Hi

BALAJI LAW COLLEGE INTERNAL MOOT, 2019-20
BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIVA
(PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION)
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. /2019
1. KAMLA MEHTA
2. LAMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
3. RAJU KUMAR.
.......................................................................................................................PETITIONER (S)
v.
UNION OF INDIVA.
.......................................................................................................................... RESPONDENT
SUBMITTED IN THE REGISTRY OF THE SUPREME COURT
THE HUMBLE SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT IN THE MATTER OF
KAMLA MEHTA & OTHERS VS UNION OF INDIVA.
NAME: VIJAYA KOLEKAR
CLASS: III LL.B (LC1619148).

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………………………..3
Cases Cited……….……………………………………………………………...………….....3
Books……………………………………………………………………………………….....5
Dictionaries and Lexicon……………………………………………………...………….........5
Internet Sources and Database...................................................................................................5
Abbreviations..............................................................………………………………….…......6
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………...…………….... 7
STATEMENT OF FACTS……………………………………………….……………..…8
STATEMENT OF ISSUES…………………………………………………………..…….9
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS………………………………………………….……….10
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED…………………………………………………………...…11
PRAYER…………………………………………………………………………………….23
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
(2)
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES CITED
CASES CITED FOOTNOTE NO.
1. State of Bihar v. Shailabala Devi AIR 1952 SC329
2. Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950) S.C.R. 594
3. Debi Soren v. State AIR 1954 PATNA
4. Kedar Nath v State of Bihar AIR 1962 SC 955
5. Lowell v. Griffin 1939 US 444
6. Niharendu Dutt Majumdar v. The King Emperor (Federal Court)
7. Satyaranjan Bakshi v. Emperor (AIR 1927 Cal 698)
8. Hanumanthaiya v. Govt of Mysore (1948) 52 Mys HCR 265
9. Paramanand v. Emperor AIR 1941All 156, 1941 All LJ26, 42 CrLJ 46
10. Ramchandra v. Emperor, 29 CrLJ 381 (Lah)
11. Balgangadgar Tilak (1897) 22 Bom 112
12. Sadashiv Naraya, (1947) 49 Bom LR 526
13. Kidar Nath Sahgal v. Emperor, AIR 1929 Lah 817
14. Maniben Liladhar v. Emperor, AIR 1933 Bom 65
15. Vishambhar Dayal v. Emperor; AIR 1941 Oudh 33
16. Raghuvir Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 149
17. Nirinjan Das v. Emperor, AIR 1931 Lah 31
18. Naurang Singh, 1986 Cr LJ 846 (P&H)
(3)
19. Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab, (1995) 3 SCC 214, 1995 SCC (Cri) 432.
20. Shreya Singhal vs U.O.I AIR 2015 SC 1523
21. Brij Bhusan v. State of Delhi AIR 1950 SC 129.
22. Dr. Vinayak Binayak Sen v. State of Chhattisgarh 2011 ELT 193 (Chhattisgarh).
23. Kanhaiya Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2016) 227 DLT 612.
24. V.A. Pugalenthi v. State Crl. O.P. No. 21463 of 2017, decided on 9/11/2017
25. Gompers v. Buck’s Stove & Range Co 221 U.S 418 (1911)
26. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 27
27. Snyder v. Phelp 562 U.S. 443 (2011)
28. Ram Manohar Lohiya v. State of Bihar AIR 1966 SC 740
29. N.R. Narayana Murthy v. Kannada Rakshana Vakeelara AIR 2007 Kant 174
30. P Hamalatha v. The Govt. of Andra Pradesh AIR 1976 AP 375 (India)
31. Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, [1970] 3 S.C.R. 288
32. Terminiello v. City of Chicago 93 L. Ed. 1131 (1949) at page 1134-1135
33. Brandenburg v. Ohio 23L. Ed. 2d 430 (1969) at 434-435 & 436
34. Virginia v. Black 155 L. Ed. 2d 535 (2003) at page 551, 552and 553[4]
35. S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan & Ors., (1989) 2 SCC 574
36. Queen-Empress v. Jagendra Chunder Bose
37. Reg v. Alexander Martin Sullivan
38. The Bengal Immunity Company Limited v. The State of Bihar
39. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla v. The Union of India
40. Nazir Khan v. State of Delhi 2003 SCC 461
41. Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v State of A.P (1997 SCC 430)
42. State of Karnataka v. Dr. Praveen Bhai Thogadia AIR 2004 SC 20181
(4)
BOOKS
STATUTES REFERRED
● The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

