Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
IN THE MATTER OF
UNION OF INDIANA
(Respondent)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABBREVIATIONS.......ii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES............................................................................ .iii-viii
STATEMENT OF FACTS...ix
STATEMENT OF ISSUES...x
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ..................................................................................... .......xi
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ...................................................................................................1
CONTENTION I SECTION 14-A OF THE PRESS COUNCIL ACT 1978 IS CONSTITUTIONAL ...1
[1.1] SEC. 14-A OF PRESS COUNCIL ACT IS A REASONABLE RESTRICTION UNDER 19(2).........1
[1.1.1] ANTICIPATORY ACTION OF PRESS COUNCIL IS REASONABLE...2
[1.1.2] RESTRICTION UNDER SEC 14-A FALLS WITHIN THE GROUNDS PROVIDED IN ART.
19(2)............................................................................................ ....................................3
[1.2] SECTION 14-A PROVIDES PROCEDURE ESTABLISHED BY LAW FOR APPLICATION OF ART
19(2):-........................................................................................... .................................4
CONTENTION II:-SECTION
PRAYER ...........16
ABBREVIATIONS
Paragraph
A.I.R.
ALL
Allahabad
ALL ER
Anr.
Another
Art.
Article
Bom.
Bombay
Co.
Company
CriLJ
Del.
Delhi
Edn.
Edition
Etc.
Etcetera
Guj.
Gujarat
Id.
Ibid
LLJ
Ltd.
Limited
M.P.
Madhya Pradesh
Mad.
Madras
MANU
Manupatra
Ors.
Others
Re.
Reference
S.C.
Supreme Court
S.C.C.
S.C.R.
U.O.I.
Union Of India
U.P.
Uttar Pradesh
U.S.
United States
V.
Versus
Vol.
Volume
W.B.
West Bengal
ii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
I.
II.
OF THE
ON THE
CONSTITUTION
OF INDIA
OF INDIA
VOL. 1, 2013)
AND
OF INDIA
AND
BACKBONE
OF
THE
2004)
M.P. J AIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (LEXIS NEXIS, NEW DELHI, 7THEDN.,
2015)
iii
T.K. TOPE, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA (EASTERN BOOK CO., NEW DELHI, 3RD
EDN.,
2010)
OF INDIA
2013)
Amrita Bazar Patrika Press Ltd. v. Board of (1919) 47 Cal 190 (SB)
11
3.
11
4.
5.
ors.
6.
10
7.
Chamarbaugwala v. R M D ,
11
8.
9.
10.
11.
11
12.
Ghosh v. Joseph
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
AIR 1973 SC 87
19.
20.
(2012) 5 SCC 1
21.
iv
23.
24.
25.
26.
1,5 &8
27.
28.
29.
12
30.
32.
33.
AIR1967 SC 1373
34.
35.
Md. Yaqub and Alok Biswas v. State of West 2004 (4) CHN 406
Bengal,
36.
Mustakmiyajahharmiya
Shaikh
v.
Mehta
37.
38.
10
39.
11
Emperor
40.
41.
AIR1962 SC 812
42.
Odyssey
Communications
(P)
Ltd.
Lokvidayan Sanghatana
43.
Om Prakash v. Emperor
44.
45.
46.
47.
112
49.
11
50.
51.
52.
13
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
11
59.
60.
61.
11
62.
11 & 12
63.
64.
11
65.
66.
67.
68.
AIR1952 SC 329
69.
70.
71.
15
72.
73.
State of Travancore & Ors. v. Bombay Co. Ltd. 1952 1 SCR 1112
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
vi
80.
AIR2000 SC 377
US CASES
81.
Abrams v. U.S.
(1919) US 616
82.
Beauhranis v. Illinois
1&2
83.
Branderburg v. Ohio
84.
Brawn v. Oklahoma
85.
Bridges v. California
86.
Cantwell v. Connecticut
1&2
87.
1&2
88.
