The State of Jatala & Ors.

vs Marwadan

3rd HIMACHAL PRADESH NATIONAL LAW MOOT CODE: TC-316_P

UNIVERSITY, MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022.

APPELLATE WRIT JURISDICTION

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDICA

W.P. (CIVIL) NO. XXX OF 2022

UNDER ARTICLE 32,132(1) and 133(1) OF THE CONSTUTION OF INDICA

IN THE MATTER OF

The State of Jatala & Ors. APPELLANT

vs

Marwadan RESPONDENT

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION

JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDICA

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

S. TOPIC Page
No No
1 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 01
2 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 02
3 WEBSITE REFERRED 03
4 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 04
5 STATEMENTS OF ISSUES 05
6 STATEMENT OF FACTS 06
7 SUMMARY OF ARGUEMENTS 10
8 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 12
9 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 22
The State of Jatala & Ors. vs Marwadan

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviation Full Form

S. Section
Art. Article
SCC Supreme Court Cases
H.C. High Court
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
Const. Constitution
UAPA Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act
J. Judge
Hon’ble Honorable
Ors. Others
FR Fundamental Rights
Comm. Community
Cl. Clause
No. Number
Div. Division
SC Supreme Court
vs. Versus

Page 1

Memorandum for the Appellant

The State of Jatala & Ors. vs Marwadan

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

LEGISLATIONS REFERRED

1. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950

2. THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (IT) ACT, 2000
3. THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

CASES REFERRED

Sr. NAME OF THE CASE CITATION

No.
1 Rev. Stainislaus vs State Of Madhya Pradesh 1977 AIR 908, 1977
& Ors on 17 January, 1977 SCR (2) 611

2 Rama Shanker Tewari vs State on 10 February, AIR 1954 ALL 121

1954
3 Shreya Singhal vs U.O.I on 24 March, 2015 (2013) 12 S.C.C. 73

4 Ramji Lal Modi vs The State Of U.P on 5 1957 AIR 620 1957
April, 1957 SCR 860

Gorakhpur Hospital Tragedy 2017 2017

5

Page 2
Memorandum for the Appellant
The State of Jatala & Ors. vs Marwadan

WEBSITES REFERRED

1. Manupatra Online Resources, http://www.manupatra.com

2. SCC Online, http://www.scconline.co.in

3. Oxford Dictionary, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com.

4. Indiankannon.org, http://indiankannon.org

5. www.scobserver.in, http://www.scobserver.in

6. Timesofindia.timesindia.com, http://timesofindia.com

7. www.livelaw.in, http://www.livelaw.in

Page 3

Memorandum for the Appellant

The State of Jatala & Ors. vs Marwadan

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS APPROACHED THIS HON’BLE

COURT AGAINST THE IMPUNGED ORDER OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT INVOKING
ITS JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 132 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDICA READ WITH
ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDICA AS IT RELATES TO VIOLATION OF
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.

ARTICLE 132 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDICA:

Article 132 in the Constitution of Indica
1. 132. Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in appeals from High Courts in certain cases. An
appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final order of a High Court in
the territory of Indica, whether in a civil, criminal or other proceeding, if the High Court certifies
under Article 134A that the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of
this Constitution.
2. Omitted.
3. Where such a certificate is given, any party in the case may appeal to the Supreme Court on the
ground that any such question as aforesaid has been wrongly decided Explanation For the purposes
of this article, the expression final order includes an order declaring an issue which, if decided in
favour of the appellant, would be sufficient for the final disposal of the case.

Page 4
The State of Jatala & Ors. vs Marwadan

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether the Xatali Community Members (Management and Regulation of Conduct) Act, 2022 is
ultra vires the Constitution of Indica?
2. Whether there is a hierarchical scheme in the idea of fundamental rights?
3. Whether the author's right to freedom and speech and expression violates the general standard of
morality or decency established by the community?
4. Whether the right to freedom of speech and expression be curtailed on the ground that it is
violative of the religious sentiments of a particular community?
5. Whether the right to access to the internet is a fundamental right under Article 21 of Indica?
6. Whether the 2019 amendment to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2019 is
manifestly arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of Indica?