● The Indian Penal Code, 1860
● The Constitution of India, 1949
BOOKS REFERRED
● Durga Das Basu, Introduction to The Constitution of India (22nd Ed)

● Dr. J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law Of India (53rd Ed )
● Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (35th Ed)
● Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (22nd Ed)
INTERNET SOURCES AND DATABASES
● www.scconline.com
● indiankanoon.org
● www.livelaw.in
● www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in
● www.manupatra.com
(5)
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
● & - And
● IPC – Indiva Penal Code, 1860
● Act – The Indian Penal Code, 1860
● AIR – All India Reporter
● Anr – Another
● Art. – Article
● Ed. – Edition
● i.e. – That is
● Ltd. - Limited
● Ors. - Others
● Pvt. – Private
● SC – Supreme Court
● SCC – Supreme Court Cases
● SCR – Supreme Court Report
● Sec – Section
● V. – Versus
(6)
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Petitioner have approached this Hon’ble Court under Article 32(1) of the
Constitution. The writ petition has been accepted.
(7)
STATEMENT OF FACTS
STATEMENT OF FACTS
● Indiva is a small developing country where the freedom of speech and expression is
guaranteed as a fundamental right under the Constitution of Indiva. Bangistan is the
neighbouring country of Indiva. However, in last few months there have been various
instances where freedom of speech and expression has come under the scanner in Indiva.
● Mr. Pappu Yadav filed a criminal case under Section 124 (A) of Indiva Penal Code, 1860
against Kamla Mehta an actor – politician who is a member of Indiva National Party, the
largest opposition party for her comment on social media “Minister Mohan Singh said
that, going to Bangistan is like going to hell”. It is nothing like that. People are just like
us and there is no difference. They treated us very well” On the receipt of the complaint,
summons were issued against Kamla Mehta. Kamla Mehta being aggrieved by the
summons challenged the constitutionality of Sections 124(A) of The Indiva Penal Code
stating it to be violative of Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of Indiva before the
Supreme Court of Indiva.
● Lamnesty International, an NGO, conducted a campaign named “Broken Families of
Vienna” (Vienna being a state of Indiva) where they talked about the human rights
violations by Indiva Army on the people of Veinna and invited the victims of these
violations to speak. During the debate the Indiva Peoples Party (IPP, which is the ruling
party) was heavily criticised for its inaction. Moreover at the end of the program the
debate got heated and there were heard some anti – Indiva slogans.
● Democratic Students Union (DSU) held protests on the hanging of Faizal Khan
Convicted of terror attack on the Parliament of Indiva on the campus of Murli Sankar
University for which the permission was refused by the University. Anti – Indiva slogans
and slogans to overthrow the government were raised in the event. A complaint was filed
against Raju Kumar the president of DSU for the charges of Sedition. The disciplinary
committee of the University investigated the matter to find that slogans were raised by a
group of outsiders wearing masks. All Indiva Student Organization (AISO) a student
body associated with Indiva Peoples Party (IPP) was responsible for filing the complaint
against Lamnesty International and Raju Kumar under Sec. 124 (A) of the Indiva Penal
Code, 1860.
(8)
● National Crime Records Bureau in its report stated that in 2014 as many as 47 cases of
sedition were filed leading to the arrest of 58 people and there has been an alarming
increase in the cases in 2015. In 2016 as many as cases have been filed.
● Kamla Mehta, Lamnesty International and Raju Kumar filed a PIL challenging the
validity of Section 124(A) as being violative of Article 19 (1) (A) and Article 21 of the
Indiva Constitution.
● As all the above issues concern interpretation of Article 19(1) (a), 19 (2) and 21 of Indiva
Constitution it was placed before a Special Bench of the Supreme Court of Indiva to
decide.
(9)
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
Following issues had been raised for consideration of this Hon’ble Court in the instant matter:
ISSUE I. WHETHER SECTION 124 (A) OF INDIVA PENAL CODE INFRINGES THE
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION ENSHRINED
UNDER ARTICLE 19 (1) OF THE CONSTITUTION?
ISSUE II. WHETHER SECTION 124 (A) OF INDIVA PENAL CODE INFRINGES THE
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF FREEDOM TO LIFE AND LIBERTY ENSHRINED UNDER
ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION?
(10)
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE I: WHETHER SECTION 124 (A) OF INDIVA PENAL CODE INFRINGES THE
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION
ENSHRINED UNDER ARTICLE 19 (1) (A) OF THE CONSTITUTION?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court that legislature is in best position to
understand and appreciate the needs of the people. That the Court, will therefore, interfere with
the legislative process only when a statute is clearly violative of rights conferred on the citizen
under Part III of the Constitution. There is a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of
an enactment. Further, the Court would so construe a statute to make it workable and in doing
so can read into it or read down the provisions that are impugned. The Constitution does not
impose impossible standards of determining validity. Mere possibility of abuse of a provision
cannot be a ground to declare a provision invalid. Loose language may have been used in
Section 124A to deal with novel methods of disturbing other people's rights by using the
internet as a tool to do so. Further, vagueness is not a ground to declare a statute
unconstitutional if the statute is otherwise legislatively competent and non-arbitrary.
ISSUE II: WHETHER SECTION 124 (A) OF INDIVA PENAL CODE INFRINGES THE
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF FREEDOM TO LIFE AND LIBERTY ENSHRINED
UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that the restrictions have been enshrined in the
constitution vide. Article 19 (2) and Article 21 further restrictions have been imposed on the
freedom of speech and expression by Article 51-A defining fundamental duties of a citizen 42nd
Amendment in 1976. Under Article 51 A expressly states No one should in exercise of the
freedom of expression or the press do any of the following acts:
(1) To Disparage the Constitution, its ideals and institutions, the National Flag or the National
Anthem.
(2) To Undermine the Sovereignty, Unity and Integrity of India.
(3) To disrupt the spirit of common brotherhood among all the people.
(4) To Insult the rich Heritage of our composite culture.
(11)
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
I. WHETHER SECTION 124 (A) OF INDIVA PENAL CODE INFRINGES THE