Cox v. Columbia
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
Gooding v. Wilson
95.
Irohwerk v. U.S.
96.
ISKCON v. Lee
14
97.
(1961) 366 US 36
98.
Kunz v. N.Y.
13
99.
100.
Near v. Minnesota
101.
20(L)
102.
Roth v U.S
103.
Schenck v. U.S.
(1919) US 47 (52)
1&2
104.
1.
Saia v. N.Y.
2.
Smith v. California,
3.
Teminiello v. Chicago
337 US 1 (1949)
vii
Stromberg v. California
5.
394 US 705(1969)
6.
Whitney v. California
UK CASES
7.
DPP v. Broome
(1974) AC 587
15
8.
Harrison v. Rutland
15
9.
10.
Rex. v. Aldred
(1909) 22 CCLC 1
11.
Tynan v. Balmer
(1967) 1 QB 91
15
V. DICTIONARIES
VI.
ONLINE AUTHORITES
scconline.com
manupatra.com
westlawindia.com
heinonline.com
lexisnexis.com
bloomsburycollection.com
viii
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Indiana is a federal republic country situated in south-east Asia ,New Delporto is the capital
as well as an education hub of the country. The city has some of the best colleges & universities
of the nation. One such university is Great Northern University (GNU). GNU has a very active
culture of student politics.
2. The Great Northern University Students Union (GNUSU) is the largest Student Union of GNU.
The GNUSU is a branch of the AISU (All Indiana Students Union), a left inclined organization.
In 2015 the Indiana Peoples Party (IPP) came to power which subscribes to right wing
ideologies. After coming to power, the government embarked on an economic reform mission
which looked to liberalize the economy to bring more foreign investments. These ideas did not
go well with the GNUSU and as a result country wide protests were held by them.
3. On June 8, 2016 a countrywide strike was called by the parent body of GNUSU in Utkal,
another Union Territory in Indiana. The protestors were lathi charged by the police and some
of them were seriously injured. The protestors were just sitting peacefully on the road and that
they were not given any warning by the police before the lathi charge. One of the injured
students, Tomar Rashid filed a writ petition against the Union government claiming that his
right to peaceful assembly was infringed by the state and claimed adequate compensation for
his injuries.
4. The GNUSU led the protest in capital city and its president Ramaiya Kumar became the face
of the movement. On 16th of June, 2016 a rally was organized in Delporto by GNUSU to show
solidarity to the injured students
5. Some of the incidents of the rally were recorded by various news agencies. Although the rally
ended peacefully, some videos began to circulate in social media about the speeches given by
Ramaiya Kumar. This video became viral and soon the government arrested Ramaiya Kumar
late at night and slapped him with the charges of sedition.
6. The session court held Ramaiya guilty and. He filed an appeal in the High Court of Delporto
which was rejected and hence the present appeal in this court came.
7. As the monsoon session began, the government by virtue of its majority made an amendment
to the Press Councils Act, 1978. Section 14A was incorporated into the Act, whose
constitutionality is challenged in the present petition
8. The Constitution, Press Councils Act & other laws of Indiana are pari materia with the
Constitution, Press Councils Act & other laws of India.
ix
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1. WHETHER
SECTION
14-A
OF
THE
PRESS
COUNCIL
ACT
1978
IS
CONSTITUTIONAL ?
2. WHETHER SECTION 124A IS CONSTITUTIONAL ?
3. WHETHER RAMAIYA KUMAR WILL BE LIABLE UNDER SECTION 124A UNDER
INDIAN PENAL C ODE?
4. WHETHER LATHI CHARGE DONE BY POLICE INFRINGED RIGHT TO PEACEFUL
ASSEMBLY OF TOMAR RASHID UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(B) OF CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA?
