defendant 07
TRANSCRIPT
RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW PUNJAB, PATIALA
______________________________________________________________________________
BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF WEST BENGAL
AT
CALCUTTA
______________________________________________________________________________
STUDENTS’ PRIVACY FORUM
(SPF)
- PETITIONER -
V.
PRESIDENCY COLLEGE, CALCUTTA
- DEFENDANT -
______________________________________________________________________________
W.P. (C) No.: ______/2011
______________________________________________________________________________
GROUP - 15
Table of Contents___________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM FOR
THE DEFENDANT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________
INDEX OF
AUTHORITIES………………………………………………………………
…………II
INDEX OF
CASES………………………………………………………………………
…………III
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS………………………………………………...
………………………IV
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………...
……………………………………………V
STATEMENT OF
FACTS………………………………………………………………………
…...VI
ISSUES RAISED………………………………..
……………………..............…………………. VII
i
MEMORANDUM for DEFENDANT
FOURTEENTH S.C. JAVALI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
Table of Contents___________________________________________________________
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………...
………………………………………………..VIII
______________________________________________________________
________________
BODY OF PLEADINGS…………………………………………………..
…………………………1
______________________________________________________________
________________1. THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE
STUDENTS’ PRIVACY FORUM IS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN THIS
COURT………………………………………………………………………
……………1
2. THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF STUDENTS DOES
NOT EXIST IN THE CAMPUS..6
3. THE INSTALLATION OF CCTVS IN THE CAMPUS CONSTITUTES
A REASONABLE RESTRICTION ON THE RIGHT TO
PRIVACY……………………………………………………11
______________________________________________________________
_______________
PRAYER FOR
RELIEF……………………………………………………………..
………………X
i
MEMORANDUM for DEFENDANT
FOURTEENTH S.C. JAVALI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
Table of Contents___________________________________________________________
i
MEMORANDUM for DEFENDANT
FOURTEENTH S.C. JAVALI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION
Page
ii
Index of Authorities_____________________________________________________________
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATUTES
O UGC ACT, 1956
O CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1950.
O UGC (INSTITUTIONS DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITIES) REGULATIONS, 2010
O SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1860
O RAGHAVAN COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS, 2007
MEMORANDUM for DEFENDANT
Page
ii
Index of Authorities_____________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM for DEFENDANT
Page
iii
Index of Cases__________________________________________________________________
INDEX OF CASES
CHANDER MOHAN KHANNA V. NCERT
SUKHDEV SINGH V. BHAGAT RAM
R.D. SHETTY V. INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY
SORE PRAKASH REKHI V. UNION OF INDIA
VAISH DEGREE COLLEGE, SHAMLI AND OTHERS V. LAKSHMI NARAIN & ORS
DEEPAK KUMAR BISWAS V. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS
TEKRAJ VASANDHI ALIAS K.L. BASANDHI V. UNION OF INDIA
THE UNIVERSITY OF MADRAS V. SHANTHA BAI AND ANR
KHARAK SINGH V. STATE OF U.P
M.P. SHARMA AND OTHERS V. SATISH CHANDRA, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE (DELHI) AND
OTHERS
R.R. GOPAL AND ANOTHER V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHER
GOVIND V. STATE OF M.P
ROE V. WADE
UNITED STATES V. KNOTTS
X. V. HOSPITAL Z
MEMORANDUM for DEFENDANT
Page
iv
List of Abbreviations ____________________________________________________________
LIST OF ABBREVIATION
1. Del Delhi
2. Etc. Etcetera
3. ILR Indian Law Reports
4. Mad Madras
5. Univ. University
6. no. Number
7. SC Supreme Court
8. SCC Supreme Court Cases
9. UGC University Grants Commission
10. M.P. Madhya Pradesh
11. U.P. Uttar Pradesh
12. Regulation(s) UGC (Institutions Deemed to be Universities)
Regulations, 2010
13. LIC Life Insurance Corporation of India
14. ONGC Oil and Natural Gas Corporation
15. HC High Court
16. AIR All India Reporter
17. SCR Supreme Court Reports
18. Ors. Others
19. W.P. (c) Writ Petition (Civil)
20. I.T. Information Technology
21. Ammdt. Amendment
22. PUCL People’s Union for Civil Liberties
23. CCTV Closed Circuit Television Cameras
24.
