defendant 07

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


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




i



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


Page

ii

Index of Authorities_____________________________________________________________


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


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.


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.


Page

v


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


Page

v


WRIT OF MANDAMUS COMMANDING THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF

THE DEFENDANT PRESIDENCY COLLEGE TO REMOVE THE CCTVS

INSTALLED IN THE CAMPUS.


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

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


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....’


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]


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


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)


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


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


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


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

http://www.governor.virginia.gov/TempContent/techPanelReport.cfm


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:-


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


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.


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


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.

http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/cs199r/fp/JanaRachel.pdf

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__________________________


defendant 07

Documents