Sattwikstan Vs The Government of India.

Plaintiff is summoned to court.
Attorney of the defending party is also summoned.
This case shall be decided by a bench of two justices, the Honourable Chief Justice Rihaam and additional Justice Deadshot.

We request the defendant to provide necessary arguments with his attorney as quickly as possible to prevent any waste of time.
We also request the Government of India to prepare their arguments as well.

The plaintiff, that is Mr Sattwik, is his own attorney owing to an unwillingness pn part of lawyers to fight his case

Respected Judges, I, Whole India the current Minister of Security Affairs shall be the Attorney representing the Government of India. I request the Judges to begin the case's procedings.

I'm also at your desk

Respected members, we start the proceedings of the case. Before we receive the statement from the petitioner, we request the Government to state its opinion on the matter and furthermore the provisions of the IPC under which the petitioner was banned.

Respected Judges, Sattwikstan has done treason against India, under which the Interim ban was issued. As stated by my Ministry in the Official Indian Statement. This fellow has been busy working anti-India and has joined hands with the known Fascist raider region called Genua. This fellow has done illegal recruitment and has further occupied the Indian Parliament. For revoking the ban, the government had already issued a notice of demands which included:
"1] Handing over GHE to the Indian government.
2] Stopping Raids with Genua.
3] Handing over the Indian Parliament to the Indian Government."

The said Ultimatum wasn't fulfilled and hence, the ban continued. This fellow is also responsible for forming Free India, raid on Jaipur, joining hands with Nations against India. This fellow even has worked with Genua for destroying India. I even have a few screenshots that prove Genua's plans are to conquer India, and those screenshots cannot be presented here since they are taken by our intelligence agency and are highly sensitive at the moment.

Rihaam wrote:The plaintiff, that is Mr Sattwik, is his own attorney owing to an unwillingness pn part of lawyers to fight his case

Your Honour, I did receive an offer from one person to fight my case. It is my own intention to fight my case on my own which caused me to request the judiciary to allow me to be my own lawyer.

The Judiciary recognizes the right of confidentiality and privacy that is accorded to all organs of the Goverment but reminds the same that such documents may be solicited if the situation calls for it; to maintain confidentiality, the Court may request the Goverment to submit the screenshots in private.
The accusations against the petitioner are of w highly sensitive and provocative nature and the Court notes the gravity of the offences committed by the petitioner.

The plaintiff is requested to clarify to the court as to the acceptance of the ultimatum presented by the Goverment.

Whole India wrote:Respected Judges, Sattwikstan has done treason against India, under which the Interim ban was issued. As stated by my Ministry in the Official Indian Statement. This fellow has been busy working anti-India and has joined hands with the known Fascist raider region called Genua. This fellow has done illegal recruitment and has further occupied the Indian Parliament. For revoking the ban, the government had already issued a notice of demands which included:
"1] Handing over GHE to the Indian government.
2] Stopping Raids with Genua.
3] Handing over the Indian Parliament to the Indian Government."

The said Ultimatum wasn't fulfilled and hence, the ban continued. This fellow is also responsible for forming Free India, raid on Jaipur, joining hands with Nations against India. This fellow even has worked with Genua for destroying India. I even have a few screenshots that prove Genua's plans are to conquer India, and those screenshots cannot be presented here since they are taken by our intelligence agency and are highly sensitive at the moment.

Your Honour, I want to reply to these charges against me with certain questions in turn to the representative of the Indian Government here, Whole India.

- I want to ask the representative of the Indian Government here, Whole India, is there an official definition of 'Anti-India'? If yes, what is it? If no, why was I and how can I be charged under something that isn't even legally defined?

- The commencement of relations between the Greater Hindu Empire and Genua was a bilateral matter of the mentioned two regions. How can a bilateral matter of two regions be used as a charge against a Indian member? Is there any law in effect in India which forbids members from conducting regional affairs independently in their own regions? If yes, please mention the law. If no, how can I be punished for it?

- I request for evidence to be produced of any illegal recruitment done by me.

- The charge that I occupied the Indian Parliament is outright false. It was liberated from the rouge occupant by Genua and Genua had offered to return it to India. When they received no response from the Indian Government for a long time, they gifted the region to the Greater Hindu Empire. Evidence that the region was gifted to the Greater Hindu Empire by Genua is given in Screenshot 1 in this dispatch - https://www.nationstates.net/nation=hindu_founder/detail=factbook/id=1520070 (I dont know how to add pictures here)
I challenge the Indian Government to provide evidence that we raided with Genua even after this announcement if they feel this is false.

- The claim of the ultimatum is outright false. I was never provided any such compiled list of demands. I challenge the Indian Government to provide evidence of any complied list of demands sent to us.

- As for the content of the ultimatum, it itself is illegal to be presented in return of revocation of ban on an Indian member due to the following reasons given in same order as of the demands.