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION
ENSHRINED UNDER ARTICLE 19 (1) (A) OF THE CONSTITUTION?
It is most respectfully submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court that Section 124 (A) of
Indiva Penal Code is constitutionally valid as that while exercising the right to freedom of speech
and expression under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution, one has to remember that Part-IV
Article 51A of the Constitution provides Fundamental Duties of every citizen, which form the
other side of the same coin. Furthermore the freedom has to be guarded against becoming a
license 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. (Emphasis added)
SUBMISSION-A: Preliminary Objections regarding Petitioner (s) approaching the Hon’ble
Supreme Court directly as the Respective High Court of the Petitioner (s) have concurrent
jurisdiction to deal with this matter under Article 226 of the Constitution.
A preliminary objection, not indeed to the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the application
under article 32, but to the petitioner (s) resorting to this Court directly for such relief in the first
instance. That, as a matter of orderly procedure, the petitioner (s) should first resort to the
concerned high courts in which jurisdiction the offences have been registered. That under article
226 of the Constitution has concurrent jurisdiction to deal with the matter. That criminal revision
petitions under section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, applications for bail and
applications for transfer under section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code as instances where,
concurrent jurisdiction having been given in certain matters to the High Court and the Court of a
lower grade, a rule of practice has been established that a party should proceed first to the latter
Court for relief before resorting to the High Court. That in Emperor v. Bisheswar Prasad Sinha1
where such a rule of practice was enforced in a criminal revision case, and also in certain
American decisions Urquhart v. Brown2 and Hooney v. Kolohan3 as showing that the Supreme
Court of the United States ordinarily required that whatever judicial remedies remained open to
the applicant in Federal and State Courts should be exhausted before the remedy in the Supreme
Court --- be it habeas corpus or certiorari—would be allowed.
(12)
__________________________________
1
Emperor v. Bisheswar Prasad Sinha
2
Urquhart v. Brown
3
Hooney v. Kolohan
SUBMISSION-B: Reasonable Restrictions on the exercise of the Right conferred by the

