation or
otherwise bring or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt or excite or attempts to excite
disaffection towards the governor established by law in India shall be punished.
Hence, the actions of the detenu Jack Miranda has led to the detainment under a lawful
action.
In the Nihaarendu Dutt Majumdar v. Emperor case 20, the federal court ruled that criticizing or
mocking the government is not a crime unless it is done with the intention of undermining
respect for the government in a way that could lead to people no longer obeying the law. The
offense lies in the disruption of public order, but the Privy Council overruled this decision
and held that sedition is not limited to incitement to violence or disorder. Based on this case,
the detention of Jack Miranda could be considered a valid measure against public disorder,
which could lead to citizens disobeying the law.
In the case of Babulal parade v State of Madras21,Section 144 of the CRPC was challenged
on the ground that it imposed unreasonable restriction on the right of freedom of speech and

17
SARASWATHI SESHAJIRI
18
Malak Singh v. State of Punjab
19
Amit Sahni v. commissioner of polic
20
Nihaarendu Dutt Majumdar v. Emperor case
21
Babulal parade v State of Madras
expression the court held section 144 is valid and anticipatory action to prevent disorder is
within the ambit of Art 19(2). under section 144 CrPC if a magistrate is of the opinion that
there is sufficient ground for a immediate danger of breach of peace she can by a written
order direct a person or persons to detain from certain acts if he consider that such direction
is likely to prevent or tend to prevent a disturbance of public tranquillity or a riot or affray.
It is humbly submitted that the freedom of expression can be suppressed under the condition
that the exercise of this right would cause public disorder i.e tendency to create public
disorder22. In the case of UOI V. MOTION PICTURES ASS. 23 it was held by SC that states
interest in preserving national security can justify certain restrictions on freedom of speech &
expression.
In the recent judgement of Anuradha Basin v. uoi 2020, the SC held that the restriction on
Art 19(1)(a) can be restricted for national security if proportional to the circumstances and
reasonable, under the test for examining wether restrictions are proportionate and in nexus
with objective sought24.
In light of the above contentions it is humbly submitted that the fundamental right of freedom
of speech & expression was constitutionally not affected.

22
S RANGARAJAN V P JAGIJIVAN RAM
23
MOTION PIC
24
Modern dental college