                 - "1] Handing over GHE to the Indian government." -

Is there any law in effect in India which states that members of India cannot run their own regions? If no, how can a member of India be forced to give up his region just to have his ban revoked? And even there, although I would never accept such an illegal and outrageous demand even if I had the power to, I would like to mention that I simply don't even have the personal power to accept it. I do not hold absolute power in the Greater Hindu Empire and any hand over of power to a foreign power would require a public referendum to be passed with a supermajority plus a supermajority in both houses of the Greater Hindu Imperial Parliament plus the approval of the Prime Minister of the Greater Hindu Empire.

                 - "2] Stopping Raids with Genua." -

This demand was presented alone to us and was promptly accepted and put to effect. I am presenting evidence of the same to the honourable Chief Justice through discord DM.

                  - "3] Handing over the Indian Parliament to the Indian Government." -

The request is not within my personal power to accept or execute. I repeat I do not hold absolute power in the Greater Hindu Empire. The hand over of the Parliament region will require approval of the sovereign Government of Free India, the now liege of the Parliament region plus a supermajority in both houses of the Greater Hindu Imperial Parliament.

- On what ground is the formation of Free India illegal when it didn't participate in any military offensive against India? In India, is it a crime to form one's own region? If yes, under which law? Or is it a crime in India to speak against the Indian Government? If yes, under which law? Because the only type of offensive in which Free India engaged was verbal. Moreover, the region was founded long AFTER I was banned.

- How am I responsible for any plans of Genua for anything? The Greater Hindu Empire doesn't even have any relations with Genua anymore.

- I challenge for evidence to be presented that suggests that I engaged in plans to destroy India. Plus, the destruction of a region like India is not even in my capability due to NS mechanics.

Petitioner, the Indian Parliament is under the sole tutelage of the Union of India and its people. You are neither authorised to "accept it as a gift", as you say so. This in itself is a breach of national sovereignty.

Rihaam wrote:Petitioner, the Indian Parliament is under the sole tutelage of the Union of India and its people. You are neither authorised to "accept it as a gift", as you say so. This in itself is a breach of national sovereignty.

That would be true if I was a member of India then. But I had been banned from India long before that and the laws of India hence, no longer applied to me. Moreover, I did not accept the region as a gift in my personal capacity, the Government of the Greater Hindu Empire accepted it as a whole.

The Goverment of India is requested to file its response.

VladimirSattwik wrote:

Rihaam wrote:Petitioner, the Indian Parliament is under the sole tutelage of the Union of India and its people. You are neither authorised to "accept it as a gift", as you say so. This in itself is a breach of national sovereignty.

That would be true if I was a member of India then. But I had been banned from India long before that and the laws of India hence, no longer applied to me. Moreover, I did not accept the region as a gift in my personal capacity, the Government of the Greater Hindu Empire accepted it as a whole.

You must realize that the absence of citizenship of or loyalty to a particular region does not negate established principles of national sovereignty and territorial integrity, which you, as the Constitutional Head of the GHE had an obligation to adhere to.
Nevertheless, the Goverment is summoned to show court the exact offence under which the petitioner was banjected.
IPC Article 2 (1) which subsection?

Rihaam wrote:

VladimirSattwik wrote:

Rihaam wrote:Petitioner, the Indian Parliament is under the sole tutelage of the Union of India and its people. You are neither authorised to "accept it as a gift", as you say so. This in itself is a breach of national sovereignty.

That would be true if I was a member of India then. But I had been banned from India long before that and the laws of India hence, no longer applied to me. Moreover, I did not accept the region as a gift in my personal capacity, the Government of the Greater Hindu Empire accepted it as a whole.

You must realize that the absence of citizenship of or loyalty to a particular region does not negate established principles of national sovereignty and territorial integrity, which you, as the Constitutional Head of the GHE had an obligation to adhere to.
Nevertheless, the Goverment is summoned to show court the exact offence under which the petitioner was banjected.
IPC Article 2 (1) which subsection?

The law of the Greater Hindu Empire does not allow me or anyone to keep personal obligations in mind when taking professional actions.

Rihaam wrote:

VladimirSattwik wrote:

Rihaam wrote:Petitioner, the Indian Parliament is under the sole tutelage of the Union of India and its people. You are neither authorised to "accept it as a gift", as you say so. This in itself is a breach of national sovereignty.

That would be true if I was a member of India then. But I had been banned from India long before that and the laws of India hence, no longer applied to me. Moreover, I did not accept the region as a gift in my personal capacity, the Government of the Greater Hindu Empire accepted it as a whole.

You must realize that the absence of citizenship of or loyalty to a particular region does not negate established principles of national sovereignty and territorial integrity, which you, as the Constitutional Head of the GHE had an obligation to adhere to.
Nevertheless, the Goverment is summoned to show court the exact offence under which the petitioner was banjected.
IPC Article 2 (1) which subsection?

Moreover,

- I would have such obligations if I was a member of India then. I was no longer bound by laws of India the moment I was banned and I was no longer a member.

- Plus, personal obligations from a particular region (India) don't affect official obligations in another (here GHE)

These are basic international obligations which you have seemingly violated.

Anyways, the Goverment must file a reply.
If the Parliament is still occupied, this aspect of the case comes under international law.