constitution enshrined in Article 19 (1) (A) in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of
Indiva , the security of State, friendly relations with Foreign States, public order, decency
morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement of offence.
● That Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of Indiva guarantees freedom of speech and expression
to all citizens. However, this freedom is subjected to certain restrictions namely, 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. The constitutional validity of section 124A IPC came to be challenged in the case of
Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar4. The Constitution Bench upheld the validity of section
124A and kept it at a different pedestal. The Court drew a line between the terms, 'the
Government established by law' and ‗the persons for the time being engaged in carrying on the
administration‘ observing:”
“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 Section 124-A has been characterised, comes,
under Chapter VI relating to offences against the State. Hence any acts
within the meaning of Section 124-A which have the effect of subverting the Government by
bringing that Government into contempt or hatred, or creating disaffection against it, would be
within the penal statute because the feeling of disloyalty to the Government established by law or
enmity to it imports the idea of tendency to public disorder by the use of actual violence or
incitement to violence”. In Nazir Khan & Ors v. State of Delhi 5
the court reiterated this
principal stating: “Sedition has been described as disloyalty in action,
__________________________
4
Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar
5
Nazir Khan & Ors v State of Delhi AIR 2003 SC 4427
(13)
and the law considers as sedition all those practices which have for their object to excite
discontent or dissatisfaction, to create public disturbance, or to lead to civil war; to bring
into hatred or contempt the Sovereign or the Government, the laws or constitutions of the
realm, and generally all endeavors to promote public disorder”.
● The harm is to be of such a potentially that it threatens the very existence of the society: it
disturbs the public order and results into the chaos in the society. Justice Holmes, in
Gompers v. Buck’s Stove & Range Co.6 opined: In the name of freedom of speech and
expression, the protection is not extended to the ones who utter words that may have all
the effect of force.
● The Supreme Court has been consistently pronouncing in various judgments that the right
to free speech and expression is not absolute in nature. It is subjected to the reasonable
restrictions as enshrined in Article 19(2) and other laws, such as section 124A of IPC. In
the case of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras7, the Supreme Court observed:
“man, as a rational being, desires to do many things, but in civil society his desires have
to be controlled, regulated and reconciled with the exercise of similar desires by other
individuals… Liberty has, therefore to be limited in order to be effectively possessed”
Potentiality and impact of expression has always been looked into by the court to determine
the permissibility of its restriction. In order to qualify as sedition, the act must be
intentional and must cause hatred. Disturbance of public order has been recognised as an
important ingredient of sedition in India8. The term public order has been defined and
distinguished from law and order and security of State ‘in Ram Manohar Lohiya v. State
of Bihar.9 The Court observed the difference between the three of them is that of degree.
One has to imagine three concentric circles. Law and order represents the largest circle
within which is the next circle representing public order and the smallest circle represents
security of State. It is then easy to see that an act may affect law and order but not public
order just as an act may affect public order but not security of the State.
_____________________________
6 Gompers v. Buck’s Stove & Range Co
7 A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras7
8 Kedar nath v. State of Bihar
9AIR 1966 SC 740
● In the case of N.R. Narayana Murthy v. Kannada Rakshana Vakeelara10 the Karnataka
High Court observed:
“According to Article 51A (a), it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to abide by the
Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the National Flag and the National
(14)
Anthem. National Flag, National Anthem and the Constitution of India are the symbols of
sovereignty and the integrity of the Nation. Public acts of insults to these symbols must be
prevented. The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 was enacted and
brought on the Statute book. ……. Section 2 of the National Honour Act deals with insult
to Indian National Flag and Constitution of India. Section 3 of the National Honour Act
says that whoever intentionally prevents the singing of the Indian National Anthem or
causes disturbance to any assembly engaged in such singing shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both".
Section 3A prescribes enhanced penalty on second and subsequent convictions under
Sections 2 and 3 of the National Honour Act.on the basis of knowledge of the mark to the
geographical area of use, its goodwill and reputation due to extensive promotion,
publicity and advertisement, extensive sales under the mark in India and abroad, and the
numerous registrations obtained of the mark”.
● Furthermore in this connection it may be recalled that the Federal Court had, in defining
sedition in Niharendu Dutt Majumdar v. The King Emperor 11, held that "the acts or
words complained of must either incite to disorder or must be such as to satisfy
reasonable men that that is their intention or tendency", but the Privy Council overruled
that [1942] F.C.R. 38.
____________________
10
AIR 2007 Kant 174, 11 Niharendu Dutt Majumdar v. The King Emperor
SUBMISSIONS - C: The reasons for introduction of Section 124 (A) and the security of state
which depends on Maintenance of Law and Order and it is the very basic consideration upon
which legislation with a view of punishing offences against the state is undertaken. That a
tendency to disturb public order is inherent in Sec. 124 (A) itself.
● It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court that criticism on political
matters is not of itself seditious. The test is the manner in which it is made. Candid and
honest discussion is permitted. That this section strikes a correct balance between individual
fundamental rights and the interest of public order. It is also well settled that in interpreting