Page 5
The State of Jatala & Ors. vs Marwadan

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The State of Jatala and Ors.

vs
Marwadan

1. The Appellant No. 1 state of Jatala.

2. The Appellant No. 2 ‘NGO Abhilashini’ working for the empowerment of women in the state of
Jatala.
3. The Appellant No. 3 ‘Xatali Community’, a religious community recognized across the country
of Indica.
4. Respondent No. 1 is Marwadan 23-year-old student studying at a premier law institute called
Jatala Global Law School, and is also a poet based in the state of Jatala in the country of Indica.
5. Art. 19(1)(a) of The Constitution of Indica guarantees every citizen to have Freedom of Speech
and Expression, subject to certain reasonable restrictions prescribed under Art. 19(2) of the
Constitution.
6. Marwadan has recently published a story in poetic form from Subahvani Prakashan. In one of the
verses, he characterized the beauty of a woman of a fictional character by describing her body
parts. He also went on to describe in one of the verses about the sexual act in which the woman
in character participated with her paramour.
7. The head of the NGO Abhilashini, Ms. Chitrakala, when approached for a statement regarding
poem it was found objectionable on several grounds. She said that “We should collectively
remove such mental waste from our society; this is against Indica’s sanskar”. Pursuant to this, the
NGO filed a writ petition before the High Court of Jatala, a State in the Republic of Indica, to
pass a writ restricting the publication of that poem. The NGO argued before the High Court that
the story.
8. Depicted in the poetic expression is an unreasonable exercise of freedom of speech and
expression. Such a form of expression is lascivious and creates prurient interest in the mind of the
reader. This poem may deprave and corrupt the mind of possible readers; she also stated that if
such material is allowed to fall into the hands of the young and vulnerable generation it will result
in a moral hazard. Further, it was argued by the NGO that the poem is obscene; hence, it is an
offence punishable under Section 292 of the Indica Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
9. The issue garnered attention from both national and international media.
Page 6
The State of Jatala & Ors. vs Marwadan

10. This resulted in widespread criticism of the government and heated debates on several online
platforms. Sensing the alarming situation, the Union government issued directions to block public
access to the poem by taking it down from all social media platforms.
11. Parallelly, multiple protests broke out in various parts of the state of Jatala, where people were
agitating for the arrest of Marwadan. In one such protest, things escalated in a precarious manner
and the protest took the form of a riot. Therein, police were dispatched to the agitation area, where
a group of people used Molotov cocktails against them, which resulted in several grievous injuries
to both the police and people who showed up for the protest.
12. Sensing the gravity of the situation, the Union government of Indica passed an order to restrict
the internet in the state of Jatala, citing the law-and-order situation in the state. Further, the
investigating agencies also identified Mr. Michael Joseph as the one to have thrown the Molotov
cocktail and charged him under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2019
famously known as UAPA.
13. Sensing the gravity of the situation, the Union government of Indica passed an order to restrict
the internet in the state of Jatala, citing the law-and-order situation in the state. Further, the
investigating agencies also identified Mr. Michael Joseph as the one to have thrown the Molotov
cocktail and charged him under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2019
famously known as UAPA.
14. Against the internet ban, Marwadan contended that it is violative of his freedom of speech and
expression.
15. The Xatali Community worships the female goddess in virgin form and the scriptures of the Xatali
religion prohibit any lascivious description of the female body. The religious practices of the
Xatali community have been recognized by the State through the Xatali Community Members
(Management and Regulation of Conduct) Act, 2022. (Annexure-I) A group of Xatali Community
members remarked that the composition by Marwadan is violative of the provisions of the Act.
16. Thereafter, members of the Xatali Community approached the High Court of Jatala, claiming that
Marwadan should be prosecuted and punished as per the Act of 2022.
17. The three petitions were clubbed by the High Court of Jatala and heard together where Marwadan
claimed the following –
a. That the right to expression was enshrined in the Constitution as fundamental and cannot be
abridged by any law of the land.
b. That the provisions of Section 2 of the Xatali Community Members (Management and Regulation
of Conduct) Act, 2022 was unconstitutional.