Also, there is nothing that suggests that crimes committed in Indian territory shall not be tried under Indian laws if the perpetrator is non-Indian.

VladimirSattwik wrote:

Rihaam wrote:

VladimirSattwik wrote:

Rihaam wrote:Petitioner, the Indian Parliament is under the sole tutelage of the Union of India and its people. You are neither authorised to "accept it as a gift", as you say so. This in itself is a breach of national sovereignty.

That would be true if I was a member of India then. But I had been banned from India long before that and the laws of India hence, no longer applied to me. Moreover, I did not accept the region as a gift in my personal capacity, the Government of the Greater Hindu Empire accepted it as a whole.

You must realize that the absence of citizenship of or loyalty to a particular region does not negate established principles of national sovereignty and territorial integrity, which you, as the Constitutional Head of the GHE had an obligation to adhere to.
Nevertheless, the Goverment is summoned to show court the exact offence under which the petitioner was banjected.
IPC Article 2 (1) which subsection?

Moreover,

- I would have such obligations if I was a member of India then. I was no longer bound by laws of India the moment I was banned and I was no longer a member.

- Plus, personal obligations from a particular region (India) don't affect official obligations in another (here GHE)

I would like to inform the honorable gentleman that the case and the judiciary acts under the Indian Penal Code not under penal code of any other region.
Noting that your actions was not only against Indian law but also against International Standards and basic laws.

I also would like to ask The Government of India to file a reply to the responses filed by the appellant.

Rihaam wrote:Also, there is nothing that suggests that crimes committed in Indian territory shall not be tried under Indian laws if the perpetrator is non-Indian.

GHE isnt Indian territory. So actually the charges of associating with Genua, Free India foundation, etc. can't be put against me. As for the Parliament thing, I already gave proof showing GHE never captured it.

Deadshot wrote:

VladimirSattwik wrote:

Rihaam wrote:

VladimirSattwik wrote:

Rihaam wrote:Petitioner, the Indian Parliament is under the sole tutelage of the Union of India and its people. You are neither authorised to "accept it as a gift", as you say so. This in itself is a breach of national sovereignty.

That would be true if I was a member of India then. But I had been banned from India long before that and the laws of India hence, no longer applied to me. Moreover, I did not accept the region as a gift in my personal capacity, the Government of the Greater Hindu Empire accepted it as a whole.

You must realize that the absence of citizenship of or loyalty to a particular region does not negate established principles of national sovereignty and territorial integrity, which you, as the Constitutional Head of the GHE had an obligation to adhere to.
Nevertheless, the Goverment is summoned to show court the exact offence under which the petitioner was banjected.
IPC Article 2 (1) which subsection?

Moreover,

- I would have such obligations if I was a member of India then. I was no longer bound by laws of India the moment I was banned and I was no longer a member.

- Plus, personal obligations from a particular region (India) don't affect official obligations in another (here GHE)

I would like to inform the honorable gentleman that the case and the judiciary acts under the Indian Penal Code not under penal code of any other region.
Noting that your actions was not only against Indian law but also against International Standards and basic laws.

I also would like to ask The Government of India to file a reply to the responses filed by the appellant.

Indian law applies to Indian territory. Neither GHE nor Genua nor Free India is Indian territory. As for international laws, Indian court isnt the authority to judge them, with all due respect. Plus GHE nor Genua nor Free India ever became party to any such laws or treaties so they don't apply either

Deadshot wrote:

VladimirSattwik wrote:

Rihaam wrote:

VladimirSattwik wrote:

Rihaam wrote:Petitioner, the Indian Parliament is under the sole tutelage of the Union of India and its people. You are neither authorised to "accept it as a gift", as you say so. This in itself is a breach of national sovereignty.

That would be true if I was a member of India then. But I had been banned from India long before that and the laws of India hence, no longer applied to me. Moreover, I did not accept the region as a gift in my personal capacity, the Government of the Greater Hindu Empire accepted it as a whole.

You must realize that the absence of citizenship of or loyalty to a particular region does not negate established principles of national sovereignty and territorial integrity, which you, as the Constitutional Head of the GHE had an obligation to adhere to.
Nevertheless, the Goverment is summoned to show court the exact offence under which the petitioner was banjected.
IPC Article 2 (1) which subsection?

Moreover,

- I would have such obligations if I was a member of India then. I was no longer bound by laws of India the moment I was banned and I was no longer a member.

- Plus, personal obligations from a particular region (India) don't affect official obligations in another (here GHE)

I would like to inform the honorable gentleman that the case and the judiciary acts under the Indian Penal Code not under penal code of any other region.
Noting that your actions was not only against Indian law but also against International Standards and basic laws.

I also would like to ask The Government of India to file a reply to the responses filed by the appellant.

Plus there aren't any NS-wide laws to abide by either

Please do not instruct the judiciary as to the applicability of laws; we are competent individuals, and must inform the appellant that the sole case of non-citizenship does not, in fact, deem a non-national immune to domestic law, unless otherwise stated by Law itself. Furthermore, your ignorance as to the resolutions of the General Assembly of the WA i]shall not affect the details of the case.
Government of India, please file a reply.