an enactment the Court should have regard not merely to the literal meaning of the words
used, but also take into consideration the antecedent history of the legislation, its purpose
and the mischief it seeks to suppress (vide (1)). The Bengal Immunity Company Limited v.
The State of Bihar 12 and R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla v. The Union of India 13. Viewed in
(15)
that light, there is no infringement so construing the provisions of the sections impugned in
these cases as to limit their application to acts involving intention or tendency to create
disorder, or disturbance of law and order, or incitement to violence.
● The statement of the law is derived mainly from the address to the Jury by Fitzerald, J., in
the case of Reg v. Alexander Martin Sullivan 14. In the course of his address to the Jury the
learned Judge observed as follows:
"Sedition is a crime against society, nearly allied to that of treason, and it frequently precedes
treason by short interval. Sedition in itself is a comprehensive term, and it embraces all
those practices, whether by word, deed or writing, which are calculated to disturb the
tranquility of the State, and lead ignorant persons to endeavour to subvert the Government
and the laws of the empire. The objects of sedition generally are to induce discontent and
insurrection and stir up opposition to the Government, and bring the administration of
justice into contempt; and the very tendency of sedition is to incite the people to insurrection
and rebellion. Sedition has been described, as disloyalty in action and the law considers as
sedition all those practices which have for their object to excite discontent or
dissatisfaction, to create public disturbance, or to lead to civil war; to bring into hatred or
contempt the Sovereign or the Government, the laws or constitution of the realm, and
generally all endeavors to promote public disorder."
● It is further submitted that Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution is restricting a person by
doing such Act which is against the integrity and sovereignty of the India. This ground was
also added subsequently by the Constitution 16th amendment Act 1963. The main object
behind this is to prohibit anyone from making the statements that challenge the integrity and
sovereignty of India. Reasonable restrictions can be imposed on the freedom of speech and
expression, in the interest of the Security of the State.
____________________________________
12
The Bengal Immunity Company Limited v. The State of Bihar
13
R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla v. The Union of India,
14
Reg v. Alexander Martin Sullivan
All the utterance intended to endanger the Security of the State by crimes of violence intended to
overthrow the Government, waging war and rebellion against the Government, external
aggression or war etc, may be restrained in the interest of the Security of the state. 15 That Right
enshrined is subject to limitation imposed under Article 19(2) which empowers the State to put
‘Reasonable’ restriction on the following grounds, like Security of the State, friendly relations
with the foreign States, public order, decency and morality. Contempt of Court, Defamation,
Incitement to Offence and Integrity and Sovereignty of India.
(16)
______________________________________________________________
15
State of Bihar v. Shailababa Devi AIR 1952 SC 329
II. WHETHER SECTION 124 (A) OF INDIVA PENAL CODE INFRINGES THE
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF FREEDOM TO LIFE AND LIBERTY ENSHRINED
UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION?
It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court that Freedom of Person or
Personal liberty is sought to be ensured by our constitution by means of two – fold guarantee,
namely –
A) By Providing that no person can be deprived of his liberty except according to law;
B) By laying down certain specific safeguards against arbitrary arrest and detention.
The Article reminds us of one of the famous clauses of the Magna Carta;
“No man shall be taken or imprisoned, disseized, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed
save.... by the law of the land”
The word ‘law’ which figures in Art. 21 of the Constitution would mean a validity enacted law
and in order to be a valid law it must be just fair and reasonable and such law have been strictly
and scrupulously observed. But in no country can there be any absolute freedom of the
individual. The principle underlying the English Constitution is that the people’s representatives,
assembled in Parliament, who shall determine how far the rights of an individuals should go and
how far they should be curtailed in the collective interests or the security of the state itself,
according to the exigencies of the time. This was the theory adopted by the Constitution of
Indiva in saying that life and personal liberty are subject to “the procedure established by law”.
SUBMISSION-A: “Words are, of course, the most powerful drug used by mankind” –
Rudyard Kipling, London 1923. “No democracy permits right to Sedition” The Right to Free
Speech and Personal Liberty enshrined in the Constitution cannot be used against the
country.
● Article 19 (1) (A) says that all citizens shall have the Right to Freedom of speech and
expression and besides that Article 21 gives fundamental right towards Protection of Life and
Personal Liberty. This right is subject to limitation imposed under Article 19(2) and Article
(17)
21 of the constitution which empowers the State to put ‘Reasonable’ restriction on the
following grounds, like Security of the State, friendly relations with the foreign States, public
order, decency and morality. Contempt of Court, Defamation, Incitement to Offence and
Integrity and Sovereignty of India.
● A Constitutional bench explained the meaning of the words ‘excite disaffection’ and also
upheld the Constitutional validity of Section 124-A. The Supreme Court observed:
The Security of the State which depends upon the Maintenance of Law and other is the very
basic consideration upon which legislation with a view to punishing offences against the
state is undertaken. Such legislation has on the one hand fully to Protect and guarantee the
freedom of speech and expression, which is a sine qua non of a democratic form of
Government that our Constitution has established. But the 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 a 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.
The Supreme Court further held that ‘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 for the stability of the state. That is why ‘Sedition’ as the offence in