25.
CSIR
ICPS
Council of Scientific and Industrial Research
Institute Of Constitutional and Parliamentary
Studies.
MEMORANDUM for DEFENDANT
Page
v
Statement of Jurisdiction__________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
With reference to the circumstances that have been presented in the instant case, the Defendant
has moved the Hon’ble Court due to the Petition for Writ filed against it by the Petitioners under
Article 226 of the Indian Constitution.
The Defendant most respectfully submits to the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court.
MEMORANDUM for DEFENDANT
Page
v
Statement of Jurisdiction__________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS
THE PRESTIGIOUS PRESIDENCY COLLEGE OF CALCUTTA (A DEEMED
UNIVERSITY) APPOINTED FAMOUS EDUCATIONIST MR. JOHN TO
STUDY AND PROPOSE THE STEPS TO BE TAKEN FOR IMPROVING THE
‘ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE AND STUDENT DISCIPLINE’.
MR. JOHN SUBMITTED HIS REPORT RECOMMENDING INSTALLATION OF
CLOSE CIRCUIT TELEVISION CAMERAS (CCTV) IN THE CAMPUS TO
MONITOR THE STUDENTS’ ACTIVITIES.
THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE PRESIDENCY COLLEGE (A BODY
REGISTERED UNDER THE CALCUTTA SOCIETY REGISTRATION ACT,
1972) CONSIDERED THE REPORT IN CONSULTATION WITH THE
PRINCIPAL OF THE COLLEGE AND DECIDED TO ACCEPT THE ABOVE
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INSTALLATION OF CCTVS IN THE CAMPUS
WITH EFFECT FROM X JULY 2011 AND CONNECT IT TO THE INTERNET.
STUDENTS WHO WERE GETTING MONITORED BY THEIR PARENTS
FORMED AN ASSOCIATION CALLED STUDENTS’ PRIVACY FORUM
(SPF) AND FILED A WRIT PETITION IN THE HIGH COURT SEEKING A
MEMORANDUM for DEFENDANT
Page
v
Statement of Jurisdiction__________________________________________________________
WRIT OF MANDAMUS COMMANDING THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF
THE DEFENDANT PRESIDENCY COLLEGE TO REMOVE THE CCTVS
INSTALLED IN THE CAMPUS.
MEMORANDUM for DEFENDANT
Page
vii
Issues Raised___________________________________________________________________
ISSUES RAISED
I. WHETHER, THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE?
II. WHETHER, THE STUDENTS HAVE ANY FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY
IN THE CAMPUS?
III. IF YES, DOES NOT THE INSTALLATION OF CCTVS IN THE CAMPUS FOR
ACHIEVING “ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE AND STUDENT DISCIPLINE”
CONSTITUTE A REASONABLE RESTRICTION ON THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY?
Page
ix
Summary of Arguments__________________________________________________________
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE STUDENTS’ PRIVACY FORUM IS NOT
MAINTAINABLE IN THIS COURT
1.1. THE TERM ‘STATE’ CANNOT BE EXTENDED TO EVERY AUTONOMOUS BODY
1.2. NO WRIT OF MANDAMUS CAN BE BROUGHT AGAINST THE MANAGEMENT OF THE
COLLEGE
1.3. A WRIT CANNOT BE ISSUED AGAINST A SOCIETY OR TRUST RUNNING A COLLEGE
OR AN INSTITUTION
1.4. NO CLEARANCE OF TESTS MENTIONED BY THE SUPREME COURT TO BE AN
‘OTHER AUTHORITY’.
1.5. UNIVERSITY NOT HELD TO BE A STATE BY THE COURTS.
2. THERE EXISTS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF STUDENTS IN THE CAMPUS
2.1 PRIVACY IS NOT A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT BUT A DERIVED RIGHT
2.2 RIGHT TO PRIVACY IN PUBLIC IS NOT PRESENT
2.3 RIGHT TO PRIVACY IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT
2.4 PRIVACY IN THE COLLEGE CAMPUS CANNOT BE CLAIMED AS IT HINDERS PUBLIC INTEREST
Page
ix
Summary of Arguments__________________________________________________________
3. THE INSTALLATION OF CCTVS IN THE CAMPUS DOES CONSTITUTE A REASONABLE
RESTRICTION ON THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY
3.1. STUDENT DISCIPLINE IS TO BE ENSURED IN A COLLEGE OF SUCH HIGH ACADEMIC
EXCELLENCE.
3.2. THE INDIAN LAWS PROVIDES FOR RESTRICTION TO THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY
3.3. MERE SURVEILLANCE IS NOT A VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY
3.4. NO DEFAMATORY RECORDING IS BEING CONDUCTED
3.5. LEGAL APPROVAL BEHIND THE DECISION
3.6. DECISION WIDELY ACCEPTED AND REPLICATED AROUND THE COUNTRY AND THE WORLD
Page
15
Body Of Pleadings______________________________________________________________
BODY OF PLEADINGS
1. THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE STUDENTS PRIVACY FORUM IS NOT
MAINTAINABLE IN THIS COURT
1.1. The term ‘State’ cannot be extended to every autonomous body
1.1.1. It was held in the case of Chander Mohan Khanna V. NCERT1 by the Supreme
Court that “Article 12 should not be stretched so as to bring in every
autonomous body which has some nexus with the Government within the
sweep of the expression "State". A wide enlargement of the meaning must be
tempered by a wise limitation. It must not be lost sight of that in the modern
concept of Welfare State; independent institution, corporation and agency are
generally subject to State control.” Through this judgment the SC clarified
that mere performance of State functions does not make every organisation a
state.
1.1.2. The Government Control of any organisation is also not a definite indication
whether an organisation is a state or not. This view was endorsed by the
Supreme Court in the case of Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagat Ram2, R.D. Shetty v.
International Airport Authority3 and Sore Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India4,
where the SC stated that the powers, functions, finances and control of the
government are some of the indicating factors to answer the question whether
a body is "State" or not and are merely indicative and are by no means 1 1991 SCALE (2) 19932 [1975] 1 SCC 4213 1979]3 SCC 4894 [1981] 1 SCC 449
Page
15
Body Of Pleadings______________________________________________________________
conclusive or clinching in any case. In the present case, the College does not
perform a state function and also does not satisfy the other criteria for
qualification as a state.
1.2. No writ of Mandamus can be brought against the Management of the College
1.2.1. A writ of Mandamus cannot be issued against the Governing Council of the
Presidency College5 as it is not the competent authority to answer any legal
proceedings against the College. The Presidency College is a Deemed
University and is bound by the provisions of the UGC [Institutions Deemed to
be Universities] Regulations, 2010. Regulation No. 24.0 (i) of the given
regulations clearly mentions that ‘....the person in whose name the institution
Deemed to be University may sue or be sued shall be the Registrar...’
1.2.2. Further, it is clearly mentioned under Regulation No. 24.0 (ii) that ‘...No suit
or legal proceedings shall lie against the Central Government or the
Commission or the institution Deemed to be University or an Officer of the
institution Deemed to be University or a member of the authority of the
institution Deemed to be University in respect of anything done or purported
or intended to be done in pursuance of any of these Regulations.’ This shows
that there can be no proceeding for a writ of Mandamus in the name of the
college or the Governing Council of the College.
1.3. A writ cannot be issued against a Society or Trust running a college or an
institution
5 Para 6 of the Moot Problem ‘…seeking a Writ of Mandamus commanding the Governing Council of the Defendant Presidency College....’
Page
15
Body Of Pleadings______________________________________________________________
1.3.1. A society or a trust which is running a private College cannot be held to be a
state. This has been held by the Supreme Court in the cases of Executive
Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shamli and Ors. v. Lakshmi Narain &
Ors.6 and Deepak Kumar Biswas v. Director of Public Instructions7. The
Supreme Court in the above cases has held that the management of private
colleges cannot be considered a statutory body.
1.3.2. The Supreme Court has also held that a normal institution run by a registered
society cannot be held as a state. In the case of in Tekraj Vasandhi alias K.L.
Basandhi v. Union of India8, it was held that the ICPS which was a registered
society financed mostly by the Central Government and partly by gifts and
donations from Indian and foreign agencies was not a state under the
provisions of the Indian Constitution. The Court said: "In a Welfare
State ................. Governmental control is very pervasive and touches all
aspects of social existence........... A broad picture of the matter has to be taken
and a discerning mind has to be applied keeping the realities and human
experiences in view so as to reach a reasonable conclusion." Even in the case
of Pradeep Kumar Biswas Vs Indian Institute Of Chemical Biology And
Othesr9 it was held that it was not a state even though it is a society. Further in
the case of Council of Scientific and Industrial Research10, CSIR which was
sponsored and controlled by the Central Government and registered under the
Societies Registration Act, was held as not a "State".
6 [1976] 2 SCR 10067 [1987] 2 SCC 2528 [1988]2 SCR 2609 [2002]5 SCC 0111 SC10 Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India [(1975) 1 SCC 485]
Page
15
Body Of Pleadings______________________________________________________________
1.3.3. In the present case, the University is managed by a Registered Society/ Trust
as specified in Regulation No. 1 of UGC [Institutions Deemed to be
Universities] Regulations, 2010 with negligible Government representation
and hence is not a state under the Constitution of India. The trust has only one
Government nominated representative and the rest of the members are
selected by the promoting trust or are ex-officio positions.
1.4. No clearance of tests mentioned by the Supreme Court to be an ‘other
authority’
1.4.1. The Supreme Court of India in the case of R.D. Shetty v. International Airport
Authority11 had laid down certain tests to be an ‘other authority’ under the
Constitution. The tests are as follows-
(a) Entire Share Capital is owned or managed by the State- The property
of the University is in the name of the Institution and not the
Government which shows that it is not owned or managed by the state.
(b) Enjoys monopoly status: The Deemed University does not enjoy a
monopoly status as there are numerous Deemed Universities which
have been established.
(c) Department of Government is transferred to Corporation: In the
present situation, no Department of Government is transferred to the
University. The education department to which the Defendant belongs
is controlled by the Ministry of Human Resource Development. The
11 1979 AIR 1628
Page
15
Body Of Pleadings______________________________________________________________
Deemed University only in the present case plays only a small role in
the duty of imparting education.
(d) Functional Character Governmental in Essence: The University does
not have a Governmental Functional Character as it cannot frame its
own rules or laws and is bound by the Societies Registration Act, 1860
and The UGC [Institutions Deemed to be Universities] Regulations,
2010.
1.5. University not held to be a State by the Courts
1.5.1. The Universities have not held to be a state by the different Courts. The
Madras High Court in the case of The University Of Madras vs Shantha Bai
and Anr.12 has held that a University is not a state and hence a writ was not
maintainable. This decision was repeated in the case of University of Panjab
v. K.G.R.C. Sharma13 where it was held that Panjab University was not a state.
1.5.2. In various U.S. Cases, like People Ex Rel Tinkoff v. North Western
University14 and North Western University v. People15, it has been clearly stated that
a University is not a state.
1.5.3. The Madras High Court in the case of The University Of Madras vs Shantha
Bai And Anr had introduced the concept of ‘ejusdem generis’ which meant
that the decision extended to all institutions in similar cases which means that
12 AIR 1954 Mad 6713 AIR 1966 P H 3414 (1948) 93 Law Ed. 383 (J)15 (1879) 25 Law Ed. 387 (K)
Page
15
Body Of Pleadings______________________________________________________________
in the present scenario, the Presidency College which is a Deemed University
can be not held as a state.
2. THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF STUDENTS DOES NOT EXIST
IN THE CAMPUS
2.1. Privacy is not a fundamental right but a derived right
2.1.1. The framers of the Constitution as well as the contemporary law-makers and
the scholars till date have not felt the need to include Right to Privacy as a
Fundamental right and this clearly indicates that the right to privacy does not
yet qualify to be in the exclusive range of fundamental rights. It was held in
the case of Kharak Singh v. State of U.P.16, that the right to privacy is not a
guaranteed right in India. It was held in the case of M.P. Sharma and Others
v. Satish Chandra, District Magistrate (Delhi) and Others17 that “When the
constitution makers have thought fit not to subject such regulation to
constitutional limitation by recognition of a fundamental right to privacy
analogous, to the American 4th Amendment, we have no justification to import
it into a totally different fundamental right, by some process of strain
construction.”
2.1.2. However, the Indian Courts have carved out an implied right to privacy in the
guise of “personal liberty” which is protected under Article 21 of the Indian
16 AIR 1963 SC 129517 AIR 1954 SC 300
Page
15
Body Of Pleadings______________________________________________________________
Constitution. The same was also held in the case of R.R. Gopal and another v.
State of Tamil Nadu and others18.
2.1.3. This right to personal liberty is however subject to limitations and is specified
under Article 21 under which the right is said to have emanated. The rights
can be restricted under a valid legal sanction. Here, the decision has been
made by the Governing Council which is the highest decision making
authority as per Regulation No. 5.4 of the UGC (Institutions Deemed to be
Universities) Regulations, 2010 under which it functions.
2.2. Right to privacy in public is not present
2.2.1. It was held in a U.S. Case of United States v. Knotts 19 that there exists no right
to privacy in a public place. This view was also held by the Supreme Court in
the case of Govind v. State of M.P.20 that the right to privacy is not absolute.
In the given situation, the place in question is a Deemed University where
thousands of students are present within a close proximity and live and
interact with each other. In such a situation, an expectation of privacy is
highly unreasonable.
2.3. Right to privacy is not an absolute right
2.3.1. Right to Privacy is not an absolute but a limited right. There is no provision in
the Indian Constitution which explicitly mentioned the Right to privacy, but
the Indian Courts have derived the Right to privacy under Article 19 and 21 of
18 AIR 1995 SC 26419 468 U.S. 276 (1983)20 1975 2 SCC 148
Page
15
Body Of Pleadings______________________________________________________________
the Indian Constitution and the Directive Principles of State Policy. However,
the Courts continue to maintain that the Right to Privacy is not an absolute but
a limited right which may be subject to restrictions from the state21 and
competent authorities from the State or procedures established by a law. This
is also mentioned in the Indian constitution and can be found in the following
articles-
a) Article 19(1) (a) stipulates that “All citizens shall have the right
to freedom of speech and expression”. However this is
qualified by Article 19(2) , 19 (3), 19 (4) 19 (5) and 19 (6)
which states that this will not “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 … in the interests of the 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”.
Thus the Freedom of Expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)
(a) is not absolute, but a qualified right that is susceptible,
under the Constitutional scheme, to being curtailed under
specified conditions. The exceptions specified in 19 (2) - (5) if
considered in the present situation where the surveillance is
being conducted in the college premises satisfies a number of
the given conditions. Here, public order maintenance and
21 Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India, AIR 1960 SC 544
Page
15
Body Of Pleadings______________________________________________________________
security of public are the conditions fulfilled and are of utmost
interest due the new aspect of prevention of college violence
which has evolved after the Virginia Tech22 shootings and other
cases of college violence.
b) In Article 21, the words ‘except according to a procedure
established by law’ clearly specify that a legal restriction to the
right is completely valid. This has also been held in the Case of
Govind vs. State of M.P.23, where it was confirmed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the Right to privacy is not
an absolute Right and accepted it as a limited right.
2.4. Privacy in the college campus cannot be claimed as it hinders public interest
2.4.1. The Supreme Court of India in the case of X vs. Hospital Z 24 has held that "As
one of the basic Human Rights, the right of privacy is not treated as absolute
and is subject to such action as may be lawfully taken for the prevention of
crime or disorder or protection of health or morals or protections of rights and
freedoms of others". The Court has referred to the US case, Roe vs. Wade25
and European Convention on Human Rights to come to this conclusion.
2.4.2. The college campus to which the present case relates is a public area which is
frequented by hundreds of people around the day. The responsibility of the
college authorities essentially relates to ensuring the security of all the persons
22 Report of the Virginia Tech Review Panel retrieved from http://www.governor.virginia.gov/TempContent/techPanelReport.cfm . Last visited on 10-10-2011.23 AIR 1975 SC 138524 (1998) 8 SCC 29625 410 US 113
Page
15
Body Of Pleadings______________________________________________________________
concerned. In such a scenario, the right of privacy if any can be violated in the
interest of public security. Numerous incidents of violence in college
campuses and terrorist activities have increased the need for surveillance.
Such surveillance has been recommended by the Delhi Police and the UGC
(Raghavan Committee). Also, CCTV cameras have been installed in College
campuses around the globe but no instance of privacy violation has been
accepted.
2.4.3. The Raghavan Committee guidelines for the Prevention of Ragging mention
that an adequate watch should be kept by the College authorities to prevent
incidents of violence or ragging in the college premises. The UGC Anti-
Ragging Guidelines also prescribe strict measures such as surprise checks in
rooms to tackle ragging. If the act of mere surveillance is held to be a
violation of privacy then, the judgment and orders of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India will be impossible to implement.
3. THE INSTALLATION OF CCTVs IN THE CAMPUS DOES CONSTITUTE A
REASONABLE RESTRICTION ON THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY
The decision of the college authorities to install CCTV Cameras is absolutely reasonable and
constitutes a valid restriction to the Right to Privacy. The decision of the college authorities to
implement the decision for ‘academic excellence and student discipline’ can be well justified and
expressed as follows:-
Page
15
Body Of Pleadings______________________________________________________________
3.1. Student discipline and academic excellence is to be ensured in a College of
such high standing as a ‘Deemed University’.
3.1.1. The Presidency College has acquired the status of a Deemed University due to its
academic excellence. The college is under a responsibility to ensure this status. The
need for maintaining academic excellence is mentioned in Rule 11 of the UGC
[Institutions Deemed to be Universities] Regulations, 2010 which states that ‘An
institution Deemed to be University shall maintain standards, higher than the
minimum, of instruction, academic and physical infrastructure, qualifications of
teachers, etc. as prescribed for college level institutions’.
To maintain this standard the University can ensure reasonable restrictions to ensure
‘academic excellence’ which is the prime goal of its existence.
3.2. The Indian laws provides for Restriction to the Right to Privacy
3.2.1. The Right to Privacy although not mentioned in the Constitution of India is held to be
emanating from the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The laws
prevalent in India have specified that there can be reasonable exceptions to the Right
to Privacy.
3.2.2. It is frequently contended that the Right to Privacy has emanated from Article 19 of
the Indian Constitution. However, Article 19 (2) to (5) of the Indian Constitution
provides for exceptions to the rights given under Article 19 (1). The exceptions which
are satisfied in the given case as follows:-
a) Security of the State : College campuses have come under siege in the past
due to various terrorist and anti-social elements. The recent Virginia Tech
Page
15
Body Of Pleadings______________________________________________________________
Shootings in the USA and the Beslan School Siege in Russia are examples
where the security of the state and its citizens were under threat due to
violence and terrorist action in the college campus. In many incidents, the
students of the college itself had participated in the firings.
