The State of Jatala & Ors. vs Marwadan: Fundamental Rights Case

The State of Jatala & Ors.
vs Marwadan
3rd HIMACHAL PRADESH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2022
MOOT CODE: TC-316_R
RESPONDENT 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 CONSTITUTION OF INDICA
IN THE MATTER OF
The State of Jatala & Ors. ...APPELLANT
vs.
Marwadan ..... RESPONDENTS
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS

COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDICA
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

The State of Jatala & Ors. vs Marwadan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................... 02
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES....................................................................................... 03
WEBSITE REFERRED……………………………………………………………...04
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ......................................................................... 05
STATEMENTS OF ISSUES....................................................................................... 06
STATEMENT OF FACTS.......................................................................................... 07
SUMMARY OF ARGUEMENTS ............................................................................. 11
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ..................................................................................... 13
PRAYER FOR RELIEF ............................................................................................. 24

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviation Full Form
S. Section
Art. Article
SCC Supreme Court Cases
H.C High Court
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
Consti. Constitution
UAPA Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act
J. Judge
Hon’ble Honourable
Ors. Others
FR Fundamental Rights
Comm. Community
Cl. Clause
No. Number
Div. Division
SC Supreme Court
Vs. Versus
Memorandum for the Appellant Page | 2

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
NAME OF THE CASE CITATION

Sr.
No.
1. Sri Dulal Ghosh vs The State of CRL PETN

Tripura to Be ... on 26 February, NO. 08 of 2022
2021
2. Rama Shanker Tewari vs State on AIR 1954 ALL
10 February, 1954 121
3. Ranjit D. Udeshi vs State of 1965 AIR 881
Maharashtra on 19 August, 1964 1965 SCR (1)
65
4. Gorakhpur Hospital Tragedy YEAR 2017
5. Ram Nandan vs The State AIR 1959 ALL
101, 1959

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.indiatimes.com, http://timesofindia.com
7. www.livelaw.in, http://www.livelaw.in

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEALANT HAS

APPROACHEDTHIS
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 (1) 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

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?

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.
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
9. 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).
10. The issue garnered attention from both national and international media.
11. 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.
12. 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.
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. 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.

15. Against the internet ban, Marwadan contended that it is violative of his freedom
of speech and expression.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. The three petitions were clubbed by the High Court of Jatala and heard together
where Marwadan claimed the following –
i That the right to expression was enshrined in the Constitution as fundamental and
cannot be abridged by any law of the land.
ii That the provisions of Section 2 of the Xatali Community Members (Management
and Regulation of Conduct) Act, 2022 was unconstitutional. iii. 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.
iii 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.
iv 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.
v That the right to access the internet was a fundamental right under the
Constitution of Indica.
19. The High Court declined to provide any relief to the NGO or the members of the
Xatali 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.

20. The Supreme Court of Indica took note of the matter and constituted a thirteen-
judge bench to decide the matter.
ISSUE RAISED.
i. Whether the Xatali Community Members (Management and Regulation of
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?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
Yes, The Xatali Community Members (Management and Regulation of Conduct)
Act, 2022 is ultra vires the Constitution of Indica because Chapter 2 of Xatali
Community Act that is prohibition on expression states that, subject to the conjoint
reading of provision with FR freedom guaranteed under the constitution and the right
to freedom of religion, clarifies that act made by the community should be in
accordance of the constitution that means in any manner if, it is jeopardizing validity
of the constitution then it would be considered as null and void.

Yes, there is a hierarchical scheme in the idea of fundamental rights because
fundamental right of freedom and speech holds importance comparatively to
practicing freedom of religion, there are six fundamental rights which were originally
provided by the constitution that are: a. Right to equality
b. Right to freedom
c. Right against exploitation
d. Right to freedom of religion
e. Cultural and educational rights
f. Right to constitutional remedies.
3. Whether the author's right to freedom and speech and expression violates
the general standard of morality or decency established by the community?
No, the author's right to freedom and speech and expression violates the general
standard of morality or decency established by the community because the poem
written by him was under the scope of freedom of speech and expression which an
ordinary man would exercise in his day-to-day life. According to the points
mentioned by the community and NGO, stating that the morality and decency
standards of the society getting jeopardize were falsely stated, as what the respondent
did was mere exercise of his rights and art. 19 includes freedom of speech and what
he published in the poem was not exceeding the said restriction laid by the
constitution.