Page 7
The State of Jatala & Ors. vs Marwadan

c. That the freedom of speech and expression was at a higher pedestal in the hierarchy of rights as
enunciated and expressed in the Constitution of Indica.
d. That the right to freedom of religion could not go beyond the general moral prescriptions
emerging from human rights as enunciated and conferred internationally by virtue of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
e. That the provision of the Act of 2022 was also violative of the jus cogens with respect to protection
of human rights and thus ultra vires.
f. That the right to access the internet was a fundamental right under the Constitution of Indica.
18. The High Court declined to provide any relief to the NGO or the members of the Xatala
Community on the ground that the author has not exceeded the legitimate domain of expression
allowed by the Constitution. However, the High Court did not interfere in the religious or the right
to access to the internet, or the UAPA aspect of the petition, stating that the issues raised important
questions of constitutional law that needed to be settled and that the interference of the highest
court was needed.
19. The Supreme Court of Indica took note of the matter and constituted a thirteen-judge bench to
decide the matter.

Page 8
The State of Jatala & Ors. vs Marwadan

ISSUE RAISED

i. Whether the Xatali Community Members (Management and Regulation of Conduct) Act, 2022 is
ultra vires the Constitution of Indica?
ii. Whether there is a hierarchical scheme in the idea of fundamental rights?
iii. Whether the author's right to freedom and speech and expression violates the general standard of
morality or decency established by the community?
iv. Whether the right to freedom of speech and expression be curtailed on the ground that it is
violative of the religious sentiments of a particular community?
v. Whether the right to access to the internet is a fundamental right under Article 21 of Indica?
vi. Whether the 2019 amendment to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2019 is
manifestly arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of Indica?

Page 9
The State of Jatala & Ors. vs Marwadan

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.

1. Whether the Xatali Community Members (Management and Regulation of Conduct) Act,
2022 is ultra vires the Constitution of Indica?
No, the Xatali Community Members (Management and Regulation of Conduct) Act, 2022 is not ultra
vires the Constitution of Indica, because the act made by the community was made by keeping in
mind the integrity and sovereignty of not only the community but of the country as whole, and the
Respondent published poem is not only against the Xatali community act but also it was an
unreasonable exercise of the freedom of speech and expression from the side Respondent i.e., poet.

2. Whether there is a hierarchical scheme in the idea of fundamental rights?

Yes, there is a hierarchical scheme in the idea of fundamental rights because NGO and the community
are public welfare group made to acknowledge the society beliefs and practice in general and to
safeguard public interest at large. Hence, the idea of hierarchical scheme in fundamental rights are
established to certain grounds of limitations so that public in general cannot misuse fundamental
rights over one another.

3. Whether the author's right to freedom and speech and expression violates the general
standard of morality or decency established by the community?
Yes, the author's right to freedom of speech and expression violates the general standard of morality
or decency established by the community, as the Xatali Community Members (Management and
Regulation of Conduct) Act, 2022 Chapter II prohibition and expression states that the member of
community shall not discuss publicly in a derogatory manner either in a written or any other forms
and also not to discuss publicly or initiate this discourse about the intimate acts that the persons
involved in and generally, the representation of women in such acts and also respect women and
womanhood.

4. Whether the right to freedom of speech and expression be curtailed on the ground that it is
violative of the religious sentiments of a particular community?
Yes, the right to freedom of speech and expression can be curtailed on the grounds that it is violative
of the religious sentiments of a particular community as Article 19 1 (a) imposed by the state, comes
with certain restrictions. It is in the context of Section 295A of IPC where it pertains an offence of
deliberate and malicious act intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion
or religious beliefs.
Page 10
The State of Jatala & Ors. vs Marwadan

5. Whether the right to access to the internet is a fundamental right under Article 21 of Indica?
Yes, the right to access to the internet is a fundamental right under Article 21 of Indica as the court
took the view that the right to be able to access the internet has been read into the fundamental rights
to life and liberty, as well as privacy under Article 21. The court added that it constitutes an essential
part of infrastructure of freedom of speech and expression.

6. Whether the 2019 amendment to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act,
2019 is manifestly arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of Indica?
No, the 2019 amendment to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2019 is not
manifestly arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of Indica because Article
14 describes about the right to equality in terms of law and Article 21 states about right to life and
personal liberty, so to safeguard them certain acts are essential in a country. UAPA deals with terrorist
activities amongst other things and it applies only to the people who are misusing their fundamental
rights. Hence, it is not violative in nature.

Page 11
The State of Jatala & Ors. vs Marwadan

ARGUMENTS IN ADVANCE

1) Whether the Xatali Community Members (Management and Regulation of Conduct) Act,
2022 is ultra vires the Constitution of Indica?
No, the Xatali Community Members (Management and Regulation of Conduct) Act, 2022 is not ultra
vires the Constitution of Indica, because the act made by the community was made by keeping in
mind the integrity and sovereignty of not only the community but of the country as whole. The poem
published by the Respondent i.e., Marwadan is not only against Xatali Community Members
(Management and Regulation of Conduct) Act, 2022 but also, it’s an unreasonable exercise of
freedom of speech and expression. The moral and the ethical aspect of the poem is corrupt. The act
of the community states that depicting women in a derogatory manner whether written or oral forms,
or discuss publicly or initiate a discourse act that person involved in and generally, the representation
of women in such acts or disrespecting the women and the womanhood is prohibitory under this act.
The Xatali community members worship female goddess in virgin form and the scriptures of Xatali
religion prohibits any lascivious description of female body, which makes the poem completely
unethical on the grounds mentioned in the act. The Respondent himself after being member of Xatali
community mutilate the religious sentiments of the community by violating the grounds of the
community act.

CASE LAW
Rev. Stainislaus vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors on 17 January, 1977
Under this case law he constitutional validity of the Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantraya
Adhiniyam, 1968, was challenged in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and the constitutional
validity of the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act,1967 was challenged in the High Court of Orissa.

Upholding the validity of both the acts HELD:

1. Article 25 guarantees to all persons right to freedom and conscience and the right freely to profess,
practice and propagate religion subject to public order, morality and health. The word 'propagate'
has been used in the Article as meaning to transmit or spread from person to person or from
place to place. The Article does not grant right to convert other person to one's own religion
but to transmit or spread one's religion by an exposition of its tenets. The freedom of religion
enshrined in Art. 25 is not guaranteed in respect of one religion only but cover all religions alike
which can be properly enjoyed by a person. if he exercises his right in a manner commensurate
with the like freedom of persons following other religion. What is freedom for one is freedom
Page 12
The State of Jatala & Ors. vs Marwadan
for the other in equal measure and there can, therefore, be no such thing as a fundamental right to
convert any person to one's own religion.
2. The Madhya Pradesh Act prohibits conversion from one religion to another by use of force,
allurement or fraudulent means and matters incidental thereto. Similarly, the
Orissa Act prohibits conversion by the use of force or by inducement or by any fraudulent means.
Both the statutes, therefore, clearly provide for the maintenance of public order because if forcible
conversion had not been prohibited that would have created public disorder in the States. The
expression "public order" has a wide connotation. Hence, the community act is for safeguarding
the interest and the public order that is why it is not ultra vires to the constitution.

Page 13
The State of Jatala & Ors. vs Marwadan

2) Whether there is a hierarchical scheme in the idea of fundamental rights?