To prevent such happenings, the college authorities are under an absolute
right to install CCTV cameras to ensure adequate protection and discipline
in the campus.
b) Incitement to an offence : The College authorities are under an absolute
right to prevent an incitement an offence in the campus. In the absence of
an adequate surveillance mechanism in the college campus there might be
incidents which can incite an offence such as Ragging or bullying. To
prevent such incidents, the college authorities are under an absolute
privilege to ensure adequate surveillance of the students.
c) Decency or Morality: The College authorities are within their right to
undertake measures to ensure that the basic standards of decency or
morality are maintained within the college campus. The maintenance of
decency or morality would fall under the basic aim to ensure ‘academic
excellence and discipline’ for which the Deemed University has been
established.
d) Public Order: The College authorities are under a reasonable right to
safeguard the public order in the campus by undertaking adequate
surveillance measures. Such measures have been undertaken in colleges
around the globe and Presidency College is no exception.
Page
15
Body Of Pleadings______________________________________________________________
3.3. Mere Surveillance is not a violation of the Right to Privacy
3.3.1. The Supreme Court of India in its various decisions has also upheld the right to a
reasonable restriction on the Right to Privacy. In the case of Kharak Singh v. State of
U.P26, the Supreme Court has held that the infringement of freedom guaranteed under
Article 19 (1) (d) of the Constitution and the attempt to ascertain the movements of an
individual was not an infringement of any fundamental right.
3.4. No defamatory recording is being conducted
3.4.1. In the present circumstances, the recording being conducted in good faith and is being
transmitted to the internet and is not of a defamatory nature. The acts which are being
transmitted are all truth which is a valid defense. Here the act of CCTV recording is
being done in good faith with an aim for academic excellence and maintenance of
discipline only.
3.5. Legal approval behind the decision
3.5.1. The act of CCTV recording has been undertaken due to stringent recommendations of
the UGC and the Raghavan Committee which had been established by the Supreme
Court to look into the issue of Ragging in the country. The Report suggests the use of
CCTV cameras to check ragging and has been accepted by the Supreme Court.
3.5.2. The use of CCTV cameras has also been recommended by the Delhi Police to ensure
campus security and protection. They have recognized it as a valuable tool to prevent
crime.
26 AIR 1963 SC 1295
Page
15
Body Of Pleadings______________________________________________________________
3.5.3. The decision has also been approved by the Governing Committee which is the
highest decision making body as per the UGC [Institutions Deemed to be
Universities] Regulations, 2010 by which the college is bound.
3.6. Decision widely accepted and replicated around the country and the world
3.6.1. The decision to install CCTV cameras is not a unique decision in the sense that
CCTV camera has been long installed in college campuses around the world.
Colleges like Delhi University, Aligarh Muslim University, Panjab University and
Christ University, Bangalore have installed CCTV camera in the college premises.
3.6.2. Around the world CCTV cameras have been installed in premier Universities like
Harvard University and MIT. A case study conducted in Harvard stated that ‘such a
system both in crime control and general campus system would outweigh the costs.’27
3.6.3. It can be seen that since, such a system is already running smoothly in numerous
places around the country, no special exception should arise in this particular college.
It can be thus clearly seen that the CCTV cameras create no restriction on the right to
Privacy and the decision of installing the cameras keeping in view the location and
prevailing situation is absolutely justified and in the best interest of the students.
27 Jana Lepon and Rachel Popkin, A Case Study of CCTV at Harvard, Retrieved from http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/cs199r/fp/JanaRachel.pdf . Last visited on 10-10-2011.
Page
x
Prayer for Relief________________________________________________________________
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore in the light of above facts stated, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the Court
may be pleased to cancel the application for the Writ petition and adjudge and declare:
I. That no Writ of Mandamus could be brought against the college.
II. That the decision of the management to install the CCTV did not violate the rights of
the students.
III. That the decision was valid to serve the aim of the college to ‘promote academic
excellence and student discipline.’
The Court may also be pleased to pass any other order in the light of justice, equity and good
conscience.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
At: Calcutta Counsels on behalf of Defendants
Date: ‘X’ October, 2011 X__________________________
MEMORANDUM for DEFENDANT