Respondents Arguments

It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the statements given by the
petitioners amount to sedition as these statements are said publicly to spread hatred and these are
against the Rashtrakuta
For an offence to be committed under the Section 124A of the RPC, following ingredients are
needed to be satisfied-
This section requires two essentials:
1. Bringing or attempting to bring into hatred or contempt or exciting or attempting to excite
disaffection towards, the Government of India.
2. Such act or attempt may be done (i) by words, either spoken or written, or (ii) by signs, (iii) by
visible representation.
Here in the present case, Mohan Singh is only an aficionado of cricket and he was supporting an
enemy nation(Sakistan) and he has stated in the support of Sakistan, these statements are
spreading hatred and there therefore satisfy the conditions for a case of sedition as here is attempt
to spread hatred and that is done by words.
● As seen in the case of Vinod Dua v. Union of India and Ors the apex court had quashed
the FIRs for a video in which he remarked against the Prime Minister on his handling of
the COVID crisis. In doing so, the Court reiterated the guidelines laid down in Kedar
Nath Singh v State of Bihar (1962), that a sedition charge is attracted only when
incitement to violence, or the tendency or intention to create public disorder can be
proven. As mentioned above that Mohan Singh has given statements in support of enemy
country in front the public and that clearly shows the attempt to sedition, this is showing
tendency of creating any public disorder, so, FIRs against him should not be quashed.
In a charge under section 124-A of the penal code, the prosecution must prove to the hilt that
the intention of the writer or the speaker, whoever he may be, is to bring into hatred or
contempt or excite or attempt to excite disaffection towards the Government established by
law. The essence of the crime of sedition, therefore, consists in the intention with which the
language is used and what is rendered punishable by section 124-A of the penal code is the
intentional attempt, successful or otherwise, the rouse as against Government the feelings
enumerated in the section.
But in the present case there has been a proper showcase of mala-fide intention as there
statements passed by the petitioners are in the support of the enemy nation and both of them
has spoken publicly. There was clear visibility of mala-fide intention which is the main
ingredient to constitute an offence under the Section 124A of RPC. Therefore FIR should
stand.
● As an FIR is filed again Mr. Rangrajan who is a reporter and he has asked questions that
can disrupt public order and the questions shows the malafide intention of Mr Rangrajan.
The FIR is very valid as the actionsof Mr Rangrajan amount to sedition in the given
circumstances.
● The legal position of sedition has been reiterated numerous times, most notably in the
instances of Common Cause v. Union of India and Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of Andhra
Pradesh (both from 1997). (2018). The Supreme Court advised the courts to use prudence
while using sedition allegations in each of these cases. The Kedar Nath case's guiding
principles were to be followed by the courts. It was reiterated that sedition charges cannot
be brought just for criticising the government or its policies. But in present case sedition
charges are braught for supporting enemy nation.
● Here in both cases of Mr. Mohan Singh as well as Mr. Rangrajan, due procedurehas been
followed before registering FIRs and that is very similar to these cases and hence these
FIRs should stand and also there were very apprehensions of disrupting public order and
harm to the image of the State and therefore, the offence has been committed and the
FIRs should not be quashed.
● In very infamous Toolkit case i.e. State v. Disha A. Ravi (2021) the Delhi high court has
held that in each democratic nation, citizens are the conscience guards of the government.
But here Mr. Mohan Singh and Mr. Rangrajan are trying to support enemy nation and
this is totally against the country and government established by law. Therefore FIRs
should stand.
● Here in this case Rangrajan is going beyond restrictions on fundamental right to free
speech and FIRs against him are apolivery just. And hence these should not be quashed.