Yes, there is a hierarchical scheme in the idea of fundamental rights because NGO and the community
are public welfare group made to acknowledge the society’s belief and practices in general and to
safeguard public interest at large. Hence, the idea of hierarchical scheme in fundamental rights are
established to certain grounds of limitations so that public in general cannot be misused, fundamental
rights over one another. Hierarchical scheme is important for the classification of the fundamental
rights, as all rights have their equal importance but the basic rights which human beings need for day-
to-day survival should be placed above any other fundamental right.
For example, even during the time of national emergency Article 21 i.e., Right to personal life and
liberty is not suspended which makes it supreme hierarchical than the other fundamental rights, it is
because even during the time of emergency the basic requirement for a person is to at least have
personal life and liberty which, if suspended would decrease the integrity and sovereignty of the
country. The importance of hierarchical scheme reflects the authenticity of fundamental rights.

CASE LAW
Rama Shanker Tewari vs State on 10 February, 1954

Under this case law it showed that there is hierarchy scheme showed in this where the laws made by
state is prevalent over F.R. The only exception to the freedom of speech and expression is a law
made by a State relating to certain specified matters. The only matter that is relevant to the enquiry
before us is matter "which undermines the security of, or tends to overthrow, the State". If the
impugned provisions of Section 15 can be said to be a law relating to such a matter, they would be
saved. Originally the Act was enacted to provide "against the publication of matter inciting to, or
encouraging, murder or violence." This states that there is a hierarchical scheme in the idea of
constitution.
Hence, proven from the above case law and statement that there is hierarchical scheme prevailed in
fundamental rights and other laws made by the government.

Page 14
The State of Jatala & Ors. vs Marwadan

3) Whether the author's right to freedom and speech and expression violates the general
standard of morality or decency established by the community?
Yes, the author's right to freedom of speech and expression violates the general standard of morality
or decency established by the community, as the Xatali Community Members (Management and
Regulation of Conduct) Act, 2022 Chapter II prohibition and expression states that the member of
community shall not discuss publicly in a derogatory manner either in a written or any other forms
and also not to discuss publicly or initiate this discourse about the intimate acts that the persons
involved in and generally, the representation of women in such acts and also respect women and
womanhood. The poem written by the Respondent was itself derogatory enough to not only hurt the
religious sentiments but also it was completely against the ethics of the society. Freedom of speech
and expression comes with restrictions which every society should bound over.
Section 295A in The Indian Penal Code 272, 295A. Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage
religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.
Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of
273 citizens of India, 274 by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations
or otherwise, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 4[three years], or
with fine, or with both.
CASE LAW:
Shreya Singhal vs U.O.I on 24 March, 2015
This case states unreasonable exercise of right to freedom and speech by misusing online platforms.
"66-A. Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc.-Any person
who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device, -
i. any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or
ii. any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance,
inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will,
persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device.
In the recent case BJP leader Nupur Sharma has been charged by the police in Thane’s Mumbai near
Mumbai once again for allegedly hurting the religious sentiments of Muslims during a TV debate.
Sharma has been accused of making objectionable remarks against the Prophet Muhammad. The
leader has been charged under several sections of the Indian Penal Code for 'promoting enmity,
outraging religious feelings’, ‘uttering words with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of
any person’, ‘deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of a class by
insulting its religion or religious beliefs’, and other offences based on a complaint by one Gufran
Page 15
The State of Jatala & Ors. vs Marwadan
Khan, a teacher.
Therefore, he stated that Marwadan i.e., Respondent deliberately wrote such a poem which was not
only hurting religious sentiments but was also completely against the act of Xatali Community.
Ignorantia juris non excusat, this Latin maxim means that Ignorance of Law is no excuse, therefore,
the Respondent even after knowing the community’s act misused his right which is Article 19.

Page 16
The State of Jatala & Ors. vs Marwadan
4) Whether the right to freedom of speech and expression be curtailed on the ground that it is
violative of the religious sentiments of a particular community?
Yes, the right to freedom of speech and expression can be curtailed on the grounds that it is violative
of the religious sentiments of a particular community as Article 19 1 (a) imposed by the state, comes
with certain restrictions. It is in the context of Section 295A of IPC where it pertains an offence of
deliberate and malicious act intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion
or religious beliefs. Freedom of speech and expression are based on certain grounds of restrictions
and if it is simultaneously read with Section 295A of IPC then rights in Article 19 gets subsidized as
hurting the religious sentiments by unreasonable exercise of Article 19 is ultra vires towards the
constitution, to safeguards the rights and interest of public in general restrictions have been made up
which states that in any terms if the persons religious sentiments are getting hurt then the right of
freedom of speech and expression can be curtailed.

CASE LAW:
Ramji Lal Modi vs The State Of U.P on 5 April, 1957
This case states that petition challenging the constitutional validity of s.295A of the Indian Penal
Code and for quashing the petitioner's conviction thereunder for publishing an article in a monthly
magazine of which he was the printer, publisher and the editor. It was contended on his behalf that
the impugned section infringed his fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression conferred
by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and was not a law imposing reasonable restrictions on the
right in the interests of public order under cl. (2) of Article 19, which alone could have afforded a
justification for it. Held, that s. 295A of the Indian Penal Code was well within the protection of Cl.
(2) of Article 19 of the Constitution and its validity was beyond question. The expression “in the
interests of” occurring in the amended Cl. (2) of Article 19 had the effect of making the protection
afforded by that clause very wide and a law not directly designed to maintain public order would well
be within its protection if such activities as it penalized had a tendency to cause public disorder.
Debi Soron v. The State of Bihar, A.I.R. (1954) Pat. 254, referred to.
It was absurd to suggest that insult to religion as an offence could have no bearing on public order so
as to attract cl. (2) Of Art. 19 in view of the provisions of Arts. 25 and 26 of the Constitution which,
while guaranteeing freedom of religion, expressly made it subject to public order.
Therefore, Article 25 and 26 i.e., freedom of religion is considered as a part of public order and issues
concerning to public matters cannot be unseen and that is why Article 19 (2) comes with reasonable
restrictions with speech and expression.

Page 17
The State of Jatala & Ors. vs Marwadan
5) Whether the right to access to the internet is a fundamental right under Article 21 of Indica?
Yes, the right to access to the internet is a fundamental right under Article 21 of Indica as the court
took the view that the right to be able to access the internet has been read into the fundamental rights
to life and liberty, as well as privacy under Article 21. The court added that it constitutes an essential
part of infrastructure of freedom of speech and expression. The Hon’ble supreme court has recognized
the right to freedom and expression over the medium of internet.

CASE LAWS:
In this recent judgement Faheema Shirin v. State of Kerala
The High court has recognized that mobile phones and internet access through it are part and parcel
of the day-to-day life. The court looked at resolutions adopted by the United Nations Human Rights
Council and the General Assembly which unequivocally point to the fact that how internet access
plays a key role in accessing information and its close link to education and knowledge. The court
took the view that the right to be able to access the internet has been read into the fundamental right
to life and liberty, as well as privacy under Article 21. The court added that it constitutes an essential
part of the infrastructure of freedom of speech and expression.
The Supreme court has declared access to internet a Fundamental right. A government cannot deprive
the citizen of fundamental rights. The ruling came on hearing of a plea in connection with blockade
in Jammu and Kashmir since August 5, the government widen the scope of Article 19 (1) (a) of the
constitution by making provisions on innovations of technology, and made access to internet as
fundamental right.
Shreya Singhal vs U.O.I on 24 March, 2015
This case law states that though right to internet is a fundamental right but comes with certain
restrictions.
69-A. Power to issue directions for blocking for public access of any information through any
computer resource. -
1. Where the Central Government or any of its officers specially authorized by it in this behalf is
satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do, in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of
India, defense of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order
2. or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above, it
may subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order,
direct any agency of the Government or intermediary to block for access by the public or cause
to be blocked for access by the public any information generated, transmitted, received, stored or
hosted in any computer resource.

Page 18
The State of Jatala & Ors. vs Marwadan
3. The procedure and safeguards subject to which such blocking for access by the public may be
carried out, shall be such as may be prescribed.
4. The intermediary who fails to comply with the direction issued under sub-section (1) shall be
punished with an imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be
liable to fine."
Therefore, going by more substantive vision that the socio – democratic theory of speech espouses,
the right to internet means to recognize expressly by the states. There is a pressing need for the state
to intervene and regulate the market and lay down the policy with regard to meaningful access to
internet. As internet is used on daily basis the dependency of people to access the internet is getting
more regular so there should be rules to safeguards the basic needs of the public, that is why the right
to access to internet is fundamental right under constitution of Indica.

Page 19
The State of Jatala & Ors. vs Marwadan

6) Whether the 2019 amendment to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act,
2019 is manifestly arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of Indica?
No, the 2019 amendment to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2019 is not
manifestly arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of Indica because Article
14 describes about the right to equality in terms of law and Article 21 states about right to life and
personal liberty, so to safeguard them certain acts are essential in a country. UAPA deals with terrorist
activities amongst other things and it applies only to the people who are misusing their fundamental
rights. Indica being a country democratic and diverse, different acts and regulations needs to be there
for safeguarding the public order, integrity and sovereignty of the country as whole. Everyone has
their different idea of interpretation in law but what here defines is that they have the proper
knowledge of using their rights in the correct manner. Using of rights by one person should not be
causing troubles to other’s right of freedom to do and follow his practices. Therefore, certain acts are
made by the government to help the general public so that the democratic environment of the country
is maintained in a dignified manner and hence, UAPA is not manifestly arbitrary and violative of
Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of Indica.

CASE LAW:
Gorakhpur Hospital Tragedy 2017
The National Security Act and Unlawful Activities Prevention Act were being invoked not only by
the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government in Uttar Pradesh, but by all governments that felt
threatened by the criticism against their policies and wanted to suppress dissent, according to Kafeel
Khan, pediatrician and activist. “I feel lucky that I am alive despite being in prison for about 500 days
and to remain as a refugee in my own country following state persecution. But there are thousands
languishing in jail for over 10 to 20 years under these laws,” he said, after presenting his book “The
Gorakhpur Hospital Tragedy: A Doctor’s Memoir of a Deadly Medical Crisis” at the Ernakulam Press
Club on Tuesday. Dr. Khan had hit the headlines after he alleged that oxygen shortage led to the
deaths of several children at the BRD Medical College in Gorakhpur in 2017. He was arrested on
January 29, 2020, for an address to students of the Aligarh Muslim University on the Citizenship
Amendment Act. Under this case law the government invoked UAPA against Dr. Kafeel Khan, has
written a letter to the United Nations Human Rights Commission informing them about “widespread
violations of international human right standards in India and misuse of draconian laws like NSA and
UAPA to suppress voices of dissent”.

Page 20
The State of Jatala & Ors. vs Marwadan

Hence, the above-mentioned case law suggests the very facts that the person was scapegoat of the
state politics where the arrest made against him was unlawful and also unjust which was later justified
by the court by stating that he is not liable under UAPA, so here in the case because of the unfair
politics the person got deprived of his right to quality and right to life and liberty and the infringement
of both resulted in deprivation of FR of an individual.

Page 21
The State of Jatala & Ors. vs Marwadan

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

In the light of the arguments presented, cases referred and authorities cited, the counsel for the
Appellants humbly pray this Hon’ble Court to:
1. Right to access internet is fundamental right under Art. 21 of Indica, denial of the same should not be
placed on the general public.
2. The law made by the religious community is in the accordance of the constitution that should be
safeguarded, as it concerns the issues regarding the integrity and sovereignty of the country and also
for the maintenance of the public order.
3. UAPA is passed by Government by keeping in mind the national security of the country, therefore
they were not violative of Articles 14 and 21, and the validities of UAPA cannot be questioned on the
basis of unreasonable exercise of Fundamental rights. Hence no relief should be granted in the aspect
of the petition filed in UAPA.
4. Orders as to costs
5. And to pass any such order as it may deem fit in the light of justice, equity and good conscience.

Place- Capital of Indica

Date- 10th October, 2022 S/d-
(Counsels for the Appellant)

Page 22