TC- 16P

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF

Indistan
[FILED UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDISTAN]

Mr. R. C. Kehta ………………………………...…………………(Petitioner)

v.

Govt. of NCT of Khushal Pradesh

&
Lt. Governor of Khushal Pradesh………..….……………….(Respondents)

Memorial on behalf of the PETITIONER

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER |Page 1

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVITIONS………………………………...……………………………….3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………...………………………………4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………….……………………………………6

STATEMENT OF FACTS………………….………………………………………………7

STATEMENT OF ISSUES……….…………………………………………………...…...11

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT……………….………………………….………………..12

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED:-

i. The petition is maintainable before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indistan……13

ii. The Odd-Even scheme implemented by the Govt. of NCT is violative of the
Fundamental Rights under the Constitution of Indistan...…………………….…14
iii. The satirical sketch uploaded by Mr. Kehta does not amount to obscenity and
indecent representation under the Criminal Laws of Indistan….……………......17
iv. The consultation by Lt. Governor with the Council of Ministers was not
constitutionally full and proper………………………………………………..…18
PRAYER………………………………………………………………………………...…..21

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER |Page 2

 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

A.I.R ALL INDIA REPORTER

Anr ANOTHER

Art. ARTICLE

Cr. CRIMINAL

CrLJ CRIMINAL LAW JOURNAL

Ed. EDITION

e.g EXEMPLUM GRATIA

HC HIGH COURT

Hon’ble HONOURABLE

IPC INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

i.e THAT IS

I.L.R INDIAN LAW REPORTER

LR LAW REPORTER

Ors. OTHERS

P. PAGE

SC SUPREME COURT

SCC SUPREME COURT CASES

SCWR SUPREME COURT WEEKLY REPORT

UOI UNION OF INDIA

Viz. NAMELY

& AND

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER |Page 3

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES
1. The Constitution of India.
2. Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. Motor Vehicles Act,1988.
4. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 1991.
5. Indecent Representation of Woman (Prohibition) Act, 1986.

BOOKS
1. Constitutional Law of India, Durga Das Basu, Lexis Nexis, 8 th Edition 2008.
2. Constitution of India, V. N. Shukla, Eastern Book Company, Twelfth Edition, 2013.
3. Civil Procedure, C.K. Takwani, Eastern Book Company, Seventh Edition, 2013.
4. Constitutional Law of India, J. N. Pandey, Central Law Agency, Fifty Fifth
Edition,2018.
5. Constutution law of India, Dr, Narendra Kumar, Allahabad Law Agency, Ninth
Edition, 2015.
6. Indian Constitution Law, M P Jain, Central Law House.
7. Indian Penal Code, K D Gaur, Universal Law Publishers.

WEBSITES

1. www.indiankanoon.org
2. www.legalblog.in
3. www.casemine.com
4. www.myadva.in
5. www.mondaq.com
6. www.lawyersclubindia.com
7. www.ijtr.nic.in
8. www.latestlaws,com
9. www.livelaw.in
10. www.zegal.in
11. www.sclt.in
12. www.legalcrystal.com
13. www.the-laws.com
14. www.lawyerservices
15. www.airwebworld.com

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER |Page 4

 CASES

1. Kunhayammed & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr., AIR 2000 (6) SCC 359.
2. Subash Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2011 SC 3031: (2011) 7 SCC 616: JT
2011 (8) SC 483: (2011) 7 SCALE 671.
3. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.
4. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, 1986 SC 180: (1985) 3 SCC 545.
5. State of U.P. v. Raj Narayan, AIR 1975 SC 865.
6. Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra, 1965 AIR 881, 1965 SCR (1) 65.
7. Rajendra Singh Verma (D)Thr.Lrs v. Lt. Governor of NCT of Delhi & Anr, (2011) 10
SCC 1.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER |Page 5

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

It is humbly submitted that the Petitioner has filed this instant petition under Article 136 of
the Constitution of Indistan. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear this instant
matter under Article 136 of the Constitution of Indistan.

Article 136 provides as:-

Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court--

(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant
special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any
cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.

