Campbell Bay Respondent Memorial

39th All India Moot Court Competition, AGLC
TEAM CODE: CAMPBELL BAY
39th All India Moot Court Competition in commemoration of Golden Jubilee of Dr.
Ambedkar Government Law College, 2022
BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF VENGADAM
WRIT JURISDICTION
W.P NO. 4536/2021
Vallum Kavu Devasom …….Petitioner
Vs.
Union of Vengadam …….Respondent
W.P. NO. 3456/2021

Vallum Craft Association ……. Petitioner
Vs.
Union of Vengadam …….Respondent
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION

SLP. NO. 6453/2021
Mr XYZ …….Petitioner
Vs.
State of Satva …….Respondent
SLP. NO.6352/2021
Adv. Mathur Nath …….Petitioner
Vs.
State of Ahali …….Respondent
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF VENGADAM
-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT-
-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT- 1|Page

TABLE OF CONTENTS
S. No. Contents Page No.
1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3
2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4
3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 6
4. STATEMENT OF FACTS 7
5. STATEMENT OF ISSUES 9
6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 10
7. WRITTEN PLEEDINGS
1. ISSUE – 1 11
2. ISSUE – 2 15
3. ISSUE – 3 22
4. ISSUE – 4 26
8. PRAYER 34

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
& AND
¶ PARAGRAPH
Adv. ADVOCATE
AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER
Anr. ANOTHER
Art. ARTICLE
Assn. ASSOCIATION
Corpn. CORPORATION
FIR FIRST INFORMATION REPORT
Govt. GOVERNMENT
HC HIGH COURT
Hon’ble HONOURABLE
No. NUMBER
NGO NON GOVERNMENTAL

ORGANISATION
Ors. OTHERS
Pg. PAGE
SC SUPREME COURT
SCC SUPREME COURT CASES
SLP SPECIAL LEAVE PETETION
u/s UNDER SECTION
V. VERSUS
WP WRIT PETETION

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
A. LIST OF CASES
1. SP Mittal V. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 51.
2. Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha
Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, AIR 1954 SC 282.
3. John Vallamattom V. Union of India, AIR 2003, SC 242.
4. Indian Young Lawyers Assn. V. State of Kerala, (2019) 11 SCC 1.
5. Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb V. State of Bombay, AIR 1962 SC 853.
6. Seshammal V. State of T.N.1 and Commissioner, (1972) 2 SCC 11.
7. Shayara Bano and Ors V. Union of India and Ors, AIR 2017 9 SCC 1 (SC).
8. Acharya Jagadishwaranand Avadhuta V. Commr. of Police, 1983) 4 SCC 522 :
1984 SCC (Cri) 1.
9. Indian Young Lawyers Assn. V. State of Kerala, (2019) 11 SCC 1.
10. State of U.P. V. Yamuna Shanker Misra ,[(1997) 4 SCC 7 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 903]
11. AIIMS Students Union V. AIIMS, [(2002) 1 SCC 428].
12. Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra V. State of U.P, [1986 Supp SCC 517].
13. T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad V. Union of India, [(2002) 10 SCC 606].
14. Durgah Committee, Ajmer V. Hussain Ali, AIR 1961 SC 1402.
15. Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj V. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1963 SC 1638.
16. State of Gujarat V. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat, (2005) 8 SCC 534.
17. Krishna Kumar V. Municipal Committee of Bhatapara, AIR 1960 SC 430.
18. State of Maharashtra V. Himmatbhai Narbheram Rao, AIR 1970 SC 1157.
19. Sushila SawMill V. State of Orissa, (1995) 5 SCC 615.
20. Pratap Pharma (P) Ltd. V. Union of India, (1997) 5 SCC 87.
21. Dharam Dutt V. Union of India, (2004) 1 SCC 712.
22. M.B. Cotton Assn. Ltd V. Union of India, AIR 1954 SC 634.
23. State of Maharashtra v. Himmatbhai Narbheram Rao, (1969) 2 SCR 392.
24. Animal and Environment Legal Defence Fund V. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC
549.
25. Welfare Forum V. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2715.
26. Indian Handicrafts Emporium V. Union of India, (2003) 7 SCC 589.
27. State of Bombay V. F.N. Balsara, AIR 1951 SC 318.
28. Workmen V. Meenakshi Mills Ltd, (1992) 3 SCC 336.
29. Papnasam Labour Union V. Madura Coats Ltd, (1995) 1 SCC 501.
30. Keshvananda Bharati V. state of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225.
31. Hatisingh Mfg. Co. Ltd. & Anr. V. Union of India & Ors, [1960] 3 SCR 528.
32. Balram Kumawat V. Union of India and other, AIR 2003 SC 3268.
33. State of Madras V. V.G. Row, AIR 1952 SC 196.
34. Justice K.S Puttaswamy V. Union of India, (2014) 6 SCC 433.
35. Modern Dental College and Research Centre V. State of Madhya Pradesh and
Ors, 2009 7 SCC 751.
36. K N Mehra V. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1957 SC 369.
37. Chiranjitlal Anand V. The State of Assam and anr, 1975 35 STC 442 Gauhati.

38. K N Mehra v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1957 SC 369.

39. Chandi Kumar v. Abanidhar Roy, AIR 1965 SC 585.
40. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637.
41. Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR (1962) SC 955.
42. Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi, 1950 SCR 605.
43. V.K. Javali v. State of Mysore, AIR 1966 SC 1387.
44. Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1951 SC 118.
45. Om Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 3689.
46. Narendra Kumar v. Union of India, (1960) 2 SCR 375.
47. Budhan Choudary v. State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 191.
48. Maftal Industries Private Limited v. Union of India, (1997) 5 SCC 536.
49. Ajit Kumar Nag v. Indian Oil Corporation. Ltd, (2005) 7 SCC 764.
50. Queen-Empress v. Jogendra Chunder Bose, (1892) ILR 19 Cal 35.
51. Reg v. Alexander Martin Sullivan, (1868) 11 CCLC 44 (Eng).
52. Bengal Immunity Company Limited v. State of Bihar, (1955) 2 SCR 603.
53. A.K Roy v. Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC 271.
54. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).
55. Arup Bhuyan v. The State Of Assam, 2011) 3 SCC 377.
56. S. Rangarajan V. P. Jagjivan Ram 1989 SCR (2) 204 SCC (2) 574.
57. Pennekamp Vs. Florida, 1946 U.S., 328 U.S. 331.
A. LIST OF LAWS AND STATUTES
1. The Constitution of India, 1949
2. The Indian Penal Code, 1860
3. Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972
B. ARTICLES AND BLOGS

1. UN General Assembly, International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, 16 December 1966, United Nations, Treaty
Series, vol. 999, p. 171
2. Online Freedom of Speech and Expression: A Critical Analysis,

3 KIIT Student L Rev 33 (2016
3. Does your God Satisfy the Constitutional Test? – Analysing the
“Essential Religious Practices Doctrine” in Light of the
Sabarimala Verdict, 8.2 NLIU LR (2019) 210

4. Essential Religious Practices in Light of the Sabarimala

Judgment, 8.2 NLIU LR (2019) 298
C. ONLINE RESOURCES
1. LEXIS ADVANCE, https://www.lexisnexis.com/in/legal
2. MANUPATRA, https://www.manupatrafast.com
3. SCC ONLINE, https://www.scconline.com
4. WESTLAW, https://www.westlawindia.com
5. HEINONLINE, https://home.heinonline.org/
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
THE PETITIONER HAS FILED THIS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR THE VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHTS ENUMERATED IN PART III OF THE CONSTITUTION. THE
RESPONDENT MAINTAINS THAT NO VIOLATION OF RIGHTS HAS TAKEN
PLACE. THEREFORE, THIS HON’BLE COURT NEED NOT ENTRATAIN ITS
JURISDICTION IN THIS WRIT PETITION.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. INTRODUCTION
Union of Vengadam a South Asian country is union of 27 states, with a written constitution
and a federal democratic pattern of government. Vengadam is blend of both traditional and
modern views. It plays a forefront role for environmental protection; movements in the world
have taken part in international negotiations for creating international environmental laws.
Union of Vengadam and is a secular nation, and it is a Hindu majority nation. One of the
exquisite beliefs of Hinduism is that these gods and goddesses have their own vehicle or
vahana, which is either an animal or a bird.
2. UNION OF VENGADAM DECLARES ARAYANNA AS NATIONAL BIRD
Arayanna are large flying birds with a length of 20-30 inches and weight of 6-8kg,
Arayanna’s are known for their lustrous beauty it is widely distributed across the South Asia
and is found in almost all states of Union of Vengadam. Arayanna’s cannot be domesticated
and hence are not being considered as a pet bird. Feathers of Arayanna are used in many
rituals. There are large numbers of temples especially in southern states of Vengadam where
Arayanna’s are worshipped with Goddess Gadadevi. The union of Vengadam declared
Arayanna as the national bird of Vengadam in 1986.
3. IN 2007 GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATION TAG WAS GIVEN TO VALLUM
Arayattam is one of the most popular offerings given by devotees in Goddess Gadadevi
temples. The feathered headdress used in Arayattam is natively known as ‘Vallum’. In 2007
GI tag was given to Vallum based on an application given by Vallum craft associations.
4. UPCS IDENTIFIED A DRASTIC DECLINE IN THE POPULATION OF

ARAYANNA
The UPCS is a national organisation committed to protection of swans in union of

Vengadam. UPCS identified a drastic decline in the population of Arayanna during last
decade. The study estimated Arayanna’s may go extinct by 2030-2035. The Government of
Vengadam did not take any steps to make legal provisions for the protection of Arayanna’s.

In 2019 UPCS approached the Hon’ble Supreme court to issue directions to Central
Government for taking appropriate steps. In August 2020, the Hon’ble SC directed the
Central Government to make necessary changes in existing legal framework including the
Wildlife protection Act, 1972.
5. THREE PERSONS WERE ARRESTED FROM STATE OF SATVA
In December 2020, three persons were arrested from State of Satva for transporting 51
Arayanna’s. The police arrested them for theft. The accused approached the High court to
quash the FIR. The said petition was dismissed and aggrieved by this the petitioners appealed
in the SC.
6. GOVERNMENT OF VENGADAM INTRODUCED AMENDMENTS TO

WILDLIFE PROTECTION ACT
The effect of this amendment was total prohibition of possession, transportation and use of
Arayanna’s and their feathers as well as other body parts in any form. As a result of the
amendments in Wildlife Act 1972, the temple administrators the Vallum Kavu Devasom
found it difficult. Finally in June 2021 the Vallum Kavu Devasom approached the SC
challenging the said amendments. In July 2021 Vallum Craft Associations filed a petition
challenging the validity of recent amendments in Wildlife(protection) Act,1972.
7. FIR AGAINST ADVOCATE MATHUR NATH
Adv. Mathur Nath is an advocate and public-spirited citizen of Vengadam, Mrs Aneesha a
reporter from a national news channel sought his opinion. His statements invited severe
criticism from the ruling part and subsequently the police of State of Ahali registered case
under Section 124A of VPC. Adv. Mathur Nath approached HC of Ahali to quash the F.I.R,
the HC rejected his petition aggrieved by this Adv. Mathur approached the SC with a petition
challenging the constitutional validity of section 124A of the penal code.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES
The following issues are presented before this Hon’ble Court for its consideration:
ISSUE – 1
Whether the amendments made in Sections 43 (3) (a) & 44 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act,
1972 thereby extending the operation of the Act to Arayanna is violative of freedom of
religion or not?
ISSUE- 2
Whether the said amendments would amount to violation of right to livelihood of Vallum
Craft makers or not?
ISSUE – 3
Whether registering a case of theft on account of possession and transportation of

Arayanna is maintainable or not?
ISSUE – 4
Whether registering a case under Section 124A of the Penal Code of Vengadam on
account of a statements made in news discussion would violate the fundamental freedom of
speech guaranteed in the Constitution of Vengadam or not?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE – 1: It is submitted that Worshippers of Gadadevi cannot be considered as separate

denomination of Hindus and Dance and Wearing of Vallum during offerings cannot be
said to to be essential religious practise of Hinduism. It is further submitted that
fundamental character of Hinduism will not change if feathers of Aryannas are not used.
Lastly it is submitted that protecting wildlife is a fundamental duty of all citizens.
ISSUE – 2: It is submitted that Restriction on fundamental Rights can mean absolute

Prohibition. Further it is submitted that protecting wildlife is one of the DPSP. Impugned
amendments are Reasonable in nature and clear the tests of Proportionality. Further they
cannot be said to be arbitary and malafide.
ISSUE – 3: It is submitted that the act of the accused will fulfil the valid essentials of theft
u/s 378 of the penal code i.e., (1) moving a movable property of a person out of his
possession without his consent, (2) the moving being in order to the taking of the property
with a dishonest intention, hence the First information report is maintainable.
ISSUE – 4: Section 124A is valid since it has rational and reasonable nexus with the
restrictions on this right. In a Democratic Country like India our Constitutional framers
have not envisaged a society where Freedom of Speech and expression is absolute. There
are no absolute Rights. The Rights provided under Article 19(1) has certain exceptions,
which empower the state to impose reasonable restrictions in appropriate cases. The
Ingredients of Article 19 Inter alia are Restriction must be in furtherance of interest of
decency or morality. Reasonability of restriction used in a qualitative and relative sense. It
is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that Section 124A does not violate
fundamental freedom of speech guaranteed in the Constitution of Vengadam.
-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT- 10 | P a g e

WRITTEN PLEADINGS
1. WHETHER THE AMENDMENTS MADE IN SECTION 43(3) (A) AND

SECTION 44 OF THE WILDLIFE (PROTECTION) ACT, 1972 THEREBY
EXTENDING THE OPERATION OF THE ACT TO ARAYANNA IS
VIOLATIVE OF FREEDOM OF RELIGION OR NOT?
The Counsel seeks answers in the negative.
It is humbly submitted that the impugned amendments are not violative of Freedom of
Religion stipulated in Article 25 of Constitution of Vengadam.
1.1. Worshippers of Gadadevi and Vallum Kavu Devasom cannot be