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
[1] SECTION 14-A OF THE PRESS COUNCIL ACT 1978 IS CONSTITUTIONAL :It is humbly submitted before this Honble Court that section 14-A of Press Council Act (herein
after referred as PCA) is constitutional, because it is a Reasonable Restriction under Art. 19(2)
of Indian Constitution (1.1) and anticipatory action of Press council is also reasonable. (1.1.1).
Moreover, restriction under Sec 14-A falls within the grounds provided in 19(2) (1.1.2) and it
provides Procedure established by Law for application of Art 19(2). (1.2)
CONTENTION II:-SECTION 124 -A OF IPC
IS
before this court that Section 124-A of IPC is constitutional because Honble supreme court
has declared it so(2.1).Moreover, restrictions imposed by section 124-A on 19(l)(a) are in
interest of public order u/art. 19(2)(2.2). Again there is necessity of the law of sedition u/
section 124-A on public order(2.3). Also sedition has been held as valid on many instances
(2.4). And lastly the gravity of unconstitutionality of sedition on national interest is too
much(2.5)
[3.]ACCUSED RAMAIYA KUMAR WILL BE LIABLE FOR SEDITION
It is submitted that the statement made by Ramaiya Kumar will come within the ambit of
Section 124A of Indian Penal Code, as the statement made by him, tried to arose the feeling of
hatred against the nation and government established by law, among the general public. He is
also liable for sedition as he has intention of same. (3.1)
[4.] LATHI
ASSEMBLY OF
DID NOT
INFRINGED
RIGHT
TO PEACEFUL
T OMAR RASHID
It is submitted that in the present case, the strike done by the supporters on highway will lead
to causing problem to passer-by, thus will come under the ambit of Section 8B of Highway
Act, and hence assembly on Highway will be held unlawful. So the act of Police, to vacate the
protestors from the Highway, is totally lawful, and in no way infringed the Right to Peaceful
Assembly of Tomar Rashid.
xi
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
[1] SECTION 14-A OF THE PRESS COUNCIL ACT 1978 IS CONSTITUTIONAL :It is humbly submitted before this Honble Court that section 14-A of Press Council Act (herein
after referred as PCA) is constitutional, because it is a Reasonable Restriction under Art. 19(2)
of Indian Constitution (1.1) and anticipatory action of Press Council is also reasonable. (1.1.1).
Moreover, restriction under Sec 14-A falls within the grounds provided in 19(2) (1.1.2) and it
provides Procedure established by Law for application of Art 19(2). (1.2)
[1.1] SEC. 14-A OF PRESS COUNCIL ACT IS A REASONABLE RESTRICTION UNDER 19(2)
Respondent contends that no right under Part III of constitution is absolute.1 It is right to
observe that the fundamental right to the freedom of speech and expression enshrined in Art.
19(1)(a) of our Constitution is based on Amendment I of the Constitution of the United States
of America.2 Even the American constitution which is considered as guardian of liberty3 does
not give freedom of speech as an absolute right4, and restrictions are placed on speech that may
induce hearers or listeners to engage in unlawful conduct5; speech that threatens' harm to
others;6 speech that provokes a hostile audience response7. Hence we can say that reasonable
restrictions can be placed on the freedom of speech and expression and Sec. 14-A of Press
Council Act 1978 is one such restriction.
Reasonability Test:-The reasonableness has got to be tested both from procedural and
substantive aspects.8 For adjudging the reasonableness of a restriction, factors such as the
Kesavananda Bharativa v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 S.C. 1461; Ram Singh v. State of Delhi, AIR 1951 S.C.
270; Railway Board v. Chandrima Das, AIR 2000 S.C. 988
2
State of Travancore-Cochin & Ors. v. Bombay Co. Ltd., 1952 1 SCR 1112; State of Bombay v. R. M. D.
Chamarbaugwala, 1957 1 SCR 874.
3
Konigsberg v. Stale of Bark II,(1961) 366 US 36; Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 US 568 (1942); Schenck
v. U.S., (1919) 249 US 97; Irohwerk v. U.S.,(1919) 249 US 204; Roth v. U.S., (1957) 354 US 476; Smith v.
California, (1959) 361 US 147; Cox v. Colm, (1975) 420 US 469.
4
Roth v U.S.,(1956) 354 US 476; Schenck v. U.S.(1919) US 47 (52); Abrams v. U.S. (1919) US 616; Beauharnis
v. Illinois, (1952) 343 US 250 (266); Near v. Minnesota (1930) 283 US 697.
5
Shaffer v. United States, 255 F 886 (9th Cire 1919); Masses Publication Co. v. Pattern, 244 F 535 (SDNY 1917);
Schenck v. United States, 249 US 47 (1919); Frohwerk v. United States, 249 US 204 (1919); Debs v. United
States, 249 US 211 (1919); Abrams v United, 250 US 616 (1919); Gitlow v. New York, 268 US 652 (1925);
Whitney v. California, (1927) 278 US 357; Dennis v. Untied States, 341 US 494 (1951); Branderburg v. Ohio,
395 US 444 (1969).
6
Bridges v. California, 314 US 252 (1941); Watts v. United States, 394 US 705(1969); Planned Parenthood v.
American Coalition of Life Activists, 290 F 3d 1058 (9 th Cir. 20(L).
7
Teminiello v. Chicago,337 US 1 (1949); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 US 296 (1940); Feiner v. New York,340
US 315 (1951); Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire,315 US 568 (1942).
8
DURGA DAS BASU , COMMENTRY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA , 3879 (Vol 4th, 9th Ed. , Lexis Nexis ,2007).
11
situations12which again in present case is done to solve the problem of Mashkir. Again it must
offer a standard or policy for the guidance of the administrative authority in the matter of
exercising his subjective power13 which in present case is provided by an exhaustive procedure
for Press council to exercise its power. Therefore, the restriction is reasonable.
[1.1.1] ANTICIPATORY ACTION OF PRESS COUNCIL IS REASONABLE :-
It is humbly submitted that the main purpose of the Sec. 14-A of PCA is to prevent the
circulation of news like that of Ramaiya Kumar, or more specifically the fighting words uttered
by him as it is anticipated by the Govt. that it can lead to disturbance of peace and tranquillity
and public order. In Chaplinsky14 Court defined the unprotected category of fighting words as
words which by their very utterances inflict injury or tend jo incite an immediate breach of
peace.15The utterance of 'fighting words that plainly tend to excite the person addressed to a
breach of the peace is not protected.16 So it would be correct to say that the Govt. wants to
prevent the circulation of the fighting words which it anticipates can lead to disturbances in
peace.
Anticipatory action has accordingly been held to be valid in respect of the freedom of
expression by a series of judgements.17 Injunction may be issued by a court against uttering
words which have the effect of force and incite acts of violence. 18The legislature could not rest
9
In re. RamleelaMaidan Incident, (2012) 5 SCC 1; Chintamanrao v. State of M.P., AIR 1951 SC 118.
Ramjilal v. State of U.P., AIR 1957 SC 620 (623).
11
Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1961 SC 884 (890).
12
Harishanker v. State of M.P.,(1955) 1 SCR 380; State Of Bihar v. Kamla Kant Misra, AIR 1971 SC 1667.
13
Harichand v. Mizo Dtr. Council, AIR 1967 SC 829; Maneklal Chotana v. Makwana, AIR 1967 SC 1373;
Himmat Lal v. Police Commissioner., AIR 1973 SC 87.
14
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire., (1942) 315 US 568.
15
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 US 568 (1942); Cantwell v. Connecticut,310 US 296 (1940).
Gooding v. Wilson,405 US 518 (1972); Lewis v. New Orleans, 408 US 913 (1972); Brawn v. Oklahoma, 408 US
914 (1972).
16
Schenck v. U.S., (1919) US 47 (52); Beauhranis v. Illinois (1952) 343 US 250.
17
Virendra v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 896 : Babulal v. State of Maharshtra, AIR 1961 SC 884 ; State of
Karnataka v. Praveen Bhai Thogadia, AIR 2004 SC 2081; Ramleela Maidan Incident, In re., (2012) 5 SCC 1.
18
Gompers V. Bucks Stove (1911) 221 US 418; Near v. Minnesota (1930) 283 US 697
10
ART.
19(2):-It is humbly submitted that the freedom of speech and expression can be restricted only
on the grounds23 provided under Art 19 (2) of the Constitution.24 And the restriction provided
in Sec. 14-A of PCA comes under these following grounds:Sovereignty and Integrity of India:-This ground was added as a ground of restriction of the
freedom of expression by 16th Amendment of the Constitution. The object was to enable the
State to combat cries for secession and the like from organisations such as the David Kazhagam
is the South and Plebiscite Front in Kashmir, and activities in pursuance thereof which might
not possibly be brought within the fold of the expression security of the State. 25 No
independent country will tolerate any agitation on the part of any unit of its territory either to
secede and form an independent State or to integrate with a foreign State.26 In the present case
the Section 14-A of PCA aims at curtailing such views only hence it comes under this ground.
Security of the State :- No State can tolerate utterances which threaten the overthrow of
organized Government by unlawful or unconstitutional means.27 The reason is that the security
of the State organized Government is the very foundation of the freedom of speech. 28And in
the present case the speech of Ramaiya Kumar on the most volatile topic of Mashkir asking
19
29
Moot Problem 11
Santokh Singh v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1973 S.C. 1901.
31
State of Bihar v. Shail bala, AIR 1952 S.C. 329; Madhulimaya v. S.D.M. Monghyar, (1970) 3 SCC 746.
32
State of U.P. v. Kamal Kishore, AIR 1988 1 SCC 287; Kamal Bhai v. Commissioner of Police. Nagpur,
(1993) 3 S.C.C. 384; Harpeet Kaur v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1992 S.C. 979;
33
UOI v. Arvind Sherrill, AIR 2000 S.C. 377; Sunil Fulchand Shaw v. UOl, AIR 2000 S.C. 1023; Commr. Of
Police v. C. Anita, AIR 2004 S.C. 4423.
34
Mustakmiyajahharmiya Shaikh v. M.M. Mehta, Commissioner Of Police, (1995) 3 S.C.C. 237.; Pushpadevi M.
Jatia v. M.L. Wadhawan, AIR 1987 S.C. 1748; Nagen Murmu v. State Of W.B. AIR 1973 S.C. 884.
35
Romesh thapar v. State Of Madras AIR 1950 S.C. 124.
36
Madhulimaya v. S.D.M. Monghyar (1970) 3 S.C.C. 746; Ghosh v. Joseph, AIR 1963 S.C. 812.
37
Karunanidhi v. Asst. Police Commr., AIR 1968 Mad 54.
38
Om Prakash v. Emperor, AIR 1948 Nag 109; Stale of U P. v. Lalji Singh Yadav, AIR 1977 SC 202.
39
Supt. Central Prison v. Ram Manohar Lohia,: AIR 1960 S.C. 633.
40
(1978) 2 SCR 621.
30
45
established by law for taking away this liberty under 19(1)(a) which has a comprehensive
system and proper mechanism for taking away the liberty.
CONTENTION II:-SECTION 124 -A OF IPC
IS
before this court that Section 124-A of IPC is constitutional because Honble supreme court
has declared it so (2.1).Moreover, restrictions imposed by section 124-A on 19(l)(a) are in
interest of public order u/art. 19(2) (2.2). Again there is necessity of the law of Sedition u/
section 124-A on public order (2.3). Also sedition has been held as valid on many instances
(2.4). And lastly the gravity of unconstitutionality of sedition on national interest is too much
(2.5)
[2.1] HONBLE SUPREME COURT ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SEDITIONThe first case in India that arose under the section is what is known as the Bangobasi case
Queen-Emprees v. Jogendra Chunder Bose46, then the case of Queen-Empress v.
Balgangadhar Tilak47 But starting from there till Kedar Nath case48, there was a lot of issue
and debate regarding the validity of Section 124A, which was lastly sorted out in Kedar Nath49
case.
41
Id.
I.R. Coelho (Dead) by LRs. v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1999) 7 S.C.C. 580; R.C. Cooper v. Union of India, AIR
1970 SC 564.
43
Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 S.C. 1295.
44
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569; Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746 ;State
of T.N. v. Nabila,(2015) 12 SCC 127; Pebam Ningo Mikoi Devi v. State of Manipur,(2010) 9 SCC 618; Union of
India v. Paul Manickam, (2003) 8 SCC 342.
45
Id.
46
I.L.R. (1892) Cal. 35
47
I.L.R. (1898) 22 Bom. 112.
48
KedarNath Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 S.C. 955.
49
KedarNath Singh v. State of Bihar,AIR 1962 S.C. 955.
42
51
head - namely, that whoever by language, either written or spoken incites or encourages other
to use physical force or violence in some public matter connected with the State, is guilty of
publishing a seditions libel. The word "sedition" in its ordinary natural signification denotes a
tumult, an insurrection, a popular commotion, or an uproar; it implies violence or lawlessness
in some form. And if any of the issue is there as mentioned, then it would be totally legal to
curb that"
But one thing that need to be given special focus is that of word, the expression "the
Government established by law" which needs to be distinguished from the person's for the time
being engaged in carrying on the administration. "Government established by law" is the visible
symbol of the State. The very existence of the State will be in jeopardy if the Government
established by law is subverted. Hence the continued existence of the Government established
by law is an essential condition of the stability of the State. That is why 'sedition', as the offence
in s. 124A has been characterised, comes under Chapter VI relating to offences against the
State.
It is very well established that every citizen should be provided with some of the fundamental
rights, but that freedom has to be guarded against becoming a licence for vilification and
condemnation of the Government established by law, in words, which incite violence or have
the tendency to create public disorder. A citizen has a right to say or write whatever he likes
about the Government, or its measures, by way of criticism or comment, so long as he does not
incite people to violence against the Government established by law or with the intention of
creating public disorder.
Also it is humbly submitted before this Honble Supreme court that, even if, on the other hand,
we were to hold that even without any tendency to disorder or intention to create disturbance
of law and order, by the use of words written or spoke which merely create disaffection or
50
51
52
ORDER U /ART.
synonymous with public peace, safety and tranquility.61 There should be some element of
disturbance of peace to bring a matter under public order.62 There have been a multiplicity of
cases where constitutionality of a part of legislation restrictive under Public Order of Art.
19(2) has been challenged. In the case of KedarNath Singh v. State of Bihar,63 constitutional
validity of Sedition was discussed in detail by Constitution Bench and it was held that Section
124A is constitutionally valid and imposes reasonable restrictions on fundamental freedom of
speech and expression in interest of the public order and is within the ambit of permissible
legislative interference with the fundamental right.64
In Ramji LalModi65 case, another Constitution Bench upheld the validity of Section 295A of
I.P.C. as it was also protected by Art. 19(2) of Constitution of India for maintenance of public
order.66 The same view was taken in the case of Madhu Limaye,67 a seven judge bench sustained
the constitutional validity of Chapter VIII of Cr.P.C which is basically about prevention of
crimes and disturbance of public tranquility and breach of peace. It was held that said
provisions essentially conceived in interest of public order and in interest of general public and
was within restrictions under Art. 19(2), (3), (4) and(5).
[2.5] THE GRAVITY OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF SEDITION AS UNDER SECTION 124A
SHOULD BE ADHERED TO WHILE DEALING WITH CAUTION :-Apex court held in the case
of Sri Indra Das v. State of Assam68 that attempt should always be made to sustain the
58
IS LIABLE UNDER
SECTION 124-A
OF
IPC:- It is
humbly submitted before the Honble Supreme Court that Ramaiya Kumar is liable under
Section 124-A of Penal Code 1860. As according to Section 124A of IPCWhoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or
otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite
disaffection towards, the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with
imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to
three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.73
It is humbly contended before this Honble Supreme Court that in present matter after lathi
charge the movement gathered momentum and soon more students joined in and Political
colours were also added to the movement by the fiery speeches of the GNUSU leaders. On 16th
of June, 2016 a rally was organized in Delporto by GNUSU to show solidarity to the injured
students of Utkal. Meanwhile some posters were put up across the campus of GNU which
claimed that the rally was also in solidarity of the hanging of Chengiz Khan, who was hanged
3 years ago on the same date. All such posters had the signature of Ramaiya Kumar.74 As the
69
Moot Problem 11
Ratanlal Dhirajlals Law of Crimes Vol. 1 27th Ed. Pg. No.593
77
(2003) 8 S.C.C. 461.
78
(1997) 7 S.C.C. 430
79
Nazir Khan v. State of Delhi (2003) 8 S.C.C. 461.
76
10
Bal Gangadhar Tilak v. Queen Empress, (1897) ILR 22 Bom 112; Emperor v. Satya Rajan Bakshi AIR 1929
Cal 309; Ramnarayan Satya Pal v. Carey & ors. AIR 1930 Lah 309
81
Niharendu Dutt Majumdar v. King Emperor, AIR 1942 FC 22.
82
Mufti Fakkhurl Islam v. Emperor, AIR 1943 All 244.
83
Emperor v. Sadashiv Narayan,(1944) 46 Bom LR 459.
84
AIR 1955 S.C. 661 ; Chamarbaugwala R M D AIR 1957 S.C. 628.
85
Bal Gangadhar Tilak, (1908) 10 Bom LR 848; Shankar Shrikrishna Dev (1910) 12 Bom LR 675; Amrita Bazar
Patrika Press Ltd. (1919) 47 Cal 190 (SB); Satyendra Nath Majumdar AIR 1931 Cal 337.
86
Queen-Empress vs Amba Prasad, (1898) ILR 20 All 55.
11
RIGHT UNDER
OF
12
Any act which makes it less safe for travelling or conveying property
So to prove that act of Police was lawful, it is very important to prove that, act done by
protestors was wrong and thus, act of police in doing lathi charge was within the ambit of law.
In case of Radhey Sham v. P.M.G92 it was observed by the Honble Supreme Court that The
right of public meeting or of procession is not specifically guaranteed by the Constitution but
will follow from the Right of Assembly. In the interests of public order, the time, place and the
like of speeches in public places may be regulated.93
But there is no right to hold a meeting anywhere as the citizens please,94 e.g., on private
property or even on Government property.95 The right to hold meetings in public places is
subject to control by the appropriate authority regarding the time and place of the meeting.
96
In furtherance to this Honble Supreme Court also observed that The power of appropriate
authority to impose reasonable regulations in order to assure the safety and convenience of the
people in the use of public highways has never been regarded as inconsistent with the
fundamental right of assembly.97
91
13
14
103
15
PRAYER
Wherefore, in the light of the facts stated, issues raised, authorities cited and arguments
advanced, it is most humbly prayed before this Honble Court that it may be pleased to adjudge
and declare that:
1. Section 14A of the Press Councils Act, as Constitutional.
2. Section 124-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 as Constitutional.
3. Conviction of Ramaiya Kumar for act of Sedition under Section 124-A of Indian Penal
Code, 1860
4. The act of Police lawful as it is in within the ambit of Article 19(1) (b) of the
Constitution.
Or give any other order which the Supreme Court may deem fit in the ends of Justice, Equity
and Good Conscience.
PLACE-
Indiana
s/d
DATE-
16