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?
No, 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 because freedom of
speech and expression shows that all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech
and expression. This implies that all citizens have the right to express their views and
opinions freely. This includes not only words of mouth, but also a speech by way of
writings, pictures, movies, banners, etc.
5. Whether the right to access to the internet is a fundamental right under Article 21 of
Indica?
Yes, right to access to the internet is a fundamental right under Article 21 of Indica
because right to access internet is the basic right given by constitution to an individual
which cannot be curtailed by the government without any just cause. The court took
the view that the right to be able to access the internet has been read into the FR of
life and personal liberty, as well as privacy under Art. 21 and the court also added
that it constitutes an essential part of the 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?
Yes, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2019 is manifestly
arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of Indica because
the act done by Michael Joseph was done under the provoking circumstances for
which holding him liable under UAPA would be unjust as the definition of UAPA
states that The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (‘Act’) is meant to
outlaw and penalise unlawful and terrorist activities, which pose a threat to the
integrity and sovereignty of Indica.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Yes, The Xatali Community Members (Management and Regulation of Conduct)
Act, 2022 is ultra vires the Constitution of Indica because Chapter 2 of Xatali
Community Act that is prohibition on expression states that, subject to the conjoint
reading of provision with FR freedom guaranteed under the constitution and the right
to freedom of religion, clarifies that act made by the community should be in
accordance of the constitution that means in any manner if, it is jeopardizing validity
of the constitution then it would be considered as null and void. So, here in this case
the Respondent did not violated his article 19 ,as, the poem he published was in the
scope of reasonable restrictions mentioned in article 19 (2) and also the act made by
community cannot stop the general Public from exercising their FR prescribed by the
constitution and the decision made by the Hon’ble High Court where it states that
Respondent has not exceeds the legitimate domain of the expression and wherein
such cases where community act are ultra vires to the constitution should not have
the prevailing effects as the constitution of Indica says that it is a sovereign, socialist,
secular and democratic republic, assures its citizen justice, equality and liberty and
endeavours to promote fraternity. Constitution rights are the rights of utmost
importance in the life of general public and to safeguard them is the duty of rules and
regulation so that a diverse country like indica can stay in a peaceful environment.
An aggrieved party can approach the court under Article 32, 136, and 226 of the
constitution. The court may quash the impugned order which is ultra vires. The
government enactments should comply with the rule of law, this should be under the
supervision of a judicial body.
CASE LAW
1. Sri Dulal Ghosh vs The State of Tripura to Be ... on 26 February, 2021
Under this case S.295A does not penalize any and every act of insult to or attempt to
insult the religion or the religious beliefs of a class of citizens but it penalises only
those acts of insults to or those varieties of attempts to insult the religion or the

religious beliefs of a class of citizens, which are perpetrated with the deliberate and
malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of that class.
Henceforth, any act made by the community if jeopardizing the legality of the
constitution or the law described under constitution then that act would be considered
as ultra vires.


Yes, there is a hierarchical scheme in the idea of fundamental rights because
fundamental right of freedom and speech holds importance comparatively to
practicing freedom of religion, there are six fundamental rights which were originally
provided by the constitution that are: a. Right to equality
b. Right to freedom
c. Right against exploitation
d. Right to freedom of religion
e. Cultural and educational rights
f. Right to constitutional remedies
Hence, 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 and 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.
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.

3. Whether the author's right to freedom and speech and expression violates the
general standard of morality or decency established by the community?
No, the author's right to freedom and speech and expression violates the general
standard of morality or decency established by the community because the poem
written by him was under the scope of freedom of speech and expression which an
ordinary man would exercise in his day-to-day life. According to the points
mentioned by the community and NGO, stating that the morality and decency
standards of the society getting jeopardize were falsely stated, as what the respondent
did was mere exercise of his rights and art. 19 includes freedom of speech and what
he published in the poem was not exceeding the said restriction laid by the
constitution. Poem depiction is mere fiction and pure imagination of the poem
counting it under violation would be considered against art 19 prescribed by the
constitution, as if, this is considered as violation then how can a person freely express
his opinion and a writer needs freedom to think to give content his imagination should
be wide and putting restriction would deplete the thinking process of any content
creator.
Henceforth, the freedom of speech and expression used by the respondent is done
within the criteria of the restriction prescribed in clause 2 art. 19 and the decision
given by the H.C. also conveys the same thing that the scope of art. 19 was
maintained.
CASE LAWS
Under this case it was laid down that, it is further laid down in the amendment that
no law in force immediately before the commencement of the Constitution which is
consistent with Article 19 as amended shall be deemed to be void or ever to have
become void on the ground only that being law which takes away or abridges the
freedom of speech and expression, its operation was not saved by clause (2) of the
article originally initiated.
"This court has characterized the freedom of speech and that of the press as
fundamental personal rights and liberties. The phrase is not an empty one and was
not lightly used. It reflects the belief of the framers of the Constitution that exercise

of the rights lies at the foundation of free government by free men. It stresses.... the
importance of preventing the restriction of enjoyment of these liberties" (pages 164-
165 of the Lawyers' Edition). "Freedom of the press and freedom of speech are the
same, being distinguished only in the form of utterance. The 'liberty of the press' is
not confined to newspapers and periodicals, but necessarily embraces pamphlets,
leaflets and every sort of publication affording a vehicle of information and opinion".
Ranjit D. Udeshi vs State of Maharashtra on 19 August, 1964

The appellant, a bookseller, sold a copy of the unexpurgated edition of “Lady
Chatterley's Lover".
He was convicted under s. 292, Indian Penal Code. In his appeal to the Supreme
Court, he contended that: (i) the section was void because it violated the freedom of
speech and expression guaranteed by Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India., (ii)
even if the section was valid, the book was not obscene and (iii) it must be shown by
the prosecution that he sold the book with the intention to corrupt the purchaser, that
is to say, that he knew that the book was obscene.
HELD :(i) the section embodies a reasonable restriction upon the freedom of speech
and expression guaranteed by Art.19 and does not fall outside the limits of restriction
permitted by cl. (2) of the Article.
Under this case -Mr. Garg who argued the case with ability, raised these two issues.
He bases his argument on three legal grounds which briefly are:
i that s. 292 of the Indian Penal Code is void as being an impermissible and vague
restriction on the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Art. 19 (1) (a)
and is not saved by cl. (2) of the same article;
ii that even if s. 292, Indian Penal Code, be valid, the book is not obscene if the
section is properly construed and the book as a whole is considered.
Here the provision itself was not fair on its face and if discrimination resulted it was
not because of unlawful administration by the District Magistrate. All that was
decided in the latter case is that "lack of equal protection is found in the actual
existence of an invidious discrimination, not in the mere possibility that there will be
like or similar cases which will be treated more leniently."
Hence, the above case law and the decision made by the court concludes that freedom
of speech though comes with a restriction but it cannot be imposed unreasonably and
in a unjustified manner.

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?
No, 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 because freedom of
speech and expression shows that all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech
and expression. This implies that all citizens have the right to express their views and
opinions freely. This includes not only words of mouth, but also a speech by way of
writings, pictures, movies, banners, etc., and the intension respondent here was not
to wound the religious sentiments of the community but rather to follow the work he
does and that was the gist of claims made by the appellant side, which eventually
turned out to be vague as the respondent used freedom of speech within the ambit of
the definition and restrictions provided by the constitution. Sec. 295A of IPC states
that a person should not hurt religious sentiment but it does not include that every
word stated by the person regarding the religious is against the value of religion or
offence against religion. Here marwadan i.e.; Respondent has no intension of hurting
the religious sentiment rather what he depicted in his poem was complete fictional
and has no intension to outage the modesty of the women or either to hurt the religious
sentiment of a particular community as marwadan does not include animate object
like insulting the religious sentiment or object like depicting women in a lascivious
manner, his poem was completely based on fiction. As Per sub-Sec. 295 the principle
underlying offences relating to religion marwadan also believes that no man should
insult the religion of another and what he did here was not an offence and nor did he
attempt to commit it.
CASE LAW
Ranjit D. Udeshi vs State of Maharashtra on 19 August, 1964
The appellant, a bookseller, sold a copy of the unexpurgated edition of “Lady
Chatterley's Lover".
He was convicted under s. 292, Indian Penal Code. In his appeal to the Supreme
Court, he contended that: (i) the section was void because it violated the freedom of
speech and expression guaranteed by Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India., (ii)
even if the section was valid, the book was not obscene and (iii) it must be shown by

the prosecution that he sold the book with the intention to corrupt the purchaser, that
is to say, that he knew that the book was obscene.
HELD :(i) the section embodies a reasonable restriction upon the freedom of speech
and expression guaranteed by Art.19 and does not fall outside the limits of restriction
permitted by cl. (2) of the Article.
Here the provision itself was not fair on its face and if discrimination resulted it was
not because of unlawful administration by the District Magistrate. All that was
decided in the latter case is that "lack of equal protection is found in the actual
existence of an invidious discrimination, not in the mere possibility that there will be
like or similar cases which will be treated more leniently."
Hence, the above case law and the decision made by the court concludes that freedom
of speech though comes with a restriction but it cannot be imposed unreasonably and
in an unjustified manner.
Under this case it was laid down that, It is further laid down in the amendment that
no law in force immediately before the commencement of the Constitution which is
consistent with Article 19 as amended shall be deemed to be void or ever to have
become void on the ground only that being law which takes away or abridges the
freedom of speech and expression, Its operation was not saved by clause (2) of the
article originally initiated.
"This court has characterized the freedom of speech and that of the press as
fundamental personal rights and liberties. The phrase is not an empty one and was
not lightly used. It reflects the belief of the framers of the Constitution that exercise
of the rights lies at the foundation of free government by free men. It stresses.... the
importance of preventing the restriction of enjoyment of these liberties" (pages 164-
165 of the Lawyers' Edition). "Freedom of the press and freedom of speech are the
same, being distinguished only in the form of utterance. The 'liberty of the press' is
not confined to newspapers and periodicals, but necessarily embraces pamphlets,
leaflets and every sort of publication affording a vehicle of information and opinion".
Hence, on the mere basis that someone in general way used his freedom of speech in
a manner which other person was not expecting him to cannot curtailed his right to
freedom of speech and expression, also if a person is using his right in the limitation
prescribed then that persons using of rights cannot be questioned on the mere fact that
the other person sentiment got hurt without any reasonable justification.

5. Whether the right to access to the internet is a fundamental right under Article
21 of Indica?
Yes, right to access to the internet is a fundamental right under Article 21 of Indica
because right to access internet is the basic right given by constitution to an individual
which cannot be curtailed by the government without any just cause. The court took
the view that the right to be able to access the internet has been read into the FR of
life and personal liberty, as well as privacy under Art. 21 and the court also added
that it constitutes an essential part of the infrastructure of freedom of speech and
expression. Fundamental right given under Art 21 of the constitution of indica cannot
be taken away, for e.g., suspending internet services not only obstruct conducting
businesses online rather it also obstructs an individual from their source of livelihood,
even in case of emergencies, so what happened with marwadan where his poem got
removed from the internet and not only that but the state of jatala got denial of access
to internet in other words the internet was banned in the state of jatala by the union
government without any just cause, which shows that not only marwadan but that
people of state also got deprived of right to access internet which is a fundamental
right under Art. 21.
CASE LAW
Sri Dulal Ghosh vs The State of Tripura to Be ... on 26 February, 2021
With rapid spread of social media platforms, the right to free speech has got an
entirely new dimension. The words and expressions are placed in social media which
have a more lasting effect as compared to transient impact that oral conversation
particularly in front of a small audience may have. Such social media posts also have
the propensity to reach a vast number of people with supersonic speed. They
transgress international boundaries and often times evoke excited responses. The
society as well as the laws are grappling to keep pace with such rapid changes. What
however continues to hold good is that the right of free speech guaranteed under
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
Kerala High Court Declares ‘Right to Access Internet’ as a Fundamental

Right
The Kerala High Court in a monumental decision has held ‘Right to Internet

Access’ as a fundamental right. The Court declared that the right to have access to
Internet becomes the part of right to education as well as right to privacy under Article
21 of the Constitution of India.
The petition was filed by Faheema Shirin, a hostel resident and student of Sree
Narayana College, Chelanur, Kozhikode against the discriminatory girls’ hostel
rules, specifically banning use of mobile phones from 6 PM to 10 PM which
restricted them from accessing internet. The petitioner was subsequently arbitrarily
expelled from the hostel on protesting against the rules.
Hence, it concludes that ‘right to access internet’ is a fundamental right and curtailing
it would be against the rules and regulation laid by the constitution and followed by
the court in the above-mentioned case laws.

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?
Yes, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2019 is manifestly
arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of Indica because the
act done by Michael Joseph was done under the provoking circumstances for which
holding him liable under UAPA would be unjust as the definition of UAPA states
that The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (‘Act’) is meant to outlaw and
penalise unlawful and terrorist activities, which pose a threat to the integrity and
sovereignty of Indica. It also provides wide-ranging powers to the Central
Government to designate organizations as terrorist organizations and also prescribes
the penalties for taking part in the activities of such organizations. The principle of
reasonableness, which legally as well as philosophically, is an essential element of
equality or non-arbitrariness pervades Article 14 like a brooding omnipresence and
the procedure contemplated by Article 21 must answer the test of reasonableness in
order to be in conformity with Article 14.
CASE LAW
Gorakhpur Hospital Tragedy
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, paediatrician 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”. 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.
Ram Nandan vs The State

Under this state that the Supreme Court finally held the Criminal Law (Amendment)
Act, 1908 as unconstitutional. Through multiple amendments in the years 1951 and
1963 various reasonable restrictions were added to Article 19 of the Constitution to
outsource the Governmental authority over the fundamental rights granted to the
citizens. The first amendment ensured the introduction of the Ninth Schedule which
the government once hoped to use upon any legislation, to keep it outside the purview
of the Judicial Review. The 16th Amendment however, created a stepping stone to
the enactment of UAPA in 1967 to silence down the voices or critics that the
government had to face during the 1962 Indo-China war.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

1. 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. Relief should be granted on unnecessary curbing of internet access as it is a
fundamental right.
3. Freedom to religion should not go beyond the moral prescription of universal
declaration of human rights hence relief should be granted for unnecessary
questioning on the poem.
4. Community act sec 2 being unconstitutional should be curtailed.
5. Right to expression was enshrined in constitution as fundamental right and cannot
abridged by any law of the land
Place- Capital of Indica

Date- 10th October, 2022 S/d-
(Counsels of Respondent)

The State of Jatala & Ors. vs Marwadan: Fundamental Rights Case

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

The State of Jatala & Ors. vs Marwadan: Fundamental Rights Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The State of Jatala & Ors.

3rd HIMACHAL PRADESH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, MOOT COURT

RESPONDENT WRIT JURISDICTION

BEFORE THE HON’BLE

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

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

The State of Jatala & Ors. ...APPELLANT

Marwadan ..... RESPONDENTS

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................... 02

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ......................................................................... 05

SUMMARY OF ARGUEMENTS ............................................................................. 11

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ..................................................................................... 13

PRAYER FOR RELIEF ............................................................................................. 24

Abbreviation Full Form

SCC Supreme Court Cases

H.C High Court

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

UAPA Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act

Memorandum for the Appellant Page | 2

1. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950

NAME OF THE CASE CITATION

1. Sri Dulal Ghosh vs The State of CRL PETN

Memorandum for the Appellant Page | 3

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

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

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

Memorandum for the Appellant Page | 4

IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEALANT HAS

ARTICLE 132 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDICA:

Memorandum for the Appellant Page | 5

1. Whether the Xatali Community Members (Management and Regulation of

Memorandum for the Appellant Page | 6

The state of Jatala and Ors.

1. The Appellant No. 1 state of Jatala.

Memorandum for the Appellant Page | 7

Memorandum for the Appellant Page | 8

Memorandum for the Appellant Page | 9

Memorandum for the Appellant Page | 10

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

Memorandum for the Appellant Page | 11

4. Whether the right to freedom of speech and expression be curtailed on the

6. Whether the 2019 amendment to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)

Memorandum for the Appellant Page | 12

1. Whether the Xatali Community Members (Management and Regulation of

Memorandum for the Appellant Page | 13

Memorandum for the Appellant Page | 14

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

Memorandum for the Appellant Page | 15

Memorandum for the Appellant Page | 16

Ranjit D. Udeshi vs State of Maharashtra on 19 August, 1964

Memorandum for the Appellant Page | 17

Memorandum for the Appellant Page | 18

Memorandum for the Appellant Page | 19

Kerala High Court Declares ‘Right to Access Internet’ as a Fundamental

Memorandum for the Appellant Page | 20

Memorandum for the Appellant Page | 21

6. Whether the 2019 amendment to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)

Memorandum for the Appellant Page | 22

Ram Nandan vs The State

Memorandum for the Appellant Page | 23

PRAYER FOR RELIEF