Code: 28R

LAWCTOPUS LAW SCHOOL’S MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2021

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

G.G Parwani (Petitioner)

V/s
Union of India (Respondent)

Petition NO ________ Of 2021

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

 Code: 28R
TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................ 2

LIST OF ABREVIATIONS........................................................................................................ 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ...................................................................................................... 3

STATEMENT OF JURIDICTION ........................................................................................... 4

STATEMENT OF ISSUES ......................................................................................................... 6

I. The constitutional validity of S.124A of the Indian Penal Code ......................................... 6
a) Is 124-A violating the fundamental right of freedom of speech & expression given in
article 19(1) of The Constitution of India ............................................................................. 6

II. Whether the accused should be convicted on the merits of the case as well if Sec 124A is
upheld as being constitutional ................................................................................................... 6

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

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ................................................................................................ 8

ADVANCED ARGUMENTS ..................................................................................................... 9

PRAYER..................................................................................................................................... 14

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

 Code: 28R
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATION FULL FORM

& And
AIR
All India Reporter
Anr. Another
Bom. Bombay
CrPC Criminal Procedure Code
CrLJ Criminal Law Journal
Hon’ble Honourable
ILR Indian Law Reporter
Ltd Limited
No.
Number
Ors. Others
S Section
SC.
Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Reports
u/s
Under section
v. Versus

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

 Code: 28R
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

A. ACT, RULES AND INSTRUCTIONS

Indian Penal Code,1860
The Constitution of India, 1950

B. BOOKS
Vol.IV,Page-141-142
Stephen, Commentaries on Law of England 1950

Walter Russell Donogh, The History and Law of Sedition and Cognate Offences, Page-62
Penal and Preventive, Thacker, Spink & Co., Calcutta, 1911

C. CASES CITED
CASES CITATION Pg. No.

BrijBhushan & another v. State of Delhi AIR 1950 SC 129 9

Debi Soren & Ors v. The State 1954 CriLJ 758 10
Debi Soren
Kedarnath & Ors
Singh v. TheofState
v. State Bihar 10
AIR 1962 SC 955
Queen Emperor v. Ram Chandra Narayan
(1897)I.L.R. 22 Bom. 152 14
and others
Reg. v. Alexander Martin Sullivan (1868) 11 Cox’s Criminal Cases 44 9
Niharendu Dutt Mazumdar v. Emperor AIR 1942 FC22 Pg-26 13
R v. Burns and others 1886) 16 Cox CC 355 13

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

 Code: 28R

STATEMENT OF JURIDICTION

The Respondents have the honour to submit before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India the
memorandum of respondents in the case of G.G Parwani v/s The Union of India filed by
petitioner asking the constitutional validity of section 124A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 under
article 1321 and 134-A2 of The Constitution of India.

1
Article 132 of The Indian Constitution : (1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final order of a
High Court in the territory of India, whether in a civil, criminal or other proceeding, 1[if the High Court certifies under article 134A]
that the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution.(3) Where such a certificate is
given, 3[***] any party in the case may appeal to the Supreme Court on the ground that any such question as aforesaid has been
wrongly decided 3[***].

2
Article 134-A of The Indian Constitution :
Certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court Every High Court, passing or making a judgment, decree, final order, or sentence, referred
to in clause ( 1 ) of Article 132 or clause ( 1 ) of Article 133, or clause ( 1 ) of Article 134(a) may, if it deems fit so to do, on its own
motion; and(b) shall, if an oral application is made, by or on behalf of the party aggrieved, immediately after the passing or making of
such judgment, decree, final order or sentence, determine, as soon as may be after such passing or making, the question whether a
certificate of the nature referred to in clause ( 1 ) of Article 132, or clause ( 1 ) of Article 133 or, as the case may be, sub clause (c) of
clause ( 1 ) of Article 134, may be given in respect of that case

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

 Code: 28R
STATEMENT OF ISSUES

I. The constitutional validity of S.124A of the Indian Penal Code

a) Is 124-A violating the fundamental right of freedom of speech & expression given in article 19(1)
of The Constitution of India

II. Whether the accused should be convicted on the merits of the case as well if Sec
124A is upheld as being constitutional

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

 Code: 28R

STATEMENT OF FACTS

➢ Delhi, the national capital was a hotspot for political agitations and movements. The
incumbent government headed by Mr Goyal has remained committed to his policies no
matter what the opposition has to say.

➢ Rohan Chawla is a prominent free speech advocate residing in Delhi. He not only
involved himself in public interest litigations but also, actively participates in people’s
movement. One such movement was started by G.G Parwani against the human right
abuses.

➢ Rishabh Tomar – a business executive turned spoke person of government was holding
fort against the narrative of the people’s movement.

➢ Mr Chawla & Mr Tomar were from same law school in Beliaghata. However, they
remained ideologically on opposite sides since their days in Beliaghata. They clashed on
a prime-time TV debate where Mr Chawla suddenly started shouting slogans “Goyal tu
hai bewafa, abto dede istifaah.” This was quite unusual for Mr Chawla who usually
remains very calm & composed.

➢ This rage continued till the next day at a fast unto death (Anshan) organized by Mr
Parwani. He was addressing crowds of over thousands. He delivered the most thrilling
speech. Extracts of it are as under:
“Mr Goyal you and your stooges in the government have destroyed this country. The
thousand cuts that you have inflicted on our democracy will not be forgotten. Friends,
ours is the day to seize and conquer. For, if we remain meek & hidden, this
government which has till now obliterated our less privileged will come for you & me.
Instead, it’s time that we get them. Remember what our mentors said “There are
decades when nothing happens, and there are week when decades happen. Let this be
week of revolution in this country. Let it be the final hurdle before we reclaim the
country’s pride & honour.”

➢ Immediately thereafter a FIR was registered by jurisdictional police station, under

section 124A of IPC. Mr Chawla filed a petition in HC to quash FIR. The HC rejected
the petition on merits HC to quash FIR. Thereafter, Mr Chawla appealed to the SC. It
was decided there was need to settle the modern law of sedition while the court also
decides the petition.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

 Code: 28R
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
The constitutional validity of S.124A of the Indian Penal Code

Stephen3, delving into definition of sedition under English law enumerated five heads according
to the object of the accused. They are follows: 1. to excite disaffection against the King,
Government, or Constitution, or against Parliament or the administration of justice; 2. to
promote by unlawful means, any alteration in Church or State; 3. to incite a disturbance of the
peace ; 4. to raise discontent among the King’s subjects ; 5. to excite class hatred.
None of the essentials of section 124-A violates any law of the constitution of India, if we
speak about the violation of article 19 of the Indian constitution is unambiguous because even
article 19(1)4 is not an absolute right i.e. it is subjected to reasonable restriction laid down in
article 19(2).
Is 124-A violating the fundamental right of freedom of speech & expression given in
article 19(1) of The Constitution of India
“The provisions of the sections read as whole with explanations, make it reasonably clear that
the sections aim at reasonably clear that the section aim at rendering penal only such activities
as would be intended, or have a tendency, to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by
resort to violence. 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. So constructed, the section, in
our opinion, strikes the correct balance between individual fundamental rights and the interest
of public order.” Supreme Court while dismissing the appeal of Kedarnath Singh 5 giving a
scope of 124-A
Whether the accused should be convicted on the merits of the case as well if Sec 124A is
upheld as being constitutional
Mr.Parwani has imposed malicious statements by stating that Mr Goyal and his government
have destroyed the country, he also provoke the crowd for a “revolution” . This directly
amounts to inciting violence amongst the citizens and will definitely disturb public tranquillity.
This directly amounts to inciting violence against the government and head of the government.
He also tried to overthrow the government established by law stating “ Let this be final hurdle
before we reclaim the throne”.

The aforesaid act of Mr Parwani is an offence punishable under sections 124-A of the IPC.

3
Stephen, Commentaries on Law of England (1950), Vol.IV,Page-141-142
4
Freedom of speech and expression, The constitution of India
5
(1962) Supp. 2 SCR 769

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

 Code: 28R
ADVANCED ARGUMENTS

The constitutional validity of S.124A of the Indian Penal Code

It is humbly submitted that section 124-A of IPC does not constitute any hindrance to
fundamental right of speech and expression.

As per the FIR the facts says that “ Mr Parwani is accused of allegedly attempted to bring into
hatred for government while addressing the speech to a crowd of thousands. Mr Parwani even
tried to provoke the crowd for a “revolution”, his exact words were “If we remain meek and
hidden, this government which has remain meek and hidden, this government which has now
obliterated our less privileged will come for you and me. Instead it’s time we get them” He also
further added a phrase for “week of revolution”. It is imminently clear that his acts created a
public disorder and incitement to violence, and hence they did fall within the ambit section
124A of IPC,1860.

To understand the word sedition in a better I would like to enlighten the honourable court the
definition of sedition given by oxford dictionary 6as “Conduct or speech inciting people to
rebel against the authority of a state or monarch”. Mr Parwani in speech which was addressed
to the crowd to thousand not only incited people to rebel against the government established by
law but also spread malicious statement for the same.

In the case Reg. v. Alexander Martin Sullivan7 Lord Fitzgerald defined sedition in following
words: “Sedition is a crime against society, Sedition in itself is a comprehensive term and it
embraces all those practices, whether by word, deed or writing, which are calculated to
disturb the tranquillity of the State, and legal ignorant persons to endeavour to subvert the
Government and the laws of empire.

Mr. Justice Fazl Ali while delivering the dissenting opinion in case Brij Bhushan & another v.
State of Delhi8 opined under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India the restriction on
‘Freedom of speech and expression’ can be imposed on the ground of maintenance of public
order and safety."Public order" is an expression in the general sense may be construed to have
reference to the maintenance of what is generally known as law and order in the Province. It is
clear that anything which affects public tranquillity within the State or the Province will also
affect public order and the State Legislature is therefore competent to frame laws on matters
relating to public tranquillity and public order.

6
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/sedition
7
(1868) 11 Cox’s Criminal Cases 44
8
AIR 1950 SC 129

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

 Code: 28R
“Sedition is essentially an offence against public tranquillity and secondly that broadly
speaking there are two classes of offences against public tranquillity: (a) those
accompanied by violence including disorders which affect tranquillity of a considerable
numbers of persons or an extensive local area, and (b) those not accompanied by
violence but tending to cause it, such as seditious utterances, seditious conspiracies, etc.
Both these classes of offences are such as will undermine the security of the State or tend
to overthrow it if left unchecked, and, as I have tried to point out, there is a good deal of
authoritative opinion in favour of the view that the gravity ascribed to sedition is due to
the fact that it tends to seriously affect the tranquillity and security of the State.”9

In Debi Soren & Ors v. The State10 where the Patna High Court held that Section 124-A is
saved by the ‘reasonable restrictions’ enlisted in Article 19(2).While holding it constitutional
the court observed:

“The expression "in the interests of public order" has a wide connotation and should not
be confined to only one aspect of public order, viz., and incitement to violence or
tendency to violence. Public order can be affected in other ways also; and creating
disaffection, hatred or contempt towards the Government established by law may
seriously affect the interests of public order, even though there may be no tendency or
incitement to violence. Incitement to violence no doubt directly affects the maintenance
of public order”

While upholding the constitutionality of Section124-A of IPC 1860, the Mr. Justice B. P. Sinha
in the landmark judgement of Kedarnath Singh v. State of Bihar11

“This Court, as the custodian and guarantor of the fundamental rights of the citizens, has
the duty cast upon it of striking down any law which unduly restricts the freedom of
speech and expression with which we are concerned in this case. But the freedom has to
be guarded again becoming a license for vilification and condemnation of the
Government established by law, in words which incite violence or have the tendency to
create public disorder. A citizen has a right to say or write whatever he likes about the
Government, or its measures, by way of criticism or comment, so long as he does not
incite people to violence against the Government established by law or with the intention
of creating public disorder.”

Thus the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the sedition law, but at the same time
curtailing its meaning and limiting its application to acts involving intention or tendency to
create disorder, or disturbance of law and order, or incitement to violence.

9
AIR 1950 SC 129
10
1954 CriLJ 758
11
AIR 1962 SC 955

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

 Code: 28R
Is 124-A violating the fundamental right of freedom of speech & expression given in
article 19(1) of The Constitution of India

The Fundamental Rights were included in the constitution because they were considered
essential for the development of the personality of every individual and to preserve human
dignity. These rights have been defined as the basic human freedoms which every individual
has a right to enjoy for a proper and harmonious development of personality.
However, this Freedom is not absolute right i.e. it is subjected to the reasonable restrictions laid
down in Article 19 (2).
““Nothing in sub clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law,
or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable
restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause in the interests
of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations
with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of
court, defamation or incitement to an offence.”
A seditious speech must always be read as whole and not in parts, it gives us clear
interpretation of what was the intention behind the speech , and whether the speech lies under
the clause (2) of article 19. As per the facts the speech by Mr Parwani did not had any good
intentions all he wanted was to create public disorder.
In Debi Soren & Ors V. The State12 supreme courtobserved: “The first point is that the
speeches made must be considered as a whole and in a fair, free and liberal spirit, not
dwelling too much upon isolated passages or upon a strong expression used here and there;
in other words, an attempt should be made to gather the general effect of the speeches as a
whole. The second point is that the intention of the speaker in using the words-complained of
is relevant; but the intention must be gathered from the language used, as also from the
whole of the circumstances in which the speeches were made including the audience to
whom they were addressed.”
“The provisions of the sections read as a whole, along with the explanations make it
reasonably clear that the sections aim at rendering penal only such activities as would be
intended, or have a tendency, to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to
violence. As already pointed out, the explanations appended to the main body of the section
make it clear that criticism of public measures or comment on Government action, however
strongly worded, would be within reasonable limits and would be consistent with the
fundamental right of 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. So construed, the section, in our opinion, strikes the correct balance between
individual fundamental rights and the interest of public order.” Observed Supreme court in
its judgement of Kedarnath Singh v. State Of Bihar.

12
1954 CriLJ 758

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

 Code: 28R
Whether the accused should be convicted on the merits of the case as well if Sec 124A is
upheld as being constitutional
Mr. G.G Parwani has spread false and malicious statements by stating that the Mr GOyal and
his government has destroyed the country and also the citizens of the country . In his speech
while using statements like “ours is day to seize and conquer” and “week of revolution” which
attempts to overthrow or rebel against the government established by law. This directly
amounts to inciting violence amongst the citizens and will definitely disturb publictranquillity.
This is an act of instigating violence against the government and the head of government. He
also creates panic

The aforesaid act of Mr. G.G Parwani is an offence punishable under Sections 124-A, 153 and
505(b) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Unless strict action is taken, it will result in unrest
in public and go against public tranquillity. Hence, you are requested to take strict appropriate
legal action against Mr. Parwani and punish him accordingly.”

In the early trials prior the independent India the first case of sedition Queen Emperor v. Ram
Chandra Narayan and others13 Sir C. Farran, C. J., observed that:

"An attempt to excite feelings of disaffection to the Government is equivalent to an

attempt to produce hatred of Government as established by law, to excite political
discontent, and alienate the people from their allegiance."

In 1898 Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code 1860 was repealed by the Indian Penal Code
Amendment Act 1898 and new law was introduced. Hon'ble Mr. Chalmers, who was the
member in charge of 1898 amendment bill, outlined the objects of the amendment bill in the
following terms:

"Every man is free to speak, write and print, whatever he pleases, without asking the
leave or permission of any authority. But if he speaks, Titles, or prints anything which
contravenes the law of the land, he is liable to be proceeded against and punished. As
long as a man keeps within the law no one can interfere with him. But, if he breaks the
law, he is liable to punishment by a Court of Justice in the ordinary course of law. This
seems to us a sound and healthy guiding principle, and we have determined to adhere
to it. But we are also determined that this law shall not be a dead-letter, and that
offenders against the law of the land shall be capable of being promptly brought to
book"14

Freedom of Speech and Expression is considered to be as one of the most imperative among all
the rights. Freedom of Speech is the bulwark of democratic government. This freedom is

13
(1897)I.L.R. 22 Bom. 152
14
Walter Russell Donogh, The History and Law of Sedition and Cognate Offences, Penal and Preventive, Thacker, Spink & Co.,
Calcutta, 1911, Page-62

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

 Code: 28R
essential for the proper functioning of the democratic process. The freedom of speech and
expression is regarded as the first condition of liberty. It occupies a preferred position in the
hierarchy of liberties giving support and protection to all other liberties. It has been truly said
that it is the mother of all other liberties.15 But we don’t get everything at once if this feedom is
misused it can be dangerous to the country as well as the government. In Niharendu Dutt
Mazumdar v. Emperor16, Mr Justice Gwyer, the then Chief Justice observed:

“The first and foremost fundamental duty of every Government is the preservation of
order, since order is the condition precedent to all civilization and the advance of
human happiness. This duty has, no doubt, been sometimes performed in such a way
as to make the remedy worse than the disease. It is to this aspect of the functions of the
government that, in our opinion, the offence of sedition stands related. It is the
answers of the State to those who, for the purpose of neither attacking nor subverting
it, seek disturb its tranquillity, to create public disturbance and to promote disorder, or
who incite others to do so. Words, deeds or writings constitute sedition, if they have this
intention or this tendency; and it is easy to see why they may also constitute sedition, if
they seek, as the phrase is, to bring Government into contempt. This is not made an
offence in order to minister to the wounded vanity of Governments, but because where
government and the law has ceased to obeyed because no respect is felt any longer for
them only anarchy can follow. Public disorder, is thus the gist of the offence. The acts
or words complained of must either incite to disorder, or must be such as to satisfy
reasonable men that is their intention or tendency."

I would request the honourable court that Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code 1860 defines
the offence of sedition and prescribes punishment for sedition .The law is placed bang in the
middle of Chapter VI of the section in the Indian Penal Code that deals with “Offences against
the State”, a passage that deals with serious offences including waging war against the state.
The punishment that this section carries extends up to life imprisonment, and the charge is both
non-bailable and cognizable. All of these indicate the seriousness of the crime. If the court let
go Mr Parwani today the seriousness of this crime would be taken for granted . In the case of R
v. Burns and others17 , Mr. Justice Cave, observed that

"A man cannot escape from uttering words with intent to excite people to violence solely
because the persons whom he addressed may e too wise or temperate to be induced to act with
violence."

15
Jain M,P., Indian Constitutional Law, 5 th edition.
16
AIR 1942 FC22 Pg-26
17
(1886) 16 Cox CC 355

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

 Code: 28R

PRAYER

Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the
Respondent most respectfully requests this Hon’ble court to declare

A. That Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as constitutional

B. The section 124- A doesn’t violate any fundamental right of the Indian Constitution

C. Mr Parwani should be convicted under 124-A of The Indian Penal Code as it has
held as constitutional.

And pass any other order it may deem fit, in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good
Conscience

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS