KASHMIR LAW COLLEGE

NOWSHERA SRINAGAR

MOOT COURT MEMORIAL

Name:-
Class:-
Roll no:-

Teacher Incharge:-
Before the Hon’ble High Court of Bahratpur

In The Case of:

Mr. X
(Appellant)

V/S

State Of Baharistaan
(Respondent)

In The Matter of: Constitutionality Of the citizenship amendment Act

Counsel Appearing On Behalf Of Petitioner

2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

● List Of Abbreviations 4

● Index Of Authorities 5

● Case Law Referred 5

● Books Referred 5

● Websites Referred 5

● Statement Of Facts 6

● Issues Presented 8

● Issue for Consideration 9

● Summary Of Arguments 10

● Prayer For Relief 13

3
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
● P. Page No.

● AIR All India Reporter.

● Art. Article.

● J. Justice.

● Ltd. Limited.

● HC. High Court.

● SC. Supreme court.

● SCC. Supreme court cases.

● Scr. High Court.

● UOI Union Of India.

● V. Versus.

4
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES:-
● The constitution of India, 1950
● Indian penal code, 1860

Case Laws Referred:-

● Maneka Gandhi v. UOI (1978 AIR 597)
● Farmers Case 2021.
● Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union Of India & Ors.
(SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 122 OF 2011)

Books Referred:
● Dr. J.N Pandey, Constitutional Law Of India
● M. Hidyatullah, Constitutional Law Of India
● Dr. Kailash, Rai Public Interest , Lawyering
● Mp Jain, Constitutional Law Of India
● Prof. S.N Mishra, Indian Penal Code
● K.D Gaur, The Indian Penal Code

Websites Referred:-
● www.lawctopus.com
● www.indiankanoon.com
● www.advocatekhoj.com

5
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

The State of Baharistaan introduced the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019

(CAA), providing citizenship to the persecuted religious minorities of
neighboring Muslim Majority states of Banglapur, Afghanabad and Hazaristan.
The Act also proposes to expel all the alleged illegal immigrants, living here for
the last 50 years, who have come into the State of Baharistan from these three
States. The Act is opposed by the minorities in the State of Baharistan as a
threat to their existence. Therefore a public protest was organised on 15.02.2020
by the like-minded groups to oppose the introduction of CAA in the Baharatpur,
the capital city of Bharistaan. Scores of protestors were arrested allegedly on
raising pro –Hazaristan slogans under an FIR No. 111/2020 dated 15.02.2020 by
the Nayagarh City Police for the offences punishable under section 124 A, 153
A&B, 504 and 505 of BPC and submitted FIR to the Jurisdictional
Magistrate. The Nayagarh City Police produced all the accused before the
Jurisdictional Magistrate who remanded them to judicial custody. The police,
after investigation, filed a charge sheet for the said offences on 15.03.2020. The
Jurisdictional Magistrate was pleased to take cognizance and registered a
Criminal Case in No 222/20, the summons was issued to the accused , who were
in judicial custody, to appear before the court. On the date of hearing before the
Prosecution papers were furnished to the accused who pleaded ‘not guilty’. The
charges were framed by the court as under “Whether the prosecution establishes
beyond reasonable doubt that on the said date , time and venue, the accused has
committed the offences punishable under Sec 124 A , 153 A & B , 504 and
505 of IPC”. The prosecution has examined four witnesses listed at PW1, PW2,
PW3, PW4. The two audiences, who are eyewitnesses, are examined as PW 5
& 6. The prosecution also produced the copy of the complaint and video
footage showing the speech of the accused. On behalf of the Defense, the
accused is examined as DW1, other witnesses who were present at the said

6
protest, are also examined as DW2 & 3. The accused protestors alleged that
Police resorted to brute forces to quell the protests against the said
discriminatory law. After the closing of the evidence and the arguments, the
Jurisdictional Magistrate held the accused guilty of the offence punishable under
Sec 124A of IPC. And acquitted the accused for the remaining offences by
judgement and conviction dated 22/03/2020 and sentenced to undergo 10 years
Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- , in default of fine amount , the
accused shall undergo 6 months simple imprisonment. Being aggrieved by the
same, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No 111/2020 before the Hon’ble
High Court of Bahratpur, mainly contending that merely raising the alleged
slogan do not amount an act of sedition, the state argued that there are materials
to show that there was intentional act before shouting a “Hazaristan--Zindabad”,
as accused continued to shout even after taking into custody. The Hon’ble High
Court listed the appeal for final hearing. In the meanwhile the alleged protestors
under the banner ‘Save the Nation Group’ challenged this Citizenship Law of
2019 in the same High Court being against the basic Constitutional values of
Baharistaan and Citizenship procedures in the Country.