Considered as separate denomination of Hinduism.
It is humbly submitted that Worshippers of Gadadevi and Vallum Kavu Devasom cannot be
Considered as separate denomination of Hinduism. It is submitted that they fail to satisfy the
test laid down by the apex Court to call themselves as a separate denomination.
It is pertinent to observe that this court had in the case of SP Mittal V. Union of India2 while
referring to the Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha
Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt3 case laid down Three-fold test for determining whether a
temple could be considered as religious denomination or not. The Test is as follows (1) It
must be a collection of individuals who have a system of beliefs or doctrines which they
regard as conducive to their spiritual well-being, that is, a common faith;(2) common
organisation; and (3) designation by a distinctive name. In the Instant case, the Worshippers
of Gadadevi and Arayanna’s fails to satisfy all the aforementioned test. It is to be noted that
Goddess Gadadevi is worshipped all the Hindus and Arayanna is considered sacred by all the
Hindus.4 There is neither a separate organisation of Worshippers of Gadadevi nor does it
have a distinct name. Therefore, it can be concluded that Goddess Gadadevi is one among
333 million Gods of Hinduism5 and only Essential Religious Practises of Hinduism is only
applicable to worshippers of Gadadevi in the state of Satva.
2
(1983) 1 SCC 51
3
AIR 1954 SC 282
4
¶ 4 moot proposition
5

1.2. A form of Dance wearing Headdress and other ornaments made up of

Arayanna’s Feathers and keeping feathers of Arayanna in the house does
not constitute essential Religious Practice.
Article 25 of Constitution of Vengadam merely protects the freedom to practise rituals,

ceremonies, etc. which are an integral part of a religion as observed by this Court in John
Vallamattom V. Union of India.6 It is humbly submitted that dancing wearing headdress
and other ornaments made up of feathers of Arayanna’s and keeping feathers of Arayanna in
the house does not constitute essential Religious Practice of Hinduism.
1.2.1. A form of Dance wearing Headdress and other ornaments made up of

Arayanna’s Feathers is just one of the Part of the Offering
‘Arayattam’ and Religious Texts does not make it obligatory.
Article 25(1), by employing the expression demonstrates that the freedom of conscience and
the right to freely profess, practise and propagate religion is available, though subject to the
restrictions delineated in Article 25(1) itself.7
In the cases of Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb V. State of Bombay8, Seshammal V. State
of T.N.9 and Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha
Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt10 Honourable Apex Court observed that what constitutes an
integral or essential part of religion has to be determined with reference to its doctrines,
practices, texts, tenants, historical background, etc. of the given religion. In the instant case
the dance wherein feathers of Arayanna is used cannot be said to constitute an integral and
essential part of the Religion as the dance is only a Part of the Offering. 11 Further, keeping
feathers of Arayanna in home12 is just considered auspicious and not obligatory in nature.
Further, in the case of Shayara Bano and Ors V. Union of India and Ors13 Honourable
Apex Court while striking down the practise of Instant Triple Talaq as unconstitutional held
that practice merely permitted cannot be considered an essential or positive tenant sanctioned
by religion. In the instant case contention that since the offering of Arayattam is mentioned in
6
AIR 2003, SC 242
7
Indian Young Lawyers Assn. V. State of Kerala, (2019) 11 SCC 1
8
AIR 1962 SC 853
9
(1972) 2 SCC 11
10
AIR 1954 SC 282
11
12
13
AIR 2017 9 SCC 1 (SC)

the Ancient Religious texts14 and keeping Arayanna’s feathers in the home is permitted and
considered auspicious15 therefore it enjoys the Protection of Article 25 of the Constitution
should be rejected.
1.2.2. Fundamental character of Hinduism will not change if the dance
wearing headdress is not performed.
It is very pertinent to refer to the case of Acharya Jagadishwaranand Avadhuta V.

Commr. of Police16 wherein Court laid down the test for determining whether a certain
practice can be characterised as essential to a particular religion in order to guarantee
protection under the Constitution. The Court Inter alia held that “Test to determine whether a
part or practice is essential to the religion is to find out whether the nature of religion will be
changed without that part or practice. If the taking away of that part or practice could result in
a fundamental change in the character of that religion or in its belief, then such part could be
treated as an essential or integral part. There cannot be additions or subtractions to such part
because it is the very essence of that religion and alterations will change its fundamental
character. It is such permanent essential parts which are protected by the Constitution.” In the
instant case it cannot be said that if Vallum17 is not used or if the Spectators are not permitted
to carry bunch of feathers of Arayanna18, during the offering of Arayattam, fundamental
character of Hinduism will change.
In the case of Indian Young Lawyers Assn. V. State of Kerala19 the court while declaring
the practise of Prohibition on entry of menstruating women in the Sabarimala temple as
unconstitutional held that if the abrogation of a practice does not change the fundamental
nature of the religion, the practice itself is not essential. In instant case it is humbly submitted
that if the dance is not performed or if the Arayanna’s feather is not kept in the house,
fundamental nature of Hindu religion will not change.
1.3. It’s the fundamental duty of the citizens to protect the wildlife of this
Country.
14
15
16
(1983) 4 SCC 522 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 1
17
18
19
(2019) 11 SCC 1

It is humbly submitted that it is the fundamental Duty of every citizen to protect the wildlife
of this Country. Article 51-A(g) of Constitution of Vengadam stipulates that it shall be the
duty of every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment including forests.20
In AIIMS Students Union V. AIIMS21 this Court made it clear that fundamental duties,
though not enforceable by the writ of the court, yet provide valuable guidance and aid to
interpretation and resolution of constitutional and legal issues. In case of doubt, people's wish
as expressed through Article 51-A can serve as a guide not only for resolving the issue but
also for constructing or moulding the relief to be given by the courts.
In Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra V. State of U.P.22 a complete ban and closing
of mining operations carried on in the Mussoorie hills was held to be sustainable by deriving
support from the fundamental duty as enshrined in Article 51-A(g) of the Constitution. The
Court held that preservation of the environment and keeping the ecological balance
unaffected is a task which not only the governments but also every citizen must undertake. It
is a social obligation of the State as well as of the individuals. In the instant case it is humbly
submitted that it is a fundamental duty of the Citizens of Vengadam which includes
Worshippers of Gadadevi and Arayanna’s to protect the Species of Arayanna’s.
In T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad V. Union of India23 a three-Judge Bench of this Court
read Articles 48-A and 51-A together as laying down the foundation for a jurisprudence of
environmental protection and held that “Today, the State and the citizen are under a
fundamental obligation to protect and improve the environment, including forests, lakes,
rivers, wildlife and to have compassion for living creature.” It is humbly submitted that in the
instant case it was necessary to bring certain changes in the Wildlife act to preserve the
species of Arayanna.
1.4. Decision of the government to bring amendments was in obedience to the
Directions issued by this Honourable Court.
It is humbly submitted that impugned amendments were made in obedience to order issued
by this Court in the month of August 2020.24 This Court had held that the Arayanna’s are one
20
State of U.P. V. Yamuna Shanker Misra [(1997) 4 SCC 7 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 903]
21
[(2002) 1 SCC 428]
22
[1986 Supp SCC 517]
23
[(2002) 10 SCC 606
24

of the Precious natural resources of the Country and are living entities having the status of an
artificial legal entity with Corresponding rights and duties of a natural living being.25
Therefore, the Government was under obligation to follow the above directions and it was
left with no other option.
1.5. There is high Possibility that dance performed wearing Vallum is a result
of Superstitious belief
It is humbly submitted that the dance may be result of Superstitious belief which is
unessential and doesn’t form an integral part of Hinduism. It is to be noted that the dance is
just one of the parts of Arayattam.26 Significance of Arayattam is only mentioned in the
Ancient religious texts27 and not about the dance.
In Durgah Committee, Ajmer V. Hussain Ali28, the Court, although speaking in the context
of Article 26, warned that some practices, though religious, may have sprung from merely
superstitious beliefs and may, in that sense, be extraneous and unessential accretions to
religion itself and unless such practices are found to constitute an essential and integral part
of a religion, their claim for protection as essential practices may have to be carefully
scrutinised; in other words, the protection must be confined to such religious practices as are
an essential and an integral part of the religion and no other.
In Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj V. State of Rajasthan29 this Court noted that
“whether an affair in question is an affair in matters of religion or not, may present
difficulties because sometimes practices, religious and secular, are inextricably mixed up”.
The process of disentangling them in order to adjudicate upon claims grounded in Article 25
and Article 26(b) becomes ultimately an exercise of judicial balancing.
It is humbly submitted that since the dance wherein feathers of Arayanna’s are used cannot
be said to form an essential and integral part of Hinduism, it cannot be granted protection
under Article 25 of Constitution of Vengadam.
2. WHETHER THE SAID AMENDMENTS WOULD AMOUNT TO VIOLATION

OF RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD OF VALLUM CRAFT MAKERS OR NOT?
The Counsel seeks answer in the Negative.
25
26
27
28
AIR 1961 SC 1402
29
(1964) 1 SCR 561 : AIR 1963 SC 1638

The Impugned amendments would not amount to violation of Right to livelihood of Vallum
Craft Makers as restriction can mean absolute restriction.
2.1. Restriction can mean absolute prohibition
Article 19(1)(g) is subject to Article 19(6) which permits reasonable restrictions to be
imposed on it in the interests of the general public.30
The Contention that there is a permanent absolute bar on procuring feathers of Arayanna and
therefore it is violative of Basic Rights enshrined in Part Three of Constitution of Vengadam
should be rejected as Restrictions imposed can be absolute and permanent in nature.
It is pertinent to refer to the cases of Krishna Kumar V. Municipal Committee of
Bhatapara31, State of Maharashtra V. Himmatbhai Narbheram Rao 32Sushila Saw
Mill V. State of Orissa 33, Pratap Pharma (P) Ltd. V. Union of India 34and Dharam
Dutt V. Union of India.35 (i) “restriction” includes cases of “prohibition”; (ii) the standard
for judging reasonability of restriction or restriction amounting to prohibition remains the
same, excepting that a total prohibition must also satisfy the test that a lesser alternative
would be inadequate; and (iii) whether a restriction in effect amounts to a total prohibition is
a question of fact which shall have to be determined with regard to the facts and
circumstances of each case, the ambit of the right and the effect of the restriction upon the
exercise of that right. In the instant case it is humbly submitted that any lesser alternative
could not have achieved the objective of preserving the Species of Arayanna. Further, it is
submitted the impugned amendments were brought in obedience of the Courts direction36
In M.B. Cotton Assn. Ltd V. Union of India.37 a large section of traders was completely
prohibited from carrying on their normal trade in forward contacts. The restriction was held
to be reasonable as cotton, being a commodity essential to the life of the community, such a
total prohibition was held to be permissible. In the instant case it is humbly submitted that
Honourable Court itself had said that Arayanna’s are living entities having the status of an
Artificial Legal entity with corresponding rights and duties of a natural Human Being.38
Therefore, prohibition imposed cannot be said to be violative of Fundamental Rights
30
State of Gujarat V. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat, (2005) 8 SCC 534
31
AIR 1960 SC 430
32
AIR 1970 SC 1157
33
(1995) 5 SCC 615
34
(1997) 5 SCC 87
35
(2004) 1 SCC 712
36
37
AIR 1954 SC 634
38

In State of Maharashtra V. Himmatbhai Narbheram Rao39 trade in hides was completely

prohibited and the owners of dead animals were required to compulsorily deposit carcasses in
an appointed place without selling them. The constitutionality of such prohibition, though
depriving the owner of his property, was upheld. The Court also held that while striking a
balance between rights of individuals and rights of citizenry as a whole the financial loss
caused to individuals becomes insignificant if it serves the larger public interest. In the instant
case prohibition imposed on possession of feathers though depriving its owner of its property
should be upheld. The Financial Loss is irrelevant here as the larger interests of People of
Vengadam is served and it cannot be said to be violative of basic rights.
In Sushila Sawmill V. State of Orissa40, the impugned enactment imposed a total ban on
sawmill business or sawing operations within reserved or protected forests. The ban was held
to be justified as it was in the public interest to which the individual interest must yield. In the
instant case the prohibition placed in purely in the interest of public and does not suffer from
any constitutional infirmities.
2.2. Protecting wildlife of the Country is one of the Directive Principles of
State Policy and therefore the restriction placed is reasonable in nature.
On the promulgation of the Constitution, the right to safeguard forests and wildlife has
received constitutional sanction. Under Article 48-A of the Constitution, the State shall
endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife
of the country. Under Article 51-A(g), it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect
and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife. 41 In the
instant case, the Survey conducted by Union for Protection and Conservation of Swan
(UPCS) categorically said that by 2030-35 the Arayanna’s may go extinct.42 Therefore it was
the need of the hour to bring certain changes in the wild life so that the Arayanna’s may not
go extinct. In Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum V. Union of India43 this Court has observed
that protection of environment is one of the legal duties
In the case Indian Handicrafts Emporium V. Union of India44 this Court while dealing
with the case of a total prohibition reiterated that “regulation” includes “prohibition” and in
39
AIR 1970 SC 1157
40
(1995) 5 SCC 615
41
Animal and Environment Legal Defence Fund V. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 549
42
43
AIR 1996 SC 2715
44
(2003) 7 SCC 589

order to determine whether total prohibition would be reasonable, the Court has to balance
the direct impact on the fundamental right of the citizens as against the greater public or
social interest sought to be ensured. Implementation of the directive principles contained in
Part IV is within the expression of “restriction in the interests of the general public”. In the
instant case the Government has merely implemented the Directive Principles of State Policy
and therefore the Prohibition should be considered as reasonable in nature.
In the case of State of Bombay V. F.N. Balsara 45 a Constitution Bench had ruled that in
judging the reasonableness of the restrictions imposed on the fundamental rights, one has to
bear in mind the directive principles of State policy set forth in Part IV of the Constitution,
while examining the challenge to the constitutional validity of law by reference to Article
19(1)(g) of the Constitution. In the instant case though Vallum Craft makers have lost their
livelihood46 as a result of the Amendments it should not be considered as unreasonable as one
has to bear in mind the Directive Principles of State Policy.
In the case of Workmen V. Meenakshi Mills Ltd.47 And Papnasam Labour
Union V. Madura Coats Ltd.48 the Constitution Bench had held that “Ordinarily any
restriction so imposed which has the effect of promoting or effectuating a directive principle
can be presumed to be a reasonable restriction in public interest.” Therefore, in the instant
case it should be presumed that restriction placed is a reasonable in nature and does not
violate the Fundamental Rights enshrined in Part 3 of Constitution of Vengadam.
In the landmark judgement of Keshvananda Bharati V. state of Kerala49 it was said that the
interest of a citizen or section of a community, howsoever important, is secondary to the
interest of the country or community as a whole. For judging the reasonability of restrictions
imposed on fundamental rights the relevant considerations are not only those as stated in
Article 19 itself or in Part III of the Constitution: the directive principles stated in Part IV are
also relevant. Therefore, in the instant case though the Vallum craft makers are deprived of
their livelihood the interests of the Country and Community has to prevail.
2.3. Restrictions placed are reasonable in nature and does not violate right to
livelihood.
45
AIR 1951 SC 318
46
47
(1992) 3 SCC 336
48
(1995) 1 SCC 501
49
(1973) 4 SCC 225

This court in Hatisingh Mfg. Co. Ltd. & Anr. V. Union of India & Ors.50, held that
freedom to carry on trade or business is not an absolute one. In the interest of the general
public, the law may impose restrictions on the freedom of the citizen to start or carry on his
business.
It is pertinent to mention the case of Balram Kumawat V. Union of India and others51
wherein Ivory trade had been prohibited. The Court after considering that Elephants were
endangered upheld the impugned provision. Further, holding the restriction reasonable it said
the Impugned Act does not also attract the wrath of Article 14 of Constitution of Vengadam.
In the Instant case, in the nationwide survey it was clear that if the current trends continue
Arayanna’s may go extinct52
In the case of Mahaveer Nath V. Union of India53 when petitioners were deprived from
carrying out the vocation of snake charming the Court held the restriction to be reasonable in
nature.
In Ramji patel V. Nagrik upbhokla Marg and others 54 this Court has laid down that in a
situation where the interest of the community is involved, the individual interest must yield to
the interest of the community or the general public. In the instant case it is humbly submitted
that the interests of the People of Vengadam must prevail over the interests of Vallum Craft
makers.
In the case of Animal and Environment Legal Defence Fund V. Union of India55 when
permission was granted to do fishing in the wildlife reserve by the government the court held
it unconstitutional.
In State of Madras V. V.G. Row56 this Court observed that while determining the
reasonable restriction, the court should consider circumstances and the manner in which the
imposition has been authorised. The nature of the right alleged to have been infringed, the
underlying purpose of the restrictions imposed, the extent and urgency of the evil sought to
be remedied thereby, the disproportion of the imposition, the prevailing conditions at the
50
[1960] 3 SCR 528
51
AIR 2003 SC 3268
52
53
Madhya Pardesh High Court WP.5179.2016
54
(2000) 3 SCC 29
55
56
AIR 1952 SC 196

time, should all enter into the judicial verdict. In the instant case there was an urgent need to
protect the Arayanna’s as there were high chances of it going extinct.57
2.4. Impugned Amendments Passes the test of Doctrine of Proportionality and
it cannot be said to be arbitrary and malafide.
It is humbly submitted that Impugned Amendments Pass the test of Doctrine of

Proportionality and it cannot be said to be arbitrary and malafide and meets the touchstone of
Article 14 of Constitution of Vengadam.
In the case State of Madras V. V.G. Row58 mention has been made therein of the things to
be seen in judging whether the restriction is reasonable or not, and one important
consideration is whether the restriction is disproportionate. In the instant case by no stretch of
imagination could it be said that restriction imposed is disproportionate in nature.
59
In the case of Justice K.S Puttaswamy V. Union of India the Honourable Apex Court
defined Doctrine of Proportionality as something postulates that the nature and extent of the
State’s interference with the exercise of a right must be proportionate to the goal it seeks to
achieve. In the instant case it is humbly submitted that it was sine qua non for the state to
interfere and stop from Arayanna’s getting extinct.
In the case of Modern Dental College and Research Centre V. State of Madhya Pradesh
and Ors60 the Apex Court laid down the test of proportionality, which can be ascertained on
the basis of the following: (a) the action must be sanctioned by law;(b) the proposed action
must be necessary in a democratic society for a legitimate aim; (c) the extent of such
interference must be proportionate to the need for such interference;(d) There must be
procedural guarantees against abuse of such interference. In the instant case the impugned
Amendment satisfies all the tests as the action is sanctioned by the law, there is a legitimate
aim i.e Preventing Arayanna’s from getting extinct, Interference is proportionate as there was
no other option available with the government. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the
impugned amendments meet the touchstone of Article 12, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
57
58
AIR 1952 SC 196
59
(2014) 6 SCC 433
60
(2016) 16 SCC 698

In the Case of Justice K.S Puttaswamy V. Union of India61 following test were laid down by
the Apex Court -a) A measure restricting a right must have a legitimate goal (legitimate
goal stage).(b) It must be a suitable means of furthering this goal (suitability or
rationale connection stage).(c) There must not be any less restrictive but equally
effective alternative (necessity stage).(d) The measure must not have a disproportionate
impact on the right holder (balancing stage). It is humbly submitted that in the instant
case the impugned amendment satisfies the test of all the stages.
In the case of Shayara Bano V. Union of India62 it was interalia held that Manifest
arbitrariness, the must be something done by the legislature capriciously, irrationally and/or
without adequate determining principle. Also, when something is done which is excessive
and disproportionate, such legislation would be manifestly arbitrary. In the instant case the
decision of the government to bring amendment cannot be termed as irrational as it done in
obedience of this Court Direction. Therefore, the impugned amendments cannot be called as
manifestly arbitrary.
2.5. In accordance with Wildlife treaties/Conventions.
It is humbly submitted that the impugned amendments are in accordance with international
treaties which Vengadam has signed
A) Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment
Principle 2
he natural resources of the earth, including the air, water, land, flora and fauna and especially
representative samples of natural ecosystems, must be safeguarded for the benefit of present
and future generations through careful planning or management, as appropriate.
Principle 4
Man has a special responsibility to safeguard and wisely manage the heritage of wildlife and
its habitat, which are now gravely imperilled by a combination of adverse factors. Nature
conservation, including wildlife, must therefore receive importance in planning for economic
development.
B) Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

(1975)
61
(2014) 6 SCC 433
62
AIR 2017 9 SCC 1 (SC)

It is an international agreement between governments that establishes protection for over

35,000 species of plants and animals in the scope of international wildlife trade. CITES
currently has 183 members and Country of Vengadam is one among them.
C) Convention on Biological diversity,1992
The Convention on Biological Diversity is an international legal instrument that has been
ratified by 196 countries and is dedicated to “the conservation of biological diversity”.
3. Whether registering a case of theft on account of possession and transportation of

Arayanna is maintainable or not?
It is the contention of the counsel of the respondent in the Special Leave Petition that
registering a case of theft on account of possession and transportation of Arayanna is
maintainable. Hence the counsel seeks answer to the above question in affirmative.
According to section 378 of the penal code, theft is defined as follows,
“Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any moveable property out of the possession of any
person without that person`s consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to
commit theft.”63
The essentials of theft have been highlighted in the judgement given by Supreme Court of
India in the case of K N Mehra V. State of Rajasthan.64 The court analysed the offence of
theft under section 378 and constituted the essential elements of theft as follows:
1. The subject of theft should be a movable property;

2. It should be in the possession of the person;
3. There should be a dishonest intention to take it out of that person’s possession
4. The act should be without the consent of the owner
The counsel will hence like to put forward before the Hon’ble Court that in the present case
to prove the accused guilty of theft, it is required that, i) the birds should be proved as a
movable property and state to be the owner, ii) the three accused should have a dishonest
intention to take it out of the state’s possession, iii) the dispossession of the birds by the
alleged thieves from the owner takes place and it is without the consent of the state.
63
The Indian Penal Code, 1860, s 378
64
AIR 1957 SC 369

(1) The subject of theft should be a movable property;
The counsel will like to submit to the Hon’ble court that the 51 Arayannas are
considered as movable property u/s 22 of the penal code. Section 22 of the penal code
reads, “ The words ‘movable property’ are intended to include corporeal property of
every description, except land and things attached to the earth or permanently
fastened to anything which is attached to the earth.”65
The 51 live Arayannas are corporeal property as they are tangible in nature, and also
they are not things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything which is
attached to the earth. The birds are free to move within their habitat.
The counsel for the respondent will like to bring to the Hon’ble court’s kind attention,
the case of Chiranjitlal Anand V. The State of Assam and anr66 where in the
court’s judgement was, “It is clear that an animal is also movable property and by no
stretch of imagination can it be brought under "immovable property". That being the
position, "goods", which means all kinds of movable property, will include animals”.
It is hence proved that the 51 live Arayannas which were being transported by the
accused come under the ambit of ‘moveable property’ and hence the first essential of
theft u/s 378 of the penal code is satisfied.
(2) It should be in the possession of the person;
It is the humble submission of the counsel that wild animals are the property of the
respective state government. Section 39 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act reads, “Wild
animals, etc., to be government property”. It further states that “wild animal, other than
vermin, which is hunted under section 11 or sub-section (1) of section 29 or sub-section
(6) of section 35 or kept or….shall be the property of the State Government”67.
65
The Indian Penal Code, 1860, s 22
66
1975 35 STC 442 Gauhati
67
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 Section 39(1)(a)

The birds which were being transported are not vermin and hence come under the ambit
of wild animals u/s 39 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and hence are in the
possession of the state government. It is evident from the facts68 of the case that the
Arayannas are wild animals because they are not considered as a pet bird. They are not
considered as pet birds because of their character and an unusual habitat. Now that the
birds are proved as wild animals, it is implied that they are in the possession of the State
Government.
Section 39 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 further reads that, “No person shall,
without the previous permission in writing of the Chief Wild Life Warden or the
authorised officer, acquire or keep in his possession, custody or control such government
property”69.
The accused people were transporting these birds without such said prior permission of
the Chief Wild Life Warden and hence it is an offence under the act. It is now proved that
the birds the property of the State Government and the essential is fulfilled which
amounts to theft.
(3) There should be a dishonest intention to take it out of that person’s possession;
The counsel for the respondent likes to submit before the Hon’ble court that the offence
of theft is incomplete without dishonest intention on the part of the accused. The opening
phrase of section 378 of the Penal Code reads, “Whoever dishonestly….” This signifies
the importance of the dishonest intention in the crime of theft under the penal code.
Dishonestly means, “Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain
to one person or wrongful loss to another person is said to do that thing dishonestly”.70
In K N Mehra V. State of Rajasthan71 the importance of dishonest intention was

discussed "It is rightly pointed out that since the definition of theft requires that the
moving of the property is to be in order to such taking, 'such' meaning 'intending to take
dishonestly' the very moving out must be with the dishonest intention."
68
¶3 Moot Proposition
69
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, s 39(3)(a)
70
The Indian Penal Code 1860, s 24
71
AIR 1957 SC 369

This intention is known as ‘Animus Furandi’72 and without it the offence of theft is not
complete. In the instant case, the action of the accused, i.e. transporting of the 51 live
Arayannas must cause a wrongful gain to the accused or wrongful loss to another person.
Only when this is proved, the presence of dishonest intention can be highlighted.
It is evident from the facts73 that when a research was conducted nationwide by the Union
for Protection and Conservation of Swans in the years 2017-2018, it was identified that
there was a drastic decline in the population of these birds and it was reported that if the
current trend continues then the birds would go extinct by 2030-35. Arayannas are the
national bird of Vengadam and are of national importance. National animals must be
protected at all times. Special protection should be given when they are in the verge of
extinction. Under such circumstances when the Arayannas are getting endangered, the
action of the accused by transporting the birds causes further loss of birds from their
natural habitat and hence causes loss to the State Government.
By this, the third essential of theft i.e., having a dishonest intention is proved hence the
accused are guilty of theft.
(4) The act should be without the consent of the owner;
It is the humble submission of the counsel of the respondent, the consent of the owner is
very essential in moving a property and in its absence it is viewed as theft. Here as proved
earlier the birds are the property of the state government and there must be permission
from the government before moving the property.
As stated earlier section 39 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 reads that, “No person
shall, without the previous permission in writing of the Chief Wild Life Warden or the
authorised officer, acquire or keep in his possession, custody or control such government
property”74.
In the instant case the three accused had no permission either from the state government
or from the Chief Wild Life Warden who is a government servant while transporting the
animals and hence the fourth essential is fulfilled.
72
Chandi Kumar v. Abanidhar Roy, AIR 1965 SC 585
73
¶7 Moot Proposition
74
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, s 39(3)(a)

To conclude, the essentials of theft highlighted in K.N Mehra V. State of Rajasthan75,

(i) The subject of theft should be a movable property; (ii) It should be in the possession of
the person; (iii) There should be a dishonest intention to take it out of that person’s
possession (iv) The act should be without the consent of the owner; are proved and hence
registering a case of theft on account of possession and transportation of Arayanna is
maintainable.
4. WHETHER REGISTERING A CASE UNDER SECTION 124A OF THE PENAL

CODE OF VENGADAM ON ACCOUNT OF A STATEMENTS MADE IN NEWS
DISCUSSUION WOULD VIOLATE THE FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOM OF SPEECH
GAURENTEED IN THE CONSTITUITION OF VENGADAM OR NOT?
The Counsel seeks answer to the above issue in negative. Section 124A of the Penal Code
Vengadam does not violate the freedom of speech and expression since these rights are not
absolute.
Section 124A is valid since it has rational and reasonable nexus with the restrictions on this
right. In a Democratic Country like India our Constitutional framers have not envisaged a
society where Freedom of Speech and expression is absolute.76 There are no absolute
Rights.77 The Rights provided under Article 19(1) has certain exceptions, which empower the
state to impose reasonable restrictions in appropriate cases. The Ingredients of Article 19
Inter alia are Restriction must be in furtherance of interest of decency or morality.
Reasonability of restriction used in a qualitative and relative sense.78
4.1 Section 124-A of the VPC is valid and does not violate the fundamental right to
freedom of speech and expression.
124-A of the VPC that penalizes Sedition is valid since it comes within the saving clause of
Article 19 of the Constitution and it is legal, legitimate, and proportionate.
Section 124-A comes within the saving clause of Article 19 of the Vengadam Constitution.
Section 124-A falls in at least three of the restrictions set out in Article 19(2), that of public
order, national security, and incitement to an offence. With its intention to excite
dissatisfaction or discontent, sedition is closely associated with the offence of treason, that it
75
AIR 1957 SC 369
76
State of Maharashtra V. Himmatbhai Narbheram Rao, (1969) 2 SCR 392
77
Modern Dental College V. State of MP 2009 7 SCC 751
78
Anuradha Bhasin V. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637

frequently proceeds treason by a slight duration.79 Furthermore, when there is a prevalence of

dissatisfaction, disloyalty, or enmity to the govt, a presumption to cause public disorder
exists.80 Actions that cause public disorder or disturb the prevailing public tranquillity
undermine national security. The gist of the offence is incitement to disorder or likelihood of
public disorder or reasonable apprehension thereof. Thus, section 124-A that penalizes
hatred, contempt, or disaffection towards the govt seeks to prevent an act against the society
itself and is Constantly valid.81
4.1.1 The fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression is not absolute.
The right to free speech and expression under Article 19 of the Vengadam Constitution is
subject to reasonable restrictions on grounds of public order, morality, national security,
defamation, and incitement to an offence, as set out in Article 19 itself. These restrictions in
Article 19 are part and parcel thereof and such grounds provide the legislature with necessary
leeway to curtail free speech and expression in the national interest or in the interest of
society.82
4.2 Passes the test of proportionality
The Doctrine of Proportionality is not alien to Constitution of Vengadam. In a catena of cases

this court has held that reasonable restrictions are indispensable for the realization of
freedoms enshrined under Article 19 of Constitution of Vengadam, as they are to ensure that
enjoyment of rights is not arbitrary or excessive, so as to affect the Public Interest. 83
The word reasonable implies intelligent care and deliberation, that is the choice of course
84
which reason dictates By Proportionality it means that the question whether, while
regulating the exercise of fundamental right, the appropriate and least restrictive right choice
of measures has been made by the legislature or administrator so as to achieve the object of
the legislation85.. It is pertinent to refer to case of Modern Dental College V. State Of
79
Reg v. Alexander Martin Sullivan, (1868) 11 CCLC 44 (Eng)
80
Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR (1962) SC 955 (India)
81
Brij Bhushan and Ors. v. The State of Delhi
82
V.K. Javali v. State of Mysore, AIR 1966 SC 1387 .
83
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637
84
Chintaman Rao vs State of Madhya Pradesh , AIR 1951 SC 118
85
Om Kumar vs Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 3689

Madhya Pradesh & Or’s86 Wherein it was held that a limitation of a constitutional right
will be permissible
(1) If it is designated for Proper purpose
(2) The measures undertaken to effectuate such a limitation are rationally connected to the
fulfilment of the purpose.
3) The measures taken are necessary
(4) There needs to be a proper relation between the importance of achieving the Proper
purpose and social importance of preventing the limitation on the constitutional right.
It meets the test of proportionality in as much as mere criticism of govt action is no offence.
However, words intended to create public disorder have been made penal in the interest of
public order. Further, the punishment provides range from fine to imprisonment, which may
extend to three years, depending on the gravity and consequence of the acts constituting the
offence which meet the test of proportionality. It is submitted that Section 124A of the penal
code of Vengadam passes the test of proportionality.
4.3 Restriction satisfies the test of being a Reasonable Restriction.
It is submitted that the restriction placed on the Fundamental Right herein is reasonable and
satisfies the test of reasonableness. The question, whether an impugned Section is arbitrary or
not, it is ultimately to be answered on the facts and in the circumstances of a given case. An
obvious test to apply is to see whether there is any discernible principle emerging from the
impugned section and if so, does it satisfy the test of reasonableness.87
It is pertinent to observe that the Apex Court in the case of Narendra Kumar V. Union of
India, 88 has held Where the interference with the fundamental Right was reasonable or not in
Public Interest of general Public and that if the answer to the question is in affirmative, the
86
2009 7 SCC 751
87
Nanavati K.M.S. V. State of Maharashtra, 1962 AIR (SC) 605. In State of A.P. V. McDowell and Co., (1996)
3 SCC 709 K. Narayana Rao v. Principal Secretary, Revenue Dept., Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad, 1997 SCC
OnLine AP 89
88
(1960) 2 SCR 375

law would be valid and it would be invalid if the test for reasonable interference was not
passed.89
It was held in the case of State of Madras V. V.G. Row. Union Of India that the nature of
the right alleged to have infringed, the underlying purpose of the restrictions imposed, the
extent of urgency of the evil sought to be remedied thereby, disproportion of the imposition,
90
the prevailing circumstances at time should be taken into consideration . Assuming
arguendo that the Section is unreasonable then no enactment can be struck down by just
saying that it is arbitrary or unreasonable. Some or other constitutional infirmity has to be
found before invalidating a Section. An enactment cannot be struck down on the ground that
Court thinks it unjustified.91In the case of administrative action, the scope of judicial review
is limited to three grounds, viz.,
(i) unreasonableness, which can more appropriately be called irrationality

(ii) illegality
(iii) procedural impropriety 92
It is submitted before this hon’ble court that Section 124A of penal code of Vengadam
passes the test of reasonableness.
4.4 Misuse of Law cannot be a ground for challenging its constitutionality
In Budhan Choudary V. State of Bihar93 it was argued that a provision of law may not be
discriminatory, but it may lend itself to abuse brining about discrimination between the
persons similarly situated. The Court repelled the contention holding that on the possibility of
abuse of a provision by the Authority, the legislation may not be held arbitrary or
discriminatory and violative of Fundamental right. It is well settled that mere Possibility of
misuse would not make the statute Unconstitutional. In such cases, “Action” and not the
“Section” may be vulnerable. If it is so the court by upholding the provision of law, may still
set aside the action, order or decision and grant appropriate relief to the person aggrieved.94
89
Narendra Kumar v. Union of India, (1960) 2 SCR 375
90
AIR 1952 SC 196
91
State of A.P. v. McDowell and Co., (1996) 3 SCC 709
92
Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for Civil Service, 1985 AC 374
93
AIR 1955 SC 191
94
Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 281

It was also held in the case of Maftal Industries Private Limited V. Union of India95 and
Ajit Kumar Nag V. Indian Oil Corporation. Ltd96that mere possibility of abuse of a
provision by those incharge of administering it cannot be a ground for holding a provision
procedurally or substantially unreasonable.
97
In the case of Collector of Customs V. Nathella Samputta Chetty it was held that the
Possibility of abuse of statute otherwise valid does not impart to it any element of invalidity.
In the case of State of Rajasthan V. Union of India98 the Apex Court had held that “it must
be remembered that merely because of power may be abused, it is no ground for denying the
existence of power. The wisdom of man has not been able to conceive of government with
sufficient power to answer all its legitimate needs and at the same time incapable of its
mischief.
4.5 Disaffection means a feeling contrary to affection, in other words, dislike or

hatred.
In the first case in India under section 124A Queen-Empress V. Jogendra Chunder Bose99
the learned Chief Justice explained the law to the jury in these terms:
“Disapprobation means simply disapproval. It is quite possible to disapprove of a man's

sentiments or action and yet to like him. The meaning of the two words is so distinct that I
feel it hardly necessary to tell you that the contention of Mr Jackson cannot be sustained. If a
person uses either spoken or written words calculated to create in the minds of the persons to
whom they are addressed a disposition not to obey the lawful authority of the Government, or
to subvert or resist that authority, if and when occasion should arise, and if he does so with
the intention of creating such a disposition in his hearers or readers, he will be guilty of the
offence of attempting to excite disaffection within the meaning of the section, though no
disturbance is brought about by his words or any feeling of disaffection, in fact, produced by
them. It is sufficient for the purposes of the section that the words used are calculated to
95
(1997) 5 SCC 536
96
(2005) 7 SCC 764
97
(1962) 3 SCR 786
98
AIR 1977 SC 1361
99
(1892) ILR 19 Cal 35

excite feelings of ill-will against the Government and to hold it up to the hatred and contempt
of the people, and that they were used with the intention to create such feeling.”100
In this case it is submitted that Adv. Mathur Nath’s words are calculated to excite feelings of
ill-will against the government and to incite hatred.
4.6 Any law which is enacted in the interest of public order may be saved from the vice
of constitutional invalidity.
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 101 It is
submitted that the impugned section does not impose restrictions on the fundamental freedom
of speech and expression. It is only when the words, written or spoken, etc. which have the
pernicious tendency or intention of creating public disorder or disturbance of law and order
that the law steps in to prevent such activities in the interest of public order.
The Hon’ble court in the case of Kedar Nath Singh V. State of Bihar102 held that the
section holds correct balance between individual fundamental rights and the interest of public
order.
The hon’ble court in the case of Bengal Immunity Company Limited V. State of Bihar103
and (2) R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala V. Union of India104 held that there is no hesitation in
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.
4.6.1 Law is not vague
It was held that in the case of A.K Roy V. Union of India105that the requirement that crimes
must be defined with appropriate definiteness is regarded as a fundamental concept in
criminal law and must now be regarded as a pervading theme of our constitution.106
100
Queen-Empress v. Jogendra Chunder Bose (1892) ILR 19 Cal 35
101
102
103
(1955) 2 SCR 603
104
(1957) SCR 930
105
(1982) 1 SCC 271
106
AIR 1955 SC 191

4.6.2 International stance on sedition
Sedition originated under the English common law and is still an offence in Canada.
According to an American scholar Leonard W levy he argues that sedition “"has always been
an accordion-like concept, expandable or contractible at the whim of judges"107
In England a statement is considered to be seditious under common law if brought into

“hatred or contempt”
Sedition in Canada is defined under section 59 to 61 of the criminal code. An offence of such
can be punished by imprisonment up to a maximum of 14 years.108
In the united states seditious speech is speech directed to overthrow the government, it also
includes speeches attacking basic institutions of government also the governmental leaders.109
The U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Brandenburg V. Ohio held that seditious speech—
including speech that constitutes an incitement to violence—is protected by the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution as long as it does not indicate an "imminent"
threat.110
4.7 FIR registered against Adv. Mathur Nath under section 124A of Vengadam penal
code is legal.
It is humbly submitted that FIR against Adv. Mathur Nath for his statement during a live
news night discussion where he had stated, “the people who enact the laws should have some
sense …it is high time people should react against such senseless governments……”.111
Section 124A states that whoever 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 shall be
punished with [imprisonment for life], to which fine may be added or with imprisonment.112
107
Levy, Leonard W. (1985) Emergence of a Free Press. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 8.
108
Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 61.
109
Levinson, Sanford (2004–2005), Pedagogy of the First Amendment: Why Teaching about Freedom of
Speech Raises Unique (and Perhaps Insurmountable) Problems for Conscientious Teachers and Their Students,
The, 52, UCLA L. Rev., p. 1359
110
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)
111
¶13 Moot proposition
112
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 s.300.

In the above case it is submitted that Adv. Mathur Nath’s words by spoken means attempt to
bring into hatred or contempt, towards the government established by law.
It is also submitted that the subject matter of the charge against the appellant is nothing but
113
vilification of the Government; the words are full of incitements and the speech is
certainly seditious.
It can be concluded that FIR against Adv. Mathur Nath does not violate Article 19(1)(a) and
is constitutionally valid.
113
Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, 1962 Supp (2) SCR 769

PRAYER
Wherefore in light of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advance, and authorities cited,
the Respondent most humbly and respectfully request the Hon’ble Supreme court to adjudge
and declare that:
A. The amendments made in Section 43(3)(a) and 44 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act,
1972 thereby extending the operation of the Act of Arayanna is not violative of
freedom of religion.
B. The amendments made in Section 43(3)(a) and 44 of the Wildlife (Protection)
Act,1972 does not amount to violation of right to livelihood of Vallum Craft makers.
C. Registering a case of theft on account possession and transportation of Aryanna is
maintainable.
D. Registering a case under Section 124A of the Penal Code of Vengadam on account of
a statements made in news discussion does not violate the fundamental freedom of
speech guaranteed in the Constitution of Vengadam.
AND/OR
Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.
And for this, the Respondent as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.
Respectfully submitted,
AGENTS FOR RESPONDENT

Campbell Bay Respondent Memorial

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Campbell Bay Respondent Memorial

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

39th All India Moot Court Competition, AGLC

TEAM CODE: CAMPBELL BAY

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF VENGADAM

W.P. NO. 3456/2021

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF VENGADAM

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT-

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT- 1|Page

S. No. Contents Page No.

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT- 2|Page

AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

FIR FIRST INFORMATION REPORT

NGO NON GOVERNMENTAL

SCC SUPREME COURT CASES

SLP SPECIAL LEAVE PETETION

u/s UNDER SECTION

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT- 3|Page

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT- 4|Page

38. K N Mehra v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1957 SC 369.

A. LIST OF LAWS AND STATUTES

1. The Constitution of India, 1949

2. The Indian Penal Code, 1860

3. Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972

B. ARTICLES AND BLOGS

2. Online Freedom of Speech and Expression: A Critical Analysis,

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT- 5|Page

4. Essential Religious Practices in Light of the Sabarimala

1. LEXIS ADVANCE, https://www.lexisnexis.com/in/legal

3. SCC ONLINE, https://www.scconline.com

THE PETITIONER HAS FILED THIS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT- 6|Page

2. UNION OF VENGADAM DECLARES ARAYANNA AS NATIONAL BIRD

3. IN 2007 GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATION TAG WAS GIVEN TO VALLUM

4. UPCS IDENTIFIED A DRASTIC DECLINE IN THE POPULATION OF

The UPCS is a national organisation committed to protection of swans in union of

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT- 7|Page

5. THREE PERSONS WERE ARRESTED FROM STATE OF SATVA

6. GOVERNMENT OF VENGADAM INTRODUCED AMENDMENTS TO

7. FIR AGAINST ADVOCATE MATHUR NATH

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT- 8|Page

Whether registering a case of theft on account of possession and transportation of

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT- 9|Page

ISSUE – 1: It is submitted that Worshippers of Gadadevi cannot be considered as separate

ISSUE – 2: It is submitted that Restriction on fundamental Rights can mean absolute

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT- 10 | P a g e

1. WHETHER THE AMENDMENTS MADE IN SECTION 43(3) (A) AND

The Counsel seeks answers in the negative.

1.1. Worshippers of Gadadevi and Vallum Kavu Devasom cannot be

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT- 11 | P a g e

1.2. A form of Dance wearing Headdress and other ornaments made up of

Article 25 of Constitution of Vengadam merely protects the freedom to practise rituals,

1.2.1. A form of Dance wearing Headdress and other ornaments made up of

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT- 12 | P a g e

It is very pertinent to refer to the case of Acharya Jagadishwaranand Avadhuta V.

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT- 13 | P a g e

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT- 14 | P a g e

2. WHETHER THE SAID AMENDMENTS WOULD AMOUNT TO VIOLATION

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT- 15 | P a g e

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT- 16 | P a g e

In State of Maharashtra V. Himmatbhai Narbheram Rao39 trade in hides was completely

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT- 17 | P a g e

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT- 18 | P a g e