(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order
passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to Armed
Forces.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER |Page 6

 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The Democratic Republic of Indistan, a nation that won its Independence from British
colonial rule in 1948, comprises of twenty nine states and one National Capital
Territory (NCT), Khushal Pradesh.
2. Every year in the winter season the Union Territory of Khushal Pradesh i.e. the
National Capital Territory gets enveloped in thick smog. Though the reasons for the
same have often been debated on in social media, national television, amongst
politicians and various government and NGOs but according to the investigations
carried out by some agencies, the accumulation of smog is caused due to mixed
number of factors such as:- the burning of crop in the neighboring state of Jatland and
Uttam Pradesh, weather change, vehicular pollution in Khushal Pradesh and large
amount of open constructions in NCT.
3. For the past couple of years every time the smog covers Khushal Pradesh the people
have harshly criticized the government of Khushal Pradesh due to its inability to
provide the clean air to its citizens. In this present year, 2019 the Chief Minister in
his speech in the Independence Day stated that the government has thought a lot about
curbing the smog and ways to prevent it from covering the capital. Amongst the
various means the government is requesting the governments of neighboring states of
Jatland and Uttam Pradesh to ensure that the crops are burnt far from the borders of
Khushal Pradesh and in such manner that the smog is carried away from the NCT.
4. Another pollution curbing scheme which is explained by C.M is odd-even scheme.
According to that scheme, the cars with odd number in its number plates shall be
allowed to use only on Monday, Wednesday and Friday while even number cars on
Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. On Sunday, it is for each household to decide to use
one of the cars they might have, irrespective of the number of the car. However, the
prohibition shall not be applicable for those cars being used for government functions.
5. The odd-even scheme was initially considered as futuristic promise which would
never see the light of day. But on 15th September the newspaper reports informed the
public that the C.M and his cabinet were actually considering the implementation of
odd-even scheme. This report caused an outrage in NCT and people started to
condemn the C.M and his government. Since the assembly elections was in next six
months, the C.M called for an immediate cabinet meeting and where it was decided

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER |Page 7

 that the Odd-Even scheme shall be implemented only after the consultations and
public meetings with civil societies.
6. On 23rd September 2019 all the major newspapers of Khushal Pradesh carried a
notification issued by the office of the Lieutenant Governor of Khushal Pradesh in
which the Lieutenant Governor had notified the implementation of the odd-even
scheme from the 25th of September 2019. The notification is as under:

“In exercise of the powers conferred vide the Motor Vehicles Act of Indistan, the Lieutenant
Governor of the National Capital Territory of Khushal Pradesh, on being satisfied that
further steps are required to control vehicular pollution caused by non-transport four
wheeled vehicles (motor cars etc.), hereby orders, in the interest of public health and safety,
that the following prohibitory / restrictive measures shall be in vogue in the area of National
Capital Territory of Khushal Pradesh; namely The plying of non-transport four wheeled
vehicles (Motor Cars etc.) having registration number ending with odd digit (1,3,5,7,9) shall
be prohibited on Monday, Wednesday and Friday and the plying of non-transport four
wheeled vehicles (Motor Cars etc.) having registration number ending with even digit
(0,2,4,6,8) shall be prohibited on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. These restrictions shall
also apply to the nontransport four wheeled vehicles bearing registration number of other
states. These restrictions shall be applicable from 8 AM to 8 PM of such dates. These
restrictions shall not be applicable on Sundays. These restrictions shall not apply to the
vehicles of such categories as mentioned below:

(i) Vehicles of the President of Indistan;

(ii) Vehicles of the Vice President of Indistan;
(iii) Vehicles of the Prime Minister of Indistan;
(iv) Vehicles of Governors of States;
(v) Vehicles of Chief Justice of Indistan;
(vi) Vehicles of the Speaker of Lok Sabha
(vii) Vehicles of the Ministers of the Union;
(viii) Vehicles of the Leaders of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha;
(ix) Vehicles of the Chief Ministers of States and the Union Territories except the
Chief Minister, Government of National Capital Territory of Khushal Pradesh;
(x) Vehicles of the Judges of Supreme Court of Indistan;
(xi) Vehicle of the Deputy Chairman of Rajya Sabha;

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER |Page 8

(xii) Vehicle of the Dy. Speaker of Lok Sabha;
(xiii) Vehicles of Lieutenant Governors of Union Territories;
(xiv) Vehicles of the Judges of the High Court of Khushal Pradesh;
(xv) Vehicle of the Lokayukta;
(xvi) Emergency Vehicles i.e. Ambulance, Fire Brigade, Hospital, prison, Hearse
vehicles;
(xvii) Enforcement vehicles i.e. vehicles of Police, para military forces etc.;
(xviii) Vehicles bearing Ministry of Defence number plates;
(xix) Vehicles which are having a pilot escort;
(xx) Vehicles of SPG protectees;
(xxi) Embassy Vehicles bearing CD numbers;
(xxii) Compressed Natural Gas driven vehicles (these vehicles should prominently
display sticker 'CNG Vehicle' on the front windscreen - issued by M/s Shudh
Paryavaran Gas Ltd.), Electric vehicles, Hybrid vehicles;
(xxiii) Vehicles being used for medical emergencies - (will be trust based);
(xxiv) Women only vehicles - including children of age up-to 12 years travelling with
them;
(xxv) Vehicles driven/occupied by handicapped persons.

Violation of these orders shall attract a fine of Rs. 20000/- in accordance with the
provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.”
7. This shocked a number of people in the city as they were assured that the scheme
shall only be implemented after consultations with the people. People felt cheated and
as a result of the scheme middle and lower middle class was the hardest hit population
as they have only one vehicle for entire household.
8. Mr. R.C Kehta, a famous comedian based out of Khushal Pradesh, lives with his
aging parents in Hashmukh Vihar and his office and his recording studio are in
Raksha Colony. Since July 2019, his videos acquired a lot of attention and gathered
millions of subscribers to his channels as he started a series of political satirical
comedy. He had one car ending with even number in its number plate. This causes
grave hardship to him after the implementation of odd-even scheme. Now, he has to
spend major part of his day travelling from his living place to his working place.
There was also no adequate public transport in his locality. The major problem he

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER |Page 9

 faced was with his 76 year old father, whom he has to take to the hospital 3 times a
week depending on the needs of his father for his regular dialysis.
9. Facing such problems, he wrote a letter to all members of cabinet and to the C.M and
explained the difficulties public are facing due to lack of public transport. He
requested to withdraw the scheme as soon as possible. When the scheme was not
withdrawn, he took part in various protests against the scheme. He also filed a number
of RTI applications questioning the rationale behind the scheme. He was not properly
answered to any of his applications yet through one response he got to know the
scheme was proposed to the Lt Governor on 15th September. On 22nd September the
C.M with his Council of Ministers paid a visit to the Lt. Governor during the lunch
hour. By the end of the lunch hour the Lt. Governor accepted the proposal and wanted
to implement the scheme with immediate effect. The C.M and Council of Ministers
did not agreed to this as they were of the opinion to implement it later only after
consultation.
10. Mr. Kehta being a comedian also took to satire and uploaded a short satirical sketch in
his channels. But when the sketch came out there was a complaint against him that the
sketch was obscene and ought not to be displayed publicly. He was proceeded against
by the police and a case of indecent representation of women was registered against
him.
11. At this time he was already considering his legal remedies against odd-even scheme.
He thus consulted his lawyers and approached the High Court.
12. In his petition, he requested that the complaint against him be quashed as there is
nothing obscene about the sketch. He also challenged the constitutionality of the
notification of 23rd September and contended that the notification is legally void as
there was no proper consultation with his Council of Ministers and proper application
of mind by the Lt. Governor before issuing the notification.
13. The High Court dismissed his petition on 10th of November as the Court found that
the scheme does not violate the fundamental rights, that the notification was issued
adequately by the Lt. Governor and it was not necessary for him to apply his mind on
his own to the matter. The court also found that the contents of the sketch were indeed
obscene and indecent and the complaint against him cannot be quashed at this stage.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER |Page 10

 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

I.
Is the petition maintainable before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indistan?

II.
Is the Odd-Even scheme implemented by the Govt. of NCT violative of the
Fundamental Rights under the Constitution of Indistan?

III.
Does the satirical sketch uploaded by Mr. Kehta amounts to obscenity and
indecent representation under the Criminal Laws of Indistan?

IV.
Whether the consultation by Lt. Governor with the Council of Ministers was
constitutionally full and proper?

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER |Page 11

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. Is the petition maintainable before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indistan?

The petition is maintainable as it meets the necessary grounds for the application of such
petition as well as the powers of the Supreme Court exercisable under Art. 136 of the
Constitution of Indistan provides the Supreme Court to exercise its power outside the
purview of ordinary law.

II. Is the Odd-Even scheme implemented by the Govt. of NCT violative of the
Fundamental Rights under the Constitution of Indistan?
The odd-even scheme implemented by Govt. of NCT is violative of the fundamental rights as
it violates various fundamental rights such as Art.21 of the Constitution which is right to life
and personal liberty, but due to the implementation of such a scheme citizens are unable to
exercise their rights of liberty. Art. 19(1)g is also violated as the scheme restraints the
practice of profession of commercial vehicle drivers. It somehow also violates Art. 14 of the
Constitution because the middle class and lower middle class people are affected much more
than the upper class people though both of them contribute in polluting the air equally.

III. Does the satirical sketch uploaded by Mr. Kehta amounts to obscenity and
indecent representation under the Criminal Laws of Indistan?
Every citizen has the right to express their opinion and in this case Mr. Kehta is
professionally a comedian and hence it was a part of his work to make people laugh and that
does not at all constitute an indecent representation and neither falls under the definition of
‘indecent representation’ under any criminal laws of our country.

IV. Whether the consultation by Lt. Governor with the Council of Ministers was
constitutionally full and proper?
The consultation was not constitutionally full and proper because Art. 239AA(4) of the
Constitution states that the Lt. Governor is supposed to take the opinion of the President in
case of any dispute of opinion with the Council of Ministers but in this case neither there has
been a proper consultation between the Lt. Governor and the Council of Ministers and nor in
a proper manner.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER |Page 12

 ARGUMENT ADVANCED

I. Is the petition maintainable before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indistan?

The petition is maintainable before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indistan.

1.1.In case of Kunhayammed & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr. 1, the Supreme Court
held that it is not the policy of this Court to entertain special leave petition and grant
leave under Art. 136 of the Constitution save in those case where some substantial
question of law of general or public importance is involved or there is manifest
injustice resulting from the impugned order or judgment.
In this case there is sufficient question of law. They are:
 Violation of fundamental rights: The Constitution of Indistan guarantees us
certain the fundamental rights mentioned in Part III. Here those rights have
been violated by the implementation of the odd-even scheme. So clearly there
arises a substantial question of law which is of public importance. Firstly Art.
21 has been violated through the Odd-Even scheme. Under Art.21 every
person is guaranteed their personal liberty. Every person has the right to use
their own property as per their wish. But that right has been restricted by the
implementation of the Odd-Even Scheme.
 Restraint to carry on any Occupation: The Odd-even scheme is not only
applicable to non- transport vehicles but also to four wheeled commercial
vehicles like taxi etc. It means this scheme also violates Art. 19(1) g. i.e. to
carry on any occupation. Driving is the occupation of the drivers of taxi or
other commercial four wheeled vehicles. But here the Govt. of NCT had put
an unreasonable restriction to that.
1.2. There are also certain questions of law i.e. whether the consultation between the Lt.
Governor and Council headed by C.M. was constitutionally valid because
consultation was not proper. Though there was a fall out between the opinions of the
Lt. Governor and Ministers, the Lt. Governor did not refer it to the President in
accordance with proviso clause of Art.239AA (4).
1.3.Moreover the power of Supreme Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution is
exercisable outside the purview of ordinary law. There are no specific grounds since it

1
AIR 2000 (6) SCC 359.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER |Page 13

 is at the discretion of the Court. It was held in Subash Babu v. State of Andhra
Pradesh2, that the power under Art. 136 is exercisable outside the purview of
ordinary law to meet demand of justice. Art. 136 is a special jurisdiction extraordinary
in its amplitude. It is meant to supplement the existing provisions of law. Thus the
petition is maintainable before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indisdan.

II. Is the Odd-Even scheme implemented by the Govt. of NCT violative of the
Fundamental Rights under the Constitution of Indistan?

The Odd-Even scheme implemented by the Govt. of NCT is violative of the Fundamental
Rights under the Constitution of Industan.

2.1. Firstly, the scheme implemented by the govt. of NCT deprives people’s right of
personal liberty. It means the scheme violates Art. 21 of the Constitution.
Art. 21 states as “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
according to the procedure established by law.”
Prior to Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India3 case, the scope of Art. 21 was very
limited. It would protect the citizens only from the arbitrary action of the executive.
Now, Art. 21 protects the right to life and personal liberty of citizen not only from
Executive action but from the Legislative action also.
In Maneka Gandhi case the Supreme Court has widened the scope of the words
‘personal liberty’ considerably. Bhagwati, J. observed: “ The expression ‘personal
liberty’ in Article 21 is of widest amplitude and it covers a variety of rights which go
to constitute the personal liberty of man and some of them have raised to the status of
distinct fundamental rights and given additional protection under Article 19.”
 Thus, Art.21 requires the following conditions to be fulfilled before a person is
deprived of his life and personal liberty:
i. There must be a valid law.
ii. The law must provide a procedure.
iii. The procedure must be just, fair and reasonable.
iv. The law must satisfy the requirements of Arts. 14 and 19 i.e., it must be
reasonable.

2
AIR 2011 SC 3031: (2011) 7 SCC 616: JT 2011 (8) SC 483: (2011) 7 SCALE 671.
3
AIR 1978 SC 597.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER |Page 14

 When a law is made then it must pass through the test of Constitution. If it is
inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution, then the Supreme Court shall
declare it unconstitutional.
 In the present case, the scheme violated the fundamental rights of the people at large.
It is at the liberty of the people which mode of transport they would use. But their
liberty is taken away here which clearly violates Art.21 of the Constitution.
Now about the scheme, the scheme is totally unfair and unreasonable. It is good that
Govt. of NCT has thought about curbing the air pollution but the scheme is very
inefficient. It was very carelessly made. In NCT, there are many areas even now
where proper public transport is not available. The place where R.C. Kehta lives is an
example. R.C. Kehta faced great difficulties due to this. He has to spend a major part
of his day travelling from his place of stay to his place of work as there is no adequate
public transport from his house to the locality in which his place of work is situated
in. He had to face another major problem. His 76 year-old father had some serious
health issues for which he had to take him for dialysis in regular basis. Dialysis had to
be conducted 3 times a week depending on the needs of his father. There were no
fixed dates. So if he had to take his father on Tuesday, Thursday or Saturday, he could
not use his car as he had a car with registration number ending with even number. He
has to go for other alternatives. Thus his right of choice has been tied on these
respective days even he has the utmost need to use it. And this is not the problem of
Mr. Kehta but thousands and thousands of people even if they are residents of other
states.
2.2. The scheme also violated right to equality as mentioned under Art. 14 of the
Constitution. The most affected people from this scheme are middle class and lower
middle class families. They have only one car for their whole family and even having
one car for the whole family they cannot use it as per their wish. Now if there arises
any emergency in their house then also their liberty to use their own car has been
limited within those prescribed days with respective of their car’s number.
 On the other hand people of richer sections are affected much lesser than the middle
class section as they have the ability to manage two cars with odd and even numbers
respectively. Thus this creates a question of discrimination on the basis of the wealth.
It is not that only middle and lower middle class is polluting the air but both the
middle class and the richer class is contributing in air pollution and maybe, the richer

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER |Page 15

 class is polluting the air to a greater extent as they use car regularly or more often than
the middle class people. It means both the classes should be equally affected. But it is
the middle class people who are affected more due to the implementing of the odd-
even scheme. Thus there is a clear-cut question of inequality and discrimination
arising out of the scheme implemented by the Govt. of NCT.
2.3. Violation of Article 19(1) g: Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution has given us the
freedom to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. In
this present case the odd-even scheme is not only applicable to non-transport/personal
cars but also to commercial four-wheeled vehicles (like taxi, uber etc.). This means
these vehicles will be off 3 days in a week respective of their car’s number. Now the
problem is that, the drivers of such vehicles earn their livelihood through their cars.
Driving is their occupation here and the scheme is putting restraint to their
occupation. This not only violates Art. 19(1) g. but also Art.21 of the Constitution.
Because Right to life under Art. 21 also includes right to livelihood.
In Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation 4, popularly known as the
‘pavement dwellers case’, a five Judges Bench of the court has finally ruled that the
word ‘life’ in Art. 21 includes the ‘right to livelihood’: “That is but one aspect of the
right to life. An equally important facet of that right is the right to livelihood because
no person can live without the means of livelihood. If the right to livelihood is not
treated as a part of the constitutional right to life, the easiest ways to depriving a
person of his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood.
2.4. Right to life includes right to information: This is an additional issue which should be
put forward. The Petitioner, Mr. Kehta filed a number of RTI applications questioning
the rationale behind the schemes. Most of his applications were ignored or not
properly answered. Out of his many applications he got one response, from which he
got to know about the consultations which took place between the Lt. Governor and
Chief Minister and his Council. From this we can say that he was not furnished with
adequate information which was his right under Scetion 3 of RTI Act, 2005. This is
also a fundamental right because right to receive information is also a fundamental
right. In case of State of U.P. v. Raj Narayan5, the Supreme Court has observed that
in a government of democracy where all agent of public must be responsible for their
conduct. The people of India have right to know every public act, everything that is

4
1986 SC 180: (1985) 3 SCC 545.
5
AIR 1975 SC 865.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER |Page 16

 done in a public way by their public functionaries. They are entitled to know the
particulars of every public transaction, in all its being the right to know or right to get
information which is derived from the concept of the freedom of speech and
expression. The Supreme Court said that people cannot speak or express themselves
unless they know.
This decision thus clearly implies that Art. 19(1)a. has been violated as freedom of
speech and expression includes right to receive or access information.

III. Does the satirical sketch uploaded by Mr. Kehta amounts to obscenity and
indecent representation under the Criminal Laws of Indistan?

The satirical sketch uploaded by Mr. Kehta does not amount to obscenity and indecent
representation under Criminal Laws of Indistan.

3.1. Firstly, the word ‘obscene’ is not defined in the Indian Penal Code. But in case of
Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra6, ‘obscene’ has been defined as offensive
to chastity or modesty, expressing or personating to the mind or view something that
delicacy, purity and decency forbid to be expressed. In the above-stated case the test
of obscenity was also laid down. The test of obscenity is this whether the tendency of
the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open
to such immoral influences, and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall.
In this present case the content of the sketch is such that it would never deprave or
corrupt the minds of the people as the sketch was purely a comedy. And people are
supposed to get their minds out of the box of seriousness before watching such
content. Moreover, such sketches are pretty common nowadays. People create such
kind of content to entertain people. Thus the sketch would not influence the minds of
people to that extent, so as to consider it as obscene.
3.2. The object of creating such sketch was not to represent woman indecently. The
primary the object was to create humour and entertain people. The secondary object
was to show how carelessly and without proper application of mind the odd-even
scheme was implemented. Furthermore there was no actual sexual content. It was not
an offensive sketch. Thus this sketch cannot be referred as obscene and indecent.

6
1965 AIR 881, 1965 SCR (1) 65.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER |Page 17

 IV. Whether the consultation by Lt. Governor with the Council of Ministers was
constitutionally full and proper?

The consultation by Lt. Governor with the Council of Minister was not full and proper
because

4.1.The consultation by Lt. Governor with Council of Minister is inconsistent with Article
239AA (4).
According to Article 239AA (4) of Constitution, it is clearly mentioned that whenever
there is a difference in the opinion between the Lt. Governor and the Minister the Lt.
Governor shall refer it to President and act accordingly.
Article 239AA (4) states as: There shall be a Council of Ministers consisting of not
more than ten percent of the total number of members in the Legislative Assembly,
with Chief Minister at the head to aid and advise the Lt. Governor in the exercise of
his functions in relation to matters with respect to which the Legislative Assembly has
power to make laws, except in so far as he is, by or under any law, required to act in
his discretion:
Provided that in case of difference of opinion between the Lt. Governor and his
Ministers on any matter, the Lt. Governor shall refer it to the President for decision
and act according to the decision given thereon by the President and pending such
decision it shall be competent for the Lt. Governor in any case where the matter, in
his opinion, is so urgent that it is necessary for him to take immediate action, to take
such action or to given such direction in the matter as he deems necessary.
In this case though there was a difference in opinion the Lt. Governor didn’t refer it to
the President and this in itself constitutes an improper conduct in respect to the
constitution.
Furthermore, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 44 of the Government of
National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991 (1 of 1992) the President made some
rules regarding this matter. As mentioned in Section 50 of the Rules made by
President “In case of difference of opinion between the Lt. Governor and the Council
with regard to any matter, the Lt. Governor shall refer it to the Central Government
for the decision of the President and shall act according to the decision of the
President.”

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER |Page 18

 In case of Rajendra Singh Verma (D)Thr.Lrs v. Lt. Governor of NCT of Delhi &
Anr. 7, the court held that ‘A meaningful and conjoint reading of Article 163 of
Constitution makes it clear that the Governor has to act on aid and advice of the
Council of Minister with the Chief Minister as the head except in so far as he is by or
under this Constitution required to exercise his function or any of them in his
discretion. In view of the provision of sub Article (4) of Article 239 AA of the
Constitution, the Lt. Governor has to take aid and advice if the Council of Minister in
the exercise of his function in relation to matters with respect to which the Legislative
Assembly has power to make laws.

Section 44 of the Rules made by the President under Govt. of National Capital
Territory of Delhi Act, 1991 also states as:
44. (1) All administrative Departments shall consult the Law Department on –
(a) proposals for legislation;
(b) the making of statutory rules, order, notifications, byelaws, regulations, schemes,
etc.
(c) any general legal principles arising out of any case;
(d) the institution or withdrawal of any prosecution at the instance of any
administrative Department; and
(e) the preparation of important contracts to be entered into by or on behalf of the
Government.
(2) Every such reference shall be accompanied by an accurate statement of the facts
of the case and the point or points on which the advice of the Law Department is
desired.
Thus in case of making any law or schemes, the Lt. Governor ought to consult the law
department which he did not do.
4.2.Administrator is competent to exercise or powers vested in him by the Govt. of NCT
of Delhi Act, 1991. The administrator functions as a delegate of the President and will
have to act under the orders of the President, i.e. the central Government. So it is very
clear that the Lt. Governor, having no power tried to make a scheme himself. The Lt.
Governor though competent to follow the rules, he did not do so because here in this
case the Council of ministers and C.M. had and opinion of consulting it further and

7
(2011) 10 SCC 1.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER |Page 19

taking decisions after that. Lastly we can conclude that the consultation was not full
and proper.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER |Page 20

 PRAYER

In the last light of the facts of the case issues raised and argument advanced, reason given and
authorities cited, this Hon’ble Supreme Court be pleased

To Maintain

1. The instant petition filed before the Court

To Declare

2. The notification and the odd-even scheme implemented by Govt. of NCT

unconstitutional.

To Quash

3. The complaint of indecent representation of woman against the petitioner.

And to grant any other relief/s that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased in the
interest of justice, equity and good conscience.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

Counsels for the petitioner.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER |Page 21