Issues Presented

7
1. The alleged protestors are guilty of Sedition and shall be punished?
2. Organising protests against the State amounts to threat to peace & public
order of state?
3. The Citizenship Amendment Act is against constitutional values of
Baharistaan?
4. The expulsion of illegal immigrants is not a threat to the rights of
minorities of Baharistan?
5. The persecuted minorities have a right to acquire citizenship under Int.
laws?

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION

8
● Organising protests against the State amounts to threat to peace & public
order of state?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

9
Your Honour The counsel for the petitioners humbly submits that the
Citizenship Amendment Act is Unconstitutional on the grounds that the Act
grossly violates fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners by virtue of
Part III of the Constitution, therefore the citizens have the right to protest.

Your Honor That the citizens of India have a fundamental right to assembly and
peaceful protest that cannot be taken away by an arbitrary executive or
legislative action. Protesting is not only a fundamental right granted by the
Indian Constitution but protesting against injustice is also a moral duty.

Your Honour It was in Maneka Gandhi v UOI that Justice Bhagwati said, “If
democracy means government of the people by the people, it is obvious that
every citizen must be entitled to participate in the democratic process and in
order to enable him to intelligently exercise his rights of making a choice, free
and general discussion of public matter is absolutely essential”.

Your Honor It is humbly submitted that the protest in the said matter was
peaceful only matter was, it held at a public place. Whereas the International
democratic standards recognize that using public spaces for protests purposes is
as legitimate as other uses of the same space.

Your Honor the term “public order” used in Article 19(2) as a legitimate ground
of restriction can be reasonable only when there is evidence that protestors will
incite lawless or disorderly acts and that such acts are likely to occur.

Your Honor if we look at the facts of the case one thing is clear that there was
no violence at all and the protest was peaceful and The participants were just

10
condeming a discriminatory law that offered citizenship on the basis of religion
while excluding Muslims of any country.

Your Honour Right to peaceful protest is a fundamental right under Article

19(1)(b), and such demonstration does have the protection under the Article
19(1)(b), though such right can be restricted under Article 19(3) but only if it is
riotous or against public order.

So Your Honour from the facts of our case it is clear that the people were
protesting peacefully and were within their rights, and does not fall under
Article 19(3).

Your Honour Freedom of assembly is bound to collide with competing rights,

such as the right to freedom of movement. Protest may cause a certain level of
disruption to ordinary life and encounter hostility.

Your Honour even in Farmers case The apex court held that farmers had the
right to protest. Right to Protest ensures that people can act as watchdogs and
constantly monitor governments' acts.

Your Honour Right to protest provides feedback to the governments about their
policies and actions after which the concerned government, through
consultation, meetings and discussion, recognizes and rectifies its mistakes.

Your Honour, the right to freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of expression

and freedom of association, are considered indispensable in a democratic
society, and states are expected to accord due weightage to their importance.
The right to freedom is not just another right, but one of the primary and most
important foundations of any democratic structure. The undermining of freedom

11
of expression directly affects the central nerve of the democratic system and the
state has an obvious duty to safeguard this right.

In Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union Of India & Ors.

(2012), the Supreme Court had stated, “Citizens have a fundamental right to
assembly and peaceful protest which cannot be taken away by an arbitrary
executive or legislative action”.

12
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE in the light of the facts used, issue raised, arguments advanced
and authorities cited, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble
Court may be pleased to adjudged and declared that:

The organising protests against the State does not amount to threat to peace &
public order of state

or pass the order that Hon’ble court may be deem fit in the interest of justice,
equity and good conscience.

It is most respectfully submitted

Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner

13