Section 124-A comes under the offences related to State. In other words any written or
spoken words etc. Which have implicit in them the idea of subverting Government by violent
means, which are compendiously included in the term ‘revolution’ which have been made penal
by the Section.
● Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code which makes Sedition offence is constitutionally
valid. Though the Section imposes restriction on the fundamental freedom of speech and
expression. But the condition is that restrictions are in the interest of public order and are
within the ambit of permissible legislative interference with the fundamental right. Both
federal court and Privy Council had different opinion of the ambit of Section 124-A of the
Indian Penal Code. The federal court has held that words, deeds or writings constituted an
offence under Section 124-A only when they had intention or tendency to disturb public
tranquillity to create public disturbance or to promote disorder, whilst the privy council has
(18)
taken the view that it was not an essential ingredient of the offence of Sedition under Section
124-A that the words etc, should be intended to or to be likely to incite public disorder.
Either view can be taken and supported on good reasons. If the view taken by the federal
court was accepted Section 124-A would be use Constitutional but if the view of the Privy
Council was accepted it would be unconstitutional. It is well settled that if certain provision
of law construed in one way would make them consistent with the Constitution and another
interpretation would render them unconstitutional the court would lean in favour of the
former construction. Keeping in and the reason for the introduction of Section 124-A and the
History of Sedition the Section must be so construed as to limit its application to acts
involving intention or tendency to create disorder, or disturbance of law and order, or
incitement to violence. The Supreme Court held that Sec. 124 (A) is intra vires.
SUBMISSION-B: Section 124 – A of Indiva Penal Code is Constitutional, and is not in
contravention of Article 21 as it is saved by the expression “according to procedure established
by law”.
___________________________________________________________________________
● Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code is Constitutional, and is not in contravention of
Article 19(1) (a) as it is saved by the expression ‘in the interest of public order’ in Article
19(2) in addition also constitutional in view of Article 21 as it is saved by the expression “
according to procedure established by law”. It has been stated that the expression in the
interest of public order is of wider connotation, and include not only the acts which are likely
to disturb public order but something more than that. The Constitution 40th amendment act,
1976, incorporated the Prevention of Publication of objectionable matter act, 1976, in the 9th
schedule by objectionable matter we mean the matter which incites disaffection towards the
Government or to commit any offence or to interfere with the production and distribution of
essential commodities or seduction of any matter or armed forces, defamation of the
president, vice president, prime minister, speaker, or governor of a state. Restriction imposed
on any of these grounds could not be challenged on the ground of unreasonableness. Also
with the inclusion of fundamental duties by the 42nd amendment, the implication is that
nobody should exercise his freedom of speech and expression so as to violate the
fundamental duties, and it is likely that the courts may be inclined to give a harmonious
interpretation to the restriction imposed on the exercise of the right for the enforcement of the
fundamental duties as they have done in the case of fundamental rights and the directive
(19)
principle of state policy. For instance if a person is illegally detained, a writ of habeas corpus
can be obtained by the detenue. But if the Government does not separate judiciary from the
executive or introduce free he and compulsory education the court cannot help the aggrieved.
● Further restrictions have been imposed on the freedom of speech and expression by Article
51-A defining fundamental duties of a citizen 42nd Amendment in 1976. Under Article 51 A,
No one should in exercise of the freedom of expression or the press do any of the following
acts:
(1) To Disparage the Constitution, its ideals and institutions, the National Flag or the
National Anthem.
(2) To Undermine the Sovereignty, Unity and Integrity of India.
(3) To disrupt the spirit of common brotherhood among all the people.
(4) To Insult the rich Heritage of our composite culture.
● Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India promises right to free speech and expression in
India to all its citizens. However reasonable restriction can be imposed on the enjoyment of
this freedom by the state under clause 2 of the Article 19 on the grounds, the interest of the
sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign
states or incitement to an offence. The Supreme Court of India said the very creation of
‘Disaffection’ leads to a ‘Feeling of disloyalty to the Government or enmity to it imports the
idea of tendency to public disorder by the use of violence.’ It uphold the Constitutionality of
Section 124-A. The citizen owes no loyalty to the Government, only to the state.
● Democracy and freedom of speech and expression does not give anybody a right to demand
Sedition. No democracy permits right to Sedition. But some misconceived representative of
civil society has abolished it as free speech. However the right to freedom and speech and
expression is a fundamental right but it has certain restriction.158 Restrictions have been
imposed on the freedom of speech and expression by Article 51-A defining fundamental
duties of a citizen (42nd amendment in 1976). Under Article 51-A, no one should in exercise
of the freedom of expression or the press do any of the following acts:
(1) To disparage the Constitution its ideals and institutions, the national flag or the
National Anthem,
(2) To Undermine the Sovereignty, Unity and Integrity of India,
(3) To disrupt the spirit of Common brotherhood among all the people,
(4) To Insult the Rich heritage of our Composite Culture.
If anybody speaks against the Sovereignty of India, Such exercise comes Under Penal Law
offences against State.
(20)
● The Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Dr. Praveen Bhai Togadia held that “valuable
and cherished right to freedom of expression and speech at many times have to be subjected
to reasonable subordination of social interest, needs and necessities to preserve the very
chore of democratic life, preservation of public order and rule of law”.16
● As stated in KENNY- the Law of Sedition relates to the uttering of the seditious words, the
publication of seditious libels, and conspiracies to do an act for the furtherance of a seditious
intention. Sedition, whether by words spoken or written, or by conduct, is a misdemeanor at
common law punishable by fine and imprisonment. Sir JAMES STEPHEN defined a
seditious intention as “an intention to bring into hatred or contempt, or to excite disaffection
against, the person of his Majesty, his heirs or successors, or the Government and the
constitution of the United Kingdom by law established, or either House of Parliament, or the
administration of Justice or to excite his Majesty’s subjects to attempt otherwise than by
lawful means, the alteration of any matters in Church or State by law established…..or to
raise discontent or disaffection amongst his Majesty’s subjects, or to promote feelings of ill
will and Hostility between different classes of such
subjects.”
_________________________________________________
16
State of Karnataka v. Dr. Praveen Bhai Togadia AIR 2004 SC 2081
● To avert the constitutional difficulty as a result of the above referred case. The constitutional
1st (Amendment) Act, 1951 added in Art 19 (2) two words of widest import, wiz. “In the
interest of” “public order”. Thereby including the legislative restrictions on freedom of
speech and expression. The advocates of the other view held that section 124-A, of I.P.C is
constitutional and is not in contravention of Art 19(1) (a) as it is saved by the expression “in
the interest of public order” in Art 19(2). It has been stated that the expression in the interest
of public order is of wider connotation, and includes not only the Acts which are likely to
disturb public order but something more than that.
● With reference to the constitutionality of s. 124A of the Indiva Penal Code, as to how far
they are consistent with the requirements of cl. (2) of Art. 19 with particular reference to
security of the State and public order, the section, it must be noted, penalizes any spoken or
written words or signs or visible representations, etc., which have the effect of bringing, or
which attempt to bring into hatred or contempt or excites or attempts to excite disaffection
towards the Government established by law" has to be distinguished from the person's for the
(21)
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. Hence any acts within the meaning of s. 124A which
have the effect of subverting the Government by bringing that Government into contempt or
hatred, or creating disaffection against it, would be within the penal statute because the
feeling of disloyalty to the Government established by law or enmity to it imports the idea of
tendency to public disorder by the use of actual violence or incitement to violence. In other
words, any written or spoken words, etc., which have implicit in them the idea of subverting
Government by violent means, which are compendiously included in the term 'revolution',
have been made penal by the section in question. But the section has taken care to indicate
clearly that strong words used to express disapprobation of the measures of Government with
a view to their improvement or alteration by lawful means would not come within the
section.
● Similarly, comments, however strongly worded, expressing disapprobation of actions of the
Government, without exciting those feelings which generate the inclination to cause public
disorder by acts of violence, would not be penal. In other words, disloyalty to Government
established by law is not the same thing as commenting in strong terms upon the measures or
acts of Government, or its agencies, so as to ameliorate the condition of the people or to
secure the cancellation or alteration of those acts or measures by lawful means, that is to say,
without exciting those feelings of enmity and disloyalty which imply excitement to public
disorder or the use of violence.
● It is further submitted that, this Court, as the custodian and guarantor of the
fundamental rights of the citizens, has the duty cast upon it of striking down any law
which unduly restricts the freedom of speech and expression with which we are
concerned in this case. But the freedom has to be guarded again becoming a license 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. This
(22)
Hon’ble Court has, therefore, the duty cast upon it of drawing a clear line of
demarcation between the ambit of a citizen's fundamental right guaranteed under Art.
19(1) (a) & Article 21 of the Constitution and the power of the legislature to impose
reasonable restrictions on that guaranteed right in the interest of, inter alia, security of
the State and public order. Section 124 – A strikes the correct balance between the
individual fundamental rights and the interest of Public Order. It is also well settled
that in interpreting an enactment the Court should have regard not merely to the literal
meaning of the words used, but also take into consideration the antecedent history of
the legislation, its purpose and the mischief it seeks to suppress.
(23)
PRAYER
Therefore, In the light of issues raised, arguments advanced, reasons given and authorities cited,
it is most respectfully prayed before this Hon’ble Court that:
● It is therefore prayed that the main application viz. Writ Petition (Public Interest
Litigation) as well as interim applications for reliefs if any filed by the petitioner (s) may
kindly be dismissed with exemplary cost saddled on the Petitioner (s).
● That the Hon’ble Court may please allow the respondent to make any amendments in the
prayers and reliefs sought in the present reply or submit additional prayers as and when
required.
● Kindly pass such other suitable orders as may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of
justice in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and for this act of kindness and
justice, the above named Respondent as in duty bound shall ever pray.
The Respondent additionally prays that the Hon’ble Court may make any such order or orders
as this Hon’ble Court deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the matter.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE RESPONDENT AS IS DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER
HUMBLY PRAY.
All of which is most respectfully submitted on behalf of,
The Respondent
Sd/-
Counsel for Respondent
(24)

Hi

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Hi

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

BALAJI LAW COLLEGE INTERNAL MOOT, 2019-20

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIVA

(PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION)

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. /2019

SUBMITTED IN THE REGISTRY OF THE SUPREME COURT

THE HUMBLE SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT IN THE MATTER OF

KAMLA MEHTA & OTHERS VS UNION OF INDIVA.

NAME: VIJAYA KOLEKAR

CLASS: III LL.B (LC1619148).

Dictionaries and Lexicon……………………………………………………...………….........5

Internet Sources and Database...................................................................................................5

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

CASES CITED FOOTNOTE NO.

1. State of Bihar v. Shailabala Devi AIR 1952 SC329

2. Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950) S.C.R. 594

3. Debi Soren v. State AIR 1954 PATNA

4. Kedar Nath v State of Bihar AIR 1962 SC 955

5. Lowell v. Griffin 1939 US 444

6. Niharendu Dutt Majumdar v. The King Emperor (Federal Court)

7. Satyaranjan Bakshi v. Emperor (AIR 1927 Cal 698)

8. Hanumanthaiya v. Govt of Mysore (1948) 52 Mys HCR 265

9. Paramanand v. Emperor AIR 1941All 156, 1941 All LJ26, 42 CrLJ 46

10. Ramchandra v. Emperor, 29 CrLJ 381 (Lah)

11. Balgangadgar Tilak (1897) 22 Bom 112

12. Sadashiv Naraya, (1947) 49 Bom LR 526

13. Kidar Nath Sahgal v. Emperor, AIR 1929 Lah 817

14. Maniben Liladhar v. Emperor, AIR 1933 Bom 65

15. Vishambhar Dayal v. Emperor; AIR 1941 Oudh 33

16. Raghuvir Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 149

17. Nirinjan Das v. Emperor, AIR 1931 Lah 31

18. Naurang Singh, 1986 Cr LJ 846 (P&H)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

20. Shreya Singhal vs U.O.I AIR 2015 SC 1523

21. Brij Bhusan v. State of Delhi AIR 1950 SC 129.

26. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 27

27. Snyder v. Phelp 562 U.S. 443 (2011)

28. Ram Manohar Lohiya v. State of Bihar AIR 1966 SC 740

31. Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, [1970] 3 S.C.R. 288

32. Terminiello v. City of Chicago 93 L. Ed. 1131 (1949) at page 1134-1135

35. S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan & Ors., (1989) 2 SCC 574

36. Queen-Empress v. Jagendra Chunder Bose

37. Reg v. Alexander Martin Sullivan

38. The Bengal Immunity Company Limited v. The State of Bihar

39. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla v. The Union of India

40. Nazir Khan v. State of Delhi 2003 SCC 461

41. Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v State of A.P (1997 SCC 430)

● The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

● Durga Das Basu, Introduction to The Constitution of India (22nd Ed)

INTERNET SOURCES AND DATABASES

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

I. WHETHER SECTION 124 (A) OF INDIVA PENAL CODE INFRINGES THE

SUBMISSION-B: Reasonable Restrictions on the exercise of the Right conferred by the

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

7 A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras7

8 Kedar nath v. State of Bihar

9AIR 1966 SC 740

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT