AGLCP Respondent

DR.
AMBEDKAR GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE, PUDUCHERRY

TEAM
39th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2022 CODE: MUKURTHI
39TH ALL INDIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION IN COMMEMORATION OF GOLDEN

JUBILEE OF DR. AMBEDKAR GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE, PUDUCHERRY, 2022
BEFORE
THE SUPREME COURT OF VENGADAM
IN THE MATTER OF:

W.P (PIL) No. __ of 2022
VALLUM KAVU DEVOSAM
PETITIONER
V.
UNION OF VENGADAM
RESPONDENT
W.P (PIL) No. __ of 2022

VALLUM CRAFT ASSOCIATION
PETITIONER
V.
UNION OF VENGADAM
RESPONDENT
SLP (Crl.) No. __ of 2022

THREE ACCUSED PERSONS
APPELANT
V.
STATE OF SATVA
RESPONDENT
W.P (PIL)No. __ of 2022
ADV. MATHUR NATH

PETITIONER
V.
UNION OF VENGADAM & STATE OF AHALI
RESPONDENTS
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 1

DR. AMBEDKAR GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE, PUDUCHERRY
39th ALL INDIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2022
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS…………………………………………………………………………….....4-5
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………………………………...……6-8
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………………………………………………..9
STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………………………………..............10-11
STATEMENT OF ISSUES…………………………………………………………………………………..12
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS………………………………………………………………...………..13-14
WRITTEN PLEADINGS……………………………………………………………..………..................15-27
A. 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 NOT
VIOLATIVE OF FREEDOM OF RELIGION
A.1 There is no substantiate evidence to prove the essentiality of Arayanna feathers
A.2 The right to freedom of religion is subject to other provisions of Part III
A.3 The Amendments are in light of DPSP
B. THE SAID AMENDMENTS WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO

LIVELIHOOD OF VALLUM CRAFT MAKERS
B.1 Right to Livelihood of Vallum Craft makers do not fall under the ambit of Article 21
B.2 Article 19(g) is not affected
B.3 Restrictions that promote DPSP are reasonable
C. REGISTERING A CASE OF THEFT ON ACCOUNT OF POSSESSION AND TRANSPORTATION

OF ARAYANNA IS MAINTAINABLE
C.1 In the absence of law in WPA of 1972, filing the charges of IPC is maintainable
C.2 This case fulfills the conditions of the offence of Theft

D. REGISTERING A CASE UNDER SECTION 124A OF THE PENAL CODE OF VENGADAM ON

ACCOUNT OF STATEMENTS MADE IN NEWS DISCUSSION WOULD NOT VIOLATE THE
FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOM OF SPEECH GUARANTEED IN THE CONSTITUTION OF
VENGADAM
D.1 The Sedition Law does not violate the Fundamental freedom of speech
D.2 The said FIR filed against the Petitioner must not be quashed
D.3 The Sedition law should not be struck down
PRAYER…………………………………………………………………………………………….………..28

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
S.No Abbreviation Expansion
1. & And
2. AIR All India Reporter
3. Anr. Another
4. Art Article
5. Adv. Advocate
6. Cl. Clause
7. Cr. Criminal
8. DPSP Directive principles of state policy
9. Ed Edition
10. Etc. Et cetera
11. FIR First Information report
12. Govt. Government
13. HC High court
14. Hon’ble Honorable
15 i.e., That is
16. IPC Indian Penal code

17. No. Number
18. Ors. Others
19. Pg. Page
20. PIL Public Interest Litigation
21. Pt. Point
22. s. Section
23. SC Supreme court
24. SCC Supreme court case
25. SCR Supreme court reports
26. SLP Special Leave Petition
27. UOI Union of India
28. v. Versus
29. WPA Wildlife protection act
30. W.P Writ petition

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
1. Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj etc. v. State of Rajasthan and ors, AIR 1963 SC 1638
2. Indian young lawyers Association v. State of kerala, AIR 2015 SC 2026
3. Sri Jagganatha temple v. Chintamani Khuntia, AIR 1997 SC 3839.
4. Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja & Ors., SLP(Civil) No. 11686 of 2007
5. Re: Sant Ram vs Unknown,AIR 1960 SC 932, 1960 3 SCR 499
6. Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation, 1985 SCC (3) 545
7. Sodano Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, AIR 1989 SC 1988
8. M. J. Sivani v. State of Karnataka & Ors,, AIR 1995 SC1170: (1995) 6 SCC 289
9. Obbayya Pujary v. Member-Secretary, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board,
Bangalore, AIR 1999 Kant 157 (165).
10. Papnasam Labour Union V. Madura Coats Ltd, 1995 AIR 2200, 1995 SCC (1) 501
11. State of Bombay v. Balsara, AIR 1951 SC 318: 1951SCR 682
12. Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1980 SC 1992:
(1980) 4 SCC 1
13. State Of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan & Others, 1989 AIR, 1 1988 SCR Supl. (3) 455
14. Lineesh & Others v. State Of Kerala & Others, 5 June, 2020
15. Baburao v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 159 of 2002
16. Madhukar Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2000 (2) MPHT 445.
17. Wildlife v. Ashok Kumar, CC No.301845/16
18. Kedar Nath v. State of Bihar, (1962), AIR 955, SCR (2) 769
19. Sanskar Marathe v. The State of Maharashtra , CRL.PIL NO.3 (2015)
20. Vinod Dua v Union of India & Ors, W.P (Crl)No.154 of 2020),
BOOKS REFERRED
1. MP JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, (6th Ed, 2010)

2. DURGA DAS BASU, SHORTER CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, (14 th Ed, 2009)
3. V.N. SHUKLA, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, (12th Ed, 2016)
4. B.M. GANDHI’S INDIAN PENAL CODE, (4th Ed, 2017)
5. THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE BY RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL,
(23rd Ed, 2020)

STATUTES
1. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950

2. INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
3. THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973
4. WILDLIFE PROTECTION ACT, 1972
5. GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS OF GOODS (REGISTRATION AND
PROTECTION) ACT, 1999
6. THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT, 1960
7. INDIAN FOREST ACT,1927
8. THE UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT, 1967
9. THE ARMS ACT, 1959
10. PREVENTION OF INSULTS TO NATIONAL HONOUR ACT, 1971
11. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT,2000
12. EAST PUNJAB PUBLIC SAFETY ACT,1949
13. JAMMU AND KASHMIR PUBLIC SAFETY ACT, 1978
14. NATIONAL SECURITY ACT,1978
INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS
1. INTERNATIONAL COVENANT FOR CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS

2. INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
3. THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
4. THE AFRICAN CHARTER ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES’ RIGHTS
5. THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS
6. THE AMERICAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
7. ASEAN HUMAN RIGHTS DECLARATION

WEBSITES
http://www.indiakanoon.com
http://www.legalserviceindia.com
http://www.lawoctopus.com
http://www.scconline.com
http://www.casemine.com
http://www.lawtimesjournal.com
http://www.blog.ipleaders.in
http://www.indialawjournal.com
http://www.academia.com
http://www.lawbulls.in/
http://www.lawyersservice.com/
http://www.ngalaw.co.uk/
http://www.advocadekhoj.com/
http://www.legalcrystal.com/
http://www.vakilsearch.com/
https://www.animallaw.info/
https://www.barandbench.com/
https://www.livelaw.in/

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
W.P (PIL) No. __ of 2022
VALLUM KAVU DEVOSAM V. UNION OF VENGADAM
The Petitioner has invoked the Writ Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the
Constitution of Vengadam for the violation of Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Constitution of
Vengadam by filing a Public Interest Litigation.
The Respondents humbly submit to the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Supreme Court.
W.P (PIL) No. __ of 2022
VALLUM CRAFT ASSOCIATION V. UNION OF VENGADAM
The Petitioner had invoked the Writ Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the
SLP (Crl.) No. __ of 2022
THREE ACCUSED PERSONS V. STATE OF SATVA
The Appellant has invoked the Special Leave Jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Vengadam under
Article 136 of the Constitution of Vengadam for grant of leave, assailing the order of Hon’ble High Court of
Satva dismissing the petition to quash the FIR.
W.P (PIL) No. __ of 2022
ADV. MATHUR NATH V. UNION OF VENGADAM & STATE OF AHALI
The Petitioner has invoked the Writ Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the
The present memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Union of Vengadam is a South Asian country which has different religions and cultures. These cultures
has been developed through thousands of years and may vary depend on the region. Though Vengadam is a
secular nation and is home for all the popular religions existing in the world, it is a Hindu majority nation.
Arayanna is a species of swan is widely found in almost all the states of Union of Vengadam. It is considered
as a sacred bird and its feathers are used in many religious rituals. Due to its deep rooted involvement in the
cultural and religious traditions, the Union of Vengadam declared Arayanna as the national bird of Vengadam
in 1986.
In 2019, the Union for Protection and Conservation of Swan (UPCS) approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
Vengadam seeking to issue directions to Central Government for taking appropriate steps for the protection
and conservation of Arayannas. In August 2020, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while disposing the petition
directed the Central Government to make necessary changes in the existing legal framework including the
Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
In December, 2020, three persons were arrested for transporting 51 live wild Arayannas. The Satva police
registered a case of theft as per the provisions of the Penal Code of Vengadam, 1860. The accused persons
approached the High Court of Satva, with a petition to quash the said FIR and argued that , in the absence of
a law, the possession and transport of the animal would not amount to theft. However, the said petition was
dismissed by the High Court and hence, they appealed to the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
In January 2021, the Government of Vengadam introduced certain amendments to the Wildlife (Protection)
Act, 1972 and brought Arayannas under the purview of Sections 43 & 44 and the Schedule I. The effect was
a total prohibition of possession, transportation and use of Arayannas and their feathers. Even a mere
possession of an Arayanna feather in a house would be an offence under the Act.
As a result of the amendments in Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, the temple administrators of a popular hindu
temple, Vallum Kavu found it difficult to get the required quantity of Arayanna feathers since a good quantity

of Arayanna feathers is required for the ceremonies of this temple and during the festival season. After several
protests staged by devotees and the temple administrators against this act, finally in June 2021, the Vallum
Kavu Devasom approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court challenging the Constitutional validity of the said
amendments in the Wildlife (Protection) Act.
The non-availability of Arayanna's feathers also adversely affected the making of 'Vallums' and related
products. Several persons who were actively involved in making the Vallums had to quit the field and some
even committed suicide. Hence, in July 2021, the Vallum Craft Associations, Vallakam filed a petition
challenging the Constitutional validity of these recent amendments in the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
A reporter from a national news channel sought Adv. Mathur Nath's opinion about the recent amendments
during a live news night discussion. Since his statement invited severe criticisms from the ruling party and
subsequently, the police of State of Ahali registered case under Section 124A of the Penal Code of Vengadam.
As a result, he approached the Hon’ble High Court of Ahali with a petition to quash the F.I.R. and argued that,
Section 124A is against his fundamental freedom of speech. However, the Hon’ble High Court of Ahali
rejected the petition. Hence, he approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court with a petition challenging the
Constitutional validity of Section 124A of the Penal Code.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Vengadam for the sake of convenience decided to hear all the cases on the
same day.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES
A.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?
B. WHETHER THE SAID AMENDMENTS WOULD AMOUNT TO VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO

LIVELIHOOD OF VALLUM CRAFT MAKERS OR NOT?
C. WHETHER REGISTERING A CASE OF THEFT ON ACCOUNT OF POSSESSION AND

TRANSPORTATION OF ARAYANNA IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?
D. 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
A.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?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court that 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 not in
violation of freedom of religion. The essentiality of Arayanna feathers would not fall within the protective
umbrella of article 25 and article 26 since the petitioners have failed to prove that their freedom of religion has
been violated for the same. Moreover, there is no point in challenging the constitutional validity of the
amendments as it is completely binding to the Hon’ble supreme court’s decision and is in light of the state’s
duty.
B. WHETHER THE SAID AMENDMENTS WOULD AMOUNT TO VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT

TO LIVELIHOOD OF VALLUM CRAFT MAKERS OR NOT?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that the said amendments would not amount to violation of
the right to livelihood of Vallum Craft makers. The right to Livelihood of Vallum Craft makers do not fall
under the ambit of Article 21. Moreover, the accusation of violation of livelihood is not valid as the claimed
rights of petitioners fall under the reasonable restrictions that promote the Directive principles of state policy.
C. WHETHER REGISTERING A CASE OF THEFT ON ACCOUNT OF POSSESSION AND

TRANSPORTATION OF ARAYANNA IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?
It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court that registering a case of theft on account of
possession and transportation of Arayanna is maintainable under Law. It is humbly submitted that despite of
finding dearth of law in wildlife protection act relating to possession and transportation of Arayanna, but as
per section 56 of WPA, it doesn’t bar the operation of other laws. Moreover, this case has fulfilled the
conditions of filing the charges of theft. Hence, this case is maintainable.

D. 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?
Registering a case under Section 124A of the Penal Code of Vengadam on account of a statements made in
news discussion would not violate the fundamental freedom of speech guaranteed in the Constitution of
Vengadam. Right to freedom of speech is not absolute. It comes under some reasonable restriction under
Article 19(2), the statement made in live news discussion, incite the people into violence. Hence, the FIR filed
against the petitioner is maintainable. Sedition is not violative of his fundamental freedom of speech.

WRITTEN PLEADINGS
A.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?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court that 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 not in violation of freedom of religion and thereby does not violate
any fundamental rights guaranteed under the Vengadam constitution.
Further, it is most humbly submitted that the ceremony of Arayattam does not fall under the
protective purview of article 25 and article 26 of the Vengadam constitution as [i] There is no
substantiate evidence to prove the essentiality of Arayanna feathers [ii] The right to freedom
of religion is subject to other provisions of Part III. [iii] The Amendments are in light of DPSP
A.1 There is no substantiate evidence to prove the essentiality of Arayanna feathers
It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble court that the question of determining whether a
particular practice constitutes the essence of the religion will always have to be decided by the
court. And in doing so, the court may have to inquire whether the practice in question is
religious in character and if it is, whether it can be regarded as an integral or essential part of
the religion or not.1
In the case of Indian young lawyers Association v. State of Kerala 2, it was held that the
ultimate constitutional arbiter of what constitutes essential religious practice must be the Court,
which is a matter of constitutional necessity.Therefore, the finding of the court on such an issue
will always depend upon the evidence adduced before it as to the conscience of the community
and the tenets of its religion.
1
Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj etc. v. State of Rajasthan and ors, AIR 1963 SC 1638
2
Indian young lawyers Association v. State of kerala, AIR 2015 SC 2026

However, in the present case, the petitioners haven't submitted any related evidence or even
religious scriptures to substantiate that the use of Arayanna feathers are essential and integral
to their religious ceremony.
Hence, the essentiality of Arayanna feathers would not fall within the protective umbrella of
article 25 and article 26 since the petitioners have failed to prove that their freedom of religion
has been violated for the same.
A.2 The right to freedom of religion is subject to other provisions of Part III
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that a person can exercise his religious
freedom so long as it does not come into conflict with the exercise of fundamental rights of
others. The supreme court has observed that no rights in an organized society can be absolute.
Enjoyment of one's rights must be consistent with the enjoyment of rights also by others". 3
The freedom of conscience and freedom to speak, profess and propagate religion guaranteed
under Article 25 of the Constitution is subject not only to public order, morality and health, but
also subject to the other provisions of part III.4 It necessarily & Implies that the right to freedom
of religion guaranteed under Article 25 is subject to Article 21 of the Vengadam Constitution.
Article 21 of the Constitution, while safeguarding the rights of humans, protects life and this
term “life” has been given an expanded definition and any disturbance from the basic
environment which includes all forms of life, including animal life, which are necessary for
human life, fall within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution. So far as animals are
concerned, the term “life” means something more than mere survival or existence or
instrumental value for human beings, but to lead a life with some intrinsic worth, honor and
dignity.”5
In the present case, it is well evident from the fact sheet that the UPCS study identified several
reasons such as habitat loss, increased pollution, changing weather patterns, hunting and
poaching for feathers that lead to the risk of extinction of Arayannas. However, Arayannas
3
Sri Jagganatha temple v. Chintamani Khuntia, AIR 1997 SC 3839.
4
Article 25 (1) of the Vengadam Constitution
5
Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja & Ors., SLP(Civil) No. 11686 of 2007

also have a right to life and security, subject to the law of the land, which includes depriving
its life, out of human necessity.6
Hence, by the direction Hon’ble supreme court of Vengadam given in August 2020, the
changes were made in the existing legal framework including the Wildlife (Protection) Act,
1972. Hence there is no point in challenging the constitutional validity of the amendments as
it is completely binding to the Hon’ble supreme court’s decision.
A.3 The Amendments are in light of DPSP
The DPSP are basically the ideals which are meant to be kept in mind by the State when it
formulates policies and enacts laws. Therefore, it is the duty of States to apply them in making
laws for the constitution of a just society. The directive principle and fundamental duty which
form the foundation of state policies on animal welfare in India are enshrined in Article 48A
and Article 51A(g).
The Art. 48A of the Constitution mandates that the State shall endeavor to protect and improve
the environment to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. Art. 51A(g) of the
Constitution enjoins that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India, inter alia, to protect and
improve the national environment including forests, lakes, rivers, wildlife and to have
compassion for living creatures. These two articles are considered as one of the fundamentals
in the governance of the country.
With regard to the question of enforceability, the Article 48A, while not judicially enforceable,
may become enforceable under the ambit of the right to life under Article 21. With regard to
Article 51A(g), while Fundamental Duties are unenforceable in courts, they are often resorted
to in the interpretation of constitutional and other matters.
Hence with no violation caused to freedom of religion, the utmost importance should also be
given to the protection of Arayannas which has been enshrined under Article 21. For the same,
the state has the duty to uphold the DPSP in the light of which the amendments has been
brought. Hence there is no point in challenging the constitutional validity of the amendments
as it is completely binding to the Hon’ble supreme court’s decision and is in light of the state's
duty.
6
Pg.2, pt.7, Moot Proposition

B. WHETHER THE SAID AMENDMENTS WOULD AMOUNT TO VIOLATION OF

THE RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD OF VALLUM CRAFT MAKERS OR NOT?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that the said amendments would not amount
to violation of the right to livelihood of Vallum Craft makers. Thereby it does not violate any
fundamental rights guaranteed under the Vengadam constitution on the following grounds. [i]
Right to Livelihood of Vallum Craft makers do not fall under the ambit of Article 21 [ii]Article
19(g) is not affected [iii] Restrictions that promote DPSP are reasonable .
B.1 Right to Livelihood of Vallum Craft makers do not fall under the ambit of Article 21
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that at initial times, the view of right to life in
Art. 21 did not include the right to livelihood. In the case of Re: Sant Ram vs Unknown7, the
court held that the right to livelihood would be included in the freedoms enumerated in Art.19,
or even in Art.16, in a limited sense. But the language of Art.21 cannot be pressed into aid of
the argument that the word life in Art. 21 includes livelihood also.
However, later on, the right to livelihood was included in the extension of rights guaranteed
under article 21 but in a limited sense.
Right to livelihood under the ambit of article 21 only covers the means of living 8 and basic
essentialities. However the rights such as the right to carry on a trade or business is not covered
by article 219.In the present case, since it had been stated that the non-availability of Arayanna
feathers affected the making of ‘Vallums’ and related products, it doesn't fall under the ambit
of livelihood under article 21.
Moreover, in M. J. Sivani v. State of Karnataka & Ors,10 The Supreme Court held that right
to life under Article 21 even though it protects livelihood, cannot be a rider that its deprivation
cannot be extended too far or projected or stretched to the avocation, business or trade injurious
to public interest or has insidious effect on public morals or public order.
7
Re: Sant Ram vs Unknown,AIR 1960 SC 932, 1960 3 SCR 499
8
Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation, 1985 SCC (3) 545
9
Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, AIR 1989 SC 1988
10
M. J. Sivani v. State of Karnataka & Ors,, AIR 1995 SC1170: (1995) 6 SCC 289

Similarly, in this particular case, the government by binding to the direction of the hon'ble
supreme court has brought changes in the legal provisions of wildlife protection act by the
addition of new amendments. Hence the aim is to protect the Arayannas population from
extinction and not to violate anyone's livelihood.
B.2 Article 19(g) is not affected
Article 19 (1) (g) provides for the right to practice any profession within the territory of
Vengadam. The respondent submits to this hon'ble court that there is no violation of the said
rights. In any case, article 19(1)(g) is subjected to limits as may be imposed by the state in
interest of public welfare. 11
Although this article guarantees all the seven freedoms to the citizen, such guarantee does not
confer any absolute or unconditional right but is subject to reasonable restriction, which the
Legislature may impose in public interest. It is therefore necessary to examine whether such
restriction is meant to protect social welfare satisfying the need of prevailing social values. 12
In this particular case, only in order to protect Arayannas from the risk of extinction, the
amendments have been introduced. Hence, there is no intention to affect the business of Vallum
craft makers since the government never attempted to do the same.
If the petitioners claim that the non availability of Arayanna feathers lead to deprivation of
their business, that would rather be social justice in considering the greater good for sacrificing
a little. Therefore, it is submitted that the right under article 19(1)(g) of the constitution is not
infringed.
B.3 Restrictions that promote DPSP are reasonable
The Directive Principles of State Policy are relevant in considering whether a restriction on a
Fundamental Right is reasonable or not. A restriction which promotes a Directive Principle is
generally regarded as reasonable. 13
11
Obbayya Pujary v. Member-Secretary, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Bangalore, AIR 1999 Kant
157 (165).
12
Papnasam Labour Union V. Madura Coats Ltd, 1995 AIR 2200, 1995 SCC (1) 501
13
State of Bombay v. Balsara, AIR 1951 SC 318: 1951SCR 682

As the Supreme Court has observed in Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu and
Kashmir14, "Any action taken by the Government with a view to giving effect to any one or
more of the Directive Principles would ordinarily, subject to any constitutional or legal
inhibitions or other overriding considerations, qualify for being regarded as reasonable, while
an action which is inconsistent with or runs counter to a Directive Principle would incur the
reproach of being unreasonable.
Similarly, in the present case, the introduced amendments are in light of the directive principles
of state policy under article 48A and the fundamental duties under 51A(g) being an additive.
Article 48A: This Article comes under the Directive principle of the State policy. This article
implies that the State shall endeavour to protect the environment. It also emphasizes on
safeguarding the forests and wildlife of the country. Article 48A imposes a duty on the State to
protect the environment from pollution by adopting various measures.
Article 51A (g): The Article 51 A(g) states that it shall be the duty of each and every citizen of
India to protect and improve the natural environment that includes lakes, rivers, forests, and
wildlife. This Article also focuses on showing compassion for living creatures.
Article 51A(g) is similar to Article 48A, but the only difference is that it concentrates on the
fundamental duty of citizens whereas Article 48A instructs the state to perform their duties and
protect the environment. Hence, it is our duty to not only protect the environment from
pollution but also improve its quality.
Therefore, the accusation of violation of livelihood is not valid as the claimed rights of
petitioners fall under the reasonable restrictions that promote the Directive principles of state
policy.
Hence, the amendments are constitutionally valid and do not violate any fundamental rights
guaranteed under the Vengadam Constitution.
14
Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1980 SC 1992: (1980) 4 SCC 1

C. WHETHER REGISTERING A CASE OF THEFT ON ACCOUNT OF POSSESSION

AND TRANSPORTATION OF ARAYANNA IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?
It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court that registering a case of
theft on account of possession and transportation of Arayanna is maintainable under Law.
The Counsel most humbly submits that the Appellant herein were arrested from the state of
Satva for transporting 51 live Arayannas. However, finding dearth of specific law regulating
the Possession and transportation of Wild Arayannas in Vengadam, the Satva Police
registered a case of Theft under section 378 of Vengadam Penal Code, 1860.
C.1 In the absence of law in WPA of 1972, filing the charges of IPC is maintainable
Despite finding dearth of provisions relating to the transportation of Arayanna in Wild life
protection Act, filing the charges of Vengadam Penal Code 1860, is maintainable under law.
The Counsel of the Respondent herein most humbly submits that According to the Section 56
of Wildlife Protection act 1972, deals with the Operation of other laws not barred.—“Nothing
in this Act shall be deemed to prevent any person from being prosecuted under any other law
for the time being in force, for any act or omission which constitutes an offence against this
Act or from being liable under such other law to any higher punishment or penalty than that
provided by this Act”.
The Counsel would like to rely upon the case of, State Of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan &
Others,15 In this case, the accused persons had been registered under sections 447, 429 and
379 IPC read with sec 54 and 39 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. In Lineesh & Others
v. State Of Kerala & Others,16 it is alleged that the petitioners herein were found in
possession of some meat of Malabar Giant Squirrel at about 8 pm on 01.04.2016. They were
also found in possession of 2 guns. The petitioners were arrested by the forest officials and
they have been in custody since 01.04.2016. The Forest Range Officer registered OR
No.6/2016 under Sections 2(16), 2(20), 9, 19 27, 31, 39, 50 & 56 of Wild Life (Protection)
Act, 1972. As they were found in possession of guns, Crime No.97/2016 of the
15
State Of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan & Others, 1989 AIR, 1 1988 SCR Supl. (3) 455
16
Lineesh & Others v. State Of Kerala & Others, 5 June, 2020

Puruvannamuzhi Police Station was also registered under Section 3 r/w Section 25(1)(a) of
the Arms Act.
The Counsel of the Respondent herein most humbly submits that the absence in provisions of
Wildlife Protection Act 1972, does not bar the operation of other laws. Hence, registering a
case of Theft under Vengadam Penal Code 1860, is maintainable under law.
C.2 This case fulfills the conditions of the offence of Theft
Section 378 of the Vengadam Penal Code of 1860, defines theft as, “Whoever, intending to
dishonestly take any movable property out of the possession of any person without that
person’s consent, moves that property to such taking, is said to commit theft”.
Here in the present case, the charges mentioned in said FIR are established as the Ingredients
for Theft.
● Dishonest Intention: The Counsel most humbly submits that the Appellants herein
were arrested for Transferring the 51 live Arayannas, Section 9 of the Wildlife
Protection Act prohibits the hunting of wild birds. Although in the usual sense,
hunting is associated with the eventual killing of wild animals, this section included
acts of capturing and trapping too.
According to Section 57 of the wild life Protection Act, if a person is in possession, control
or custody of any wild animal, it shall be presumed that he does not hold lawful possession of
the animal.
● Moveable Property: According to Salmond animals is property because they not

having a right like human beings and also Section 378 of Vengadam Penal Code,1860
itself explains A person, who by any means causes an animal to move, is said to move
that animal, and to move everything which, in consequence of the motion so caused,
is moved by that animal is called theft.
The criminal law also provides protection and welfare of animals. Section 47 IPC is defined
as Animal words. It only mentioned any living creature but not a human being. The criminal
law has treated an animal as property and protected by it. Section 428 & Section 429 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 is clear talk about the animal as a valuable property. Explanation of
movable property is not limited to the Vengadam Penal Code, 1860 only. Section 3(36) of the

General Clauses Act 1897, Section 22 of the Indian Penal Code, 1960 defines the term
movable property.
Moreover, Section 39 of Wildlife Protection Act 1972, says all wild animals are Government
Property. It states- Wild animals other than vermin, also wild animals which are found dead,
or killed by mistake, Trophy or uncured trophy or other animal article or meat derived from
the wild animal, ivory imported to India or any article made by such ivory, any vessel,
weapon, trap, tool used to hunt the wild animal in the Zoo shall be the property of the State
Government and in case of a National Park or Sanctuary then such will be the property of the
Central Government.
The Counsel would like to rely upon the case of Baburao v. State of Maharashtra17, in a
significant verdict the Bombay high court , has ruled that "all wild animals should be treated
as Government Property for all purposes''. The same was held in Madhukar Rao v. State of
Madhya Pradesh.18
Hence, it is very clear from the above mentioned provisions that the Animals are property of
the Government.
The counsel would like to enumerate that Arayannas were protected under the Wildlife
Protection Act, under Schedule I, Part - III, Entry 10C. so as per Rules under the said Act,
without having Ownership or a License a person can not transfer an animal which is
protected under this Act. Here the Appellants transferred without intimating the Chief
wildlife Warden. Hence, filing a charges under Vengadam Penal Code, is maintainable under
law.
The counsel would like to rely upon the case of Wildlife v. Ashok Kumar19, where the Delhi
High Court observed that according to section 50(4) of WPA, the burden of proving which
shall lie on the accused, that such person is not illegally obtaining the property. However the
Appellants herein miserably failed to prove them as innocents in the High Court itself. Hence,
registering a case of Theft on account of possession and transportation of Arayanna is
maintainable.
17
Baburao v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 159 of 2002
18
Madhukar Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2000 (2) MPHT 445.
19
Wildlife v. Ashok Kumar, CC No.301845/16

D. 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?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court that filing charges of sedition on
account of a statement relating to the recent amendments doesn't violate the Fundamental
freedom of speech.
The counsel for the Respondent most humbly submits that the Petitioner herein during a live
news discussion relating to the recent amendments in WPA, he opined: " The people who
enact the Law should have some sense... It is high-time people should react against such
senseless governments..." 20for this, the Police of state of Ahali registered a case under
section 124A of Vengadam Penal Code.
Initially the Petitioner approached the Hon’ble High Court of Ahali with a Petition to quash
the said FIR but the High Court of Ahali rejected the Petition. Being aggrieved by this
Judgment Adv. Mathur Nath approached this Hon'ble Supreme Court with a Petition
challenging the Constitutional validity of Section 124A of the Penal Code.
D.1 The Sedition Law does not violate the Fundamental freedom of speech
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court the Sedition Law doesn't violates
the Fundamental freedom of speech and expression.
The article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of Vengadam states that, “all citizens shall have the
right to freedom of speech and expression”. The exercise of this right is, however, subject to
“reasonable restrictions” for certain purposes being imposed under Article 19(2) of the
Constitution of India.
The Article 19 (2) states that 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 Vengadam,
20 Pt. 13, Pg.4, Moot Proposition

• 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.
Incitement to offence is one of the grounds that restrict the right to speech and expression
that's what Sedition law says. Until or unless hatred towards the government established by
law or incitement of people to violence, sedition law wouldn’t deter the citizens from
expressing their opinions.
Hence, Sedition Law doesn't violate the Fundamental freedom of speech and expression.
Moreover, the statement made by the Petitioner during live news discussion doesn't violate
his fundamental freedom of speech and expression.
D.2 The said FIR filed against the Petitioner must not be quashed
The counsel for the Respondent herein most humbly submits that the police of State of Ahali
filed an FIR of section 124A of Vengadam Penal Code which defines Sedition as"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 Vengadam shall be punished with
[imprisonment for life], to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend
to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine." 21
In 1961, the Punjab High Court held that sedition violated the freedom of speech guaranteed
in Article 19, and declared it unconstitutional. Allahabad High Court proceeded to do the
same, and the matter moved to the Supreme Court.
21
Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

However, ultimately, in the case of Kedar Nath v. State of Bihar,22 the apex court upheld the
constitutional validity of Section 124A. The court also held that mere criticism of the
government is not sedition unless having tendency or it is an incitement to violence or breach
of public order.
And also in the cases of Sanskar Marathe v. The State of Maharashtra ,23 and in Vinod Dua
v Union of India & Ors, 24 the Apex Court clearly explains that if an act involves tendency or
it is an incitement to violence then the Sedition law would lie.
The explanation and enough interpretation was already given by the Apex court in above said
cases that for filing the charges of Sedition one must have disaffection towards the
government and incite the people into violence. In our case the statement that opined by the
Petitioner herein has fulfilled the conditions of charges mentioned in section 124A of
Vengadam Penal code.
Hence, the charges filed by the police of State of Ahali against the Petitioner herein is
maintainable.
D.3 The Sedition law should not be struck down
It is humbly submitted that the sedition law should be in part of Vengadam Penal Code,1860
as it is constitutionally valid.
Section 124A of the IPC has its utility in combating anti-national, secessionist and terrorist
elements.
It protects the elected government from attempts to overthrow the government with violence
and illegal means. The continued existence of the government established by law is an
essential condition of the stability of the State.
If contempt of court invites penal action, contempt of government should also attract
punishment.
22
Kedar Nath v. State of Bihar, (1962), AIR 955, SCR (2) 769
23
Sanskar Marathe v. The State of Maharashtra , CRL.PIL NO.3 (2015)
24
Vinod Dua v Union of India & Ors, W.P (Crl)No.154 of 2020),

Many districts in different states face a Maoist insurgency and rebel groups virtually run a
parallel administration. These groups openly advocate the overthrow of the state government
by revolution.
Against this backdrop, the abolition of Section 124A would be ill-advised merely because it
has been wrongly invoked in some highly publicized cases.
Last year saw 73 cases of sedition as against 93 in 2019 while UAPA cases saw a sharp dip to
796 from 1,226 during the same period, according to the Crime in India 2020 report released
by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB). 25
Even though UDHR and ICCPR have protocols to ensure the right to freedom of speech and
expression, still it also comes under some reasonable restriction of National security, public
order or morals.
Likewise sedition is one of the grounds to safeguard the public order.
Hence, the statement made in news discussion by the Petitioner does not violate his
fundamental freedom of speech and expression, so the charges of section 124A Vengadam
Penal Code filed against the Petitioner is maintainable. Moreover, the sedition law is
constitutionally valid.
25 Crime in India 2020 Report, NCRB

PRAYER
IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND

AUTHORITIES CITED, MAY THIS HON’BLE COURT BE PLEASED TO ADJUDGE,
HOLD AND DECLARE THAT:
1. 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 NOT VIOLATIVE OF
FREEDOM OF RELIGION
2. THE SAID AMENDMENTS WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO VIOLATION OF
THE RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD OF VALLUM CRAFT MAKERS
3. REGISTERING A CASE OF THEFT ON ACCOUNT OF POSSESSION AND
TRANSPORTATION OF ARAYANNA IS MAINTAINABLE
4. REGISTERING A CASE UNDER SECTION 124A OF THE PENAL CODE OF
VENGADAM ON ACCOUNT OF STATEMENTS MADE IN NEWS
DISCUSSION WOULD 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.
COUNSELS FOR THE RESPONDENTS

AGLCP Respondent

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

AGLCP Respondent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DR.

AMBEDKAR GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE, PUDUCHERRY

39TH ALL INDIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION IN COMMEMORATION OF GOLDEN

IN THE MATTER OF:

W.P (PIL) No. __ of 2022

SLP (Crl.) No. __ of 2022

W.P (PIL)No. __ of 2022

ADV. MATHUR NATH

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 1

B. THE SAID AMENDMENTS WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO

C. REGISTERING A CASE OF THEFT ON ACCOUNT OF POSSESSION AND TRANSPORTATION

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 2

D. REGISTERING A CASE UNDER SECTION 124A OF THE PENAL CODE OF VENGADAM ON

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 3

S.No Abbreviation Expansion

2. AIR All India Reporter

8. DPSP Directive principles of state policy

10. Etc. Et cetera

11. FIR First Information report

12. Govt. Government

13. HC High court

14. Hon’ble Honorable

16. IPC Indian Penal code

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 4

17. No. Number

18. Ors. Others

19. Pg. Page

20. PIL Public Interest Litigation

21. Pt. Point

23. SC Supreme court

24. SCC Supreme court case

25. SCR Supreme court reports

26. SLP Special Leave Petition

27. UOI Union of India

29. WPA Wildlife protection act

30. W.P Writ petition

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 5

1. MP JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, (6th Ed, 2010)

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 6

1. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950

1. INTERNATIONAL COVENANT FOR CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 7

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 8

W.P (PIL) No. __ of 2022

VALLUM KAVU DEVOSAM V. UNION OF VENGADAM

W.P (PIL) No. __ of 2022

VALLUM CRAFT ASSOCIATION V. UNION OF VENGADAM

SLP (Crl.) No. __ of 2022

THREE ACCUSED PERSONS V. STATE OF SATVA

W.P (PIL) No. __ of 2022

ADV. MATHUR NATH V. UNION OF VENGADAM & STATE OF AHALI

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 9

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 10

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 11

B. WHETHER THE SAID AMENDMENTS WOULD AMOUNT TO VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO

C. WHETHER REGISTERING A CASE OF THEFT ON ACCOUNT OF POSSESSION AND

D. WHETHER REGISTERING A CASE UNDER SECTION 124A OF THE PENAL CODE OF

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 12

B. WHETHER THE SAID AMENDMENTS WOULD AMOUNT TO VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT

C. WHETHER REGISTERING A CASE OF THEFT ON ACCOUNT OF POSSESSION AND

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 13