Team Code: E1

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF SAKET

ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. _ OF 2022

IN THE MATTERS OF

A ….PETITIONER

v.

THE UNION OF VAISHALI & ANR. ….RESPONDENTS

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HONOURABLE CHIEF

JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE HIGH COURT
OF SAKET

1
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PETITIONER
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS …………………………………………………………

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

……………………………………………………………...5

1. STATUTES ……………………………………………………………………..5

2. TABLE OF CASES …………………………………………………………….5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

……………………………………………………..6

STATEMENT OF FACTS

………………………………………………………………..7

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

……………………………………………………………….8

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS …………………………………………………………9

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED …………………………………………………………...10

1. THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF VAISHALI IS MAINTAINABLE……………………….10
1.1. The petition before the Hon’ble High Court comes within the
purview of a Public Interest
Litigation………………………………………..10
1.2. The petition has
locus standi under Article 226 of the Constitution for violation of
Articles 14, 19 and 21……………………………….10

2. SECTION 124A OF THE IPC IS VIOLATIVE OF FUNDAMENTAL

RIGHTS ENSHRINED UNDER PART III OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
VAISHALI.

2
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PETITIONER
 2.1. Section 124A of the IPC violates Article 14 of the Constitution of
Vaishali……………………………………………………………………12
2.2. Section 124A of the IPC violates Article 19 of the Constitution of
Vaishali……………………………………………………………………13
2.3. Section 124A of the IPC violates Article 21 of the Constitution of
Vaishali……………………………………………………………………15

3. NASEEM SHAIHK SHOULD BE RELEASED PROMPTLY……………

16

3.1. Shaihk has not committed offence under section 124A of the Vaishali
Penal Code………………………………………………………………..16
3.2. of Section 124A against Naseem has violated Supreme Court
guidelines…………………………………………………………………18

PRAYER FOR RELIEF ………………………………………………………………..20

3
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PETITIONER
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And
¶ Paragraph
§ Section
A.I.R. All India Reporter
ALL ER All England Law Reports
Anr. Another
Art Article
CONST Constitution
Ed Edition
HL House of Lords
Ins. Instituted
Ors. Others
S.C. Supreme Court
S.C.C. Supreme Court Cases
S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports
Sec Section
Subs. Substituted
v. Versus
V.P.C. Vaishali Penal Code

4
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PETITIONER
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

A. STATUTES
1. Constitution of Vaishali, 1950
2. Vaishali Penal Code, 1860
3. The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971

B. TABLE OF CASES
1. Avais v. Hartford Social Club Ltd., (1969) 1 ALL ER 130 HL
2. Francis Coralie Mullin vs The Administrator, Union territory of Delhi & Ors, AIR
1981 SC 746
3. Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955
4. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597
5. People’s Union for Democratic Rights & Others v. Union of India & Ors. (1982) 3
SCC 235
6. Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 124, 1950 SCR 594
7. S. Rangarajan Vs. P. Jagjivan Ram and Ors. (1989) 2 SCC 574
8. Sanskar Marathe vs The State Of Maharashtra & Anr Criminal PIL No. 3 Of 2015
9. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, 2015 (5) SCC 1
10. Virendra v. The State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 896

5
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PETITIONER
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court under Art. 226(1) of the Constitution.

Article 226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs

(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout
the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority,
including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or
writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto
and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III
and for any other purpose.

6
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PETITIONER
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Naseem Shaihk is a political cartoonist in a leading newspaper. He published on web,

cartoon in which a caricature of Parliament and Constitution was made. For which a
F.I.R under section 124-A of Vaishali Penal Code was lodged against him at Khadki
police station for commission of an offence of sedition. In the F.I.R it is alleged that
by the caricature Naseem not only defamed the Parliament, the Constitution of India
but also attempted to spread hatred and disrespect against the Government. It is
further alleged that the act of Naseem Shaikh amount to disrespect to the national
emblems. It also amount of creating disharmony amongst the society at large.

2. On 09 Sept. 2021, he was arrested and produced before the magistrate. Naseem
refused to make an application for bail till the charges of sedition were dropped.
Therefore he was languishing in jail on the charge of sedition.

3. As per the belief of Naseem he was not fit for to be charged for sedition. As he
published the cartoon on the web-site, by no stretch of imagination it could be alleged
that he was attempted to spread hatred.

4. According to Naseem his act is part of his right to freedom of speech and expression.

5. A public spirited lawyer moved a criminal PIL for release of Naseem, in the High
Court of Saket. The State of Saket is a part of federation Vaishali.

7
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PETITIONER
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. WHETHER THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION IS MAINTAINABLE?

2. WHETHER SECTION 124A OF THE IPC IS VIOLATIVE OF

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT ENSHRINED UNDER PART III OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF VAISHALI?

3. WHETHER NASEEM SHAIHK SHOULD BE RELEASED?

8
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PETITIONER
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 IS

MAINTAINABLE.

The petition before the Hon’ble High Court comes within the purview of a Public Interest
Litigation. PILs are accepted by courts when filed by public spirited individuals and for the
benefit of the public. Article 226 provides for constitutional remedies by High Court for
violation of fundamental rights. The petition has locus standi under Article 226 of the
Constitution for violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21.

2. SECTION 124A OF THE IPC IS VIOLATIVE OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

ENSHRINED UNDER PART III OF THE CONSTITUTION OF VAISHALI.

The law of sedition under section124A of the IPC is an obsolete law and has an undemocratic
nature. It is in direct conflict with the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution.
Articles 14, 19 and 21, which corresponds to rights to equality, rights to freedom and right to
life and personal liberty are all being violated by this section.

Section 124A, being violative of the golden triangle, should be repealed immediately due to it
being contrary to the spirit of the Constitution.

3. NASEEM SHAIHK SHOULD BE RELEASED PROMPTLY.

Naseem Shaihk did not commit any offence and is not chargeable under sec 124A for
sedition. Him posting caricatures of the Parliament and the Constitution will not attract sec
124A and he needs to be acquitted. The arrest and detention of Naseem fpr sedition is also in
violation of Supreme Court guidelines and hence unacceptable.

9
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PETITIONER
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF VAISHALI IS MAINTAINABLE.

1.1. The petition before the Hon’ble High Court comes within the purview of a Public
Interest Litigation.

Black’s Law Dictionary defines Public Interest as: “Something in which the public, the
community at large, has some pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights
or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything so narrow as mere curiosity, or as the
interests of the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest
shared by citizens generally in affairs of local, state or national Government.”1

In People’s Union for Democratic Rights & Others v. Union of India & Others, 2 the Hon’ble
court defined Public Interest Litigation and observed that “Public interest litigation is a
cooperative or collaborative effort by the petitioner, the State of public authority and the
judiciary to secure observance of constitutional or basic human rights, benefits and privileges
upon poor, downtrodden and vulnerable sections of the society.”

The petition before the Hon’ble High Court is the public interest litigation filed by a public
spirited lawyer3, in view of the society at large, to mitigate the misuse of a draconian
provision and to render it unconstitutional.

1.2. The petition has locus standi under Article 226 of the Constitution for violation
of Articles 14, 19 and 21.

The actions of the State is arbitrary and without any justification which is not permissible
under Art 14 of the Constitution and hence infringes it. Naseem Shaihk has the fundamental
right of freedom of speech and expression enshrined to him under Art 19(1)(a) which is being

1
Garner B.A., Black’s Law Dictionary, (9th ed., 2009)
2
(1982) 3 SCC 235
3
Moot Proposition, ¶5

10
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PETITIONER
violated on unreasonable grounds. The personal liberty enshrined under Art 21 is also being
curbed through his arrest and detention even though he is not at fault for anything.

Hence, Naseem Shaihk, who is a political cartoonist 4 has his fundamental rights under
Articles 14, 19 and 21 infringed by the respondents which attracts the provisions of Article
226 of the Constitution and thereby gives the petitioner the locus standi in this case to file a
writ petition to the Hon’ble High Court.

2. SECTION 124A OF THE IPC IS VIOLATIVE OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

ENSHRINED UNDER PART III OF THE CONSTITUTION OF VAISHALI.

The sedition law was introduced as an offence by Thomas Macaulay in the year 1837 5. The
reason for its incorporation in the draft was the increase in rebel by the Vaishali
revolutionaries against the company rulers. The British seeing that the Vaishalis were
spreading hatred against them felt the need of a law which can suppress their rebel. As a
result, the law of Sedition was introduced in the draft of Vaishali Penal Code. However, the
Law of Sedition was not present in the original Vaishali Penal Code of 1860 6. It was in 1870
when due to rising rebels and unrest, the British government amended the Vaishali Penal
Code and inserted Sec 124A.

Section 124A7 reads,

“Sedition—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 with Vaishali
shall be punished 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.
Explanation 1. The expression “disaffection” includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity.
Explanation 2. Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the Government with
a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to excite
hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.8

4
Ibid, ¶1
5
Draft Vaishali Penal Code, clause 113
6
Vaishali Penal Code, Act 45 of 1860
7
Ins. by Act 27 of 1870, s. 5 and subs. by Act 4 of 1898, s. 4, for s. 124A
8
Supra note 6, § 124A

11
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PETITIONER
Explanation 3. Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of
the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do
not constitute an offence under this section.”9

The law of sedition under section124A of the IPC is an obsolete law and has an undemocratic
nature. The Colonial Government in Vaishali inserted Section 124A in the code for the
purpose of suppressing the Vaishali voice. It was one of the many draconian laws enacted to
stifle any voices of dissent at that time. Sedition was not acceptable to the framers of the
Constitution as a restriction on the freedom of speech and expression, but it remained as it is
in the penal statute post-independence.

In today’s time, where free speech is considered to be another pillar of democracy, such laws
constitute unreasonable restrictions and hinder the free and full exercise of the right to
freedom of speech and expression. They are in direct conflict with the fundamental rights
enshrined in the Constitution such as Articles 14, 19 and 21. There are many other sufficient
laws to prosecute persons who are guilty of spreading hatred against the Government and
State and this draconian and ambiguous law should find no place in Vaishali Penal Code and
should be repealed immediately being contrary to the spirit of the Constitution.

2.1. Section 124A of the IPC violates Article 14 of the Constitution of Vaishali.

Equality is one of the magnificent corner stone of democracy. This equality is enshrined in
the Article 14 of the Constitution which envisages guaranteeing every person the right to
equality before law and equal protection of law 10. The Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v.
Union of India11, clearly ruled out the room for arbitrariness. It held that: “Article 14 strikes
at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. The principle
of reasonableness, which logically and philosophically, is an essential element of equality or
non-arbitrariness, pervades Article 14 like a brooding omnipresence.”12

9
Id
10
VAISHALI CONST, art 14
11
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597
12
Ibid

12
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PETITIONER
The VPC defines “disaffection” to include disloyalty and all feelings of enmity but excludes
“disapprobation” of the measures and actions of the Government from the scope of this
provision13. Although the Court have defined the term “disaffection” to be a positive aversion
against the government and not mere absence of affection, there exists an inherent ambiguity
between a harmless disapprobation and a failed attempt at excitement of disaffection.

A statement innocent of the intention required under Section 124A can still be construed as a
failed attempt at excitement of disaffection and be charged under this section. The right of
every organised society to protect itself against attempts to overthrow it cannot be denied but
the attempts which have seemed grave to one age may be the subject of ridicule in another.
This inherent ambiguity embodied in this section paves way to the arbitrary application of
law whereby two equals may be treated unequally under Section 124A, thus violating the
august principle enshrined under Article 14.

In the words of Lord Potter, “A man should not be put in peril on an ambiguity.” Law must
be expressed with clarity and certainty as to give reasonably precise and adequate guidance.14

2.2. Section 124A of the IPC violates Article 19 of the Constitution of Vaishali.

Section 124A is a showpiece of our colonial hangover as it gives the Government the chance
of stepping into the shoes of a colonial master. This should be no law at all as it basically
prevents any form of political dissent. The Preamble of the Constitution of Vaishali, inter
alia, speaks of the liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship. It also says that
Vaishali is a sovereign democratic republic. It cannot be over emphasized that when it comes
to democracy, liberty of thought and expression is a cardinal value that is of paramount
significance under our constitutional scheme.

Section 124A of the IPC deals with the offence of sedition. The word disaffection that is used
in the above mentioned section includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity. Mere
excitement of disaffection or bad feelings against the Government or even an unsuccessful
13
Supra note 6, § 124A Explanation Three
14
Avais v. Hartford Social Club Ltd., (1969) 1 ALL ER 130 HL

13
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PETITIONER
attempt to excite bad feelings may not necessarily undermine the „security of the state‟
as explained by the Supreme Court in Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, Sastri J.,
Unequivocally observed: “Deletion of the word ‘sedition’ from draft Article 13(2), therefore,
shows that criticism of Government exciting disaffection or bad feelings towards it is not to
be regarded as a justifying ground for restricting the freedom of expression and of the press,
unless it is such as to undermine the security or tend to overthrow the state.”

If, therefore, Section 124A of the IPC includes within its ambit innocuous expressions,
having no proximate or reasonable connection with public disorder, it would cover
restrictions both within and without the limits of constitutionally permissible legislative
action and must be struck down as an unreasonable restriction within the meaning of Article
19 (2).
The constitutional validity of section 124A IPC came to be challenged in the case of Kedar
Nath Singh v. State of Bihar15. The Constitution Bench upheld the validity of section 124A
and kept it at a different pedestal. The Court struck a balance between the right to free speech
and expression and the power of the legislature to restrict such right observing thus:

“…the security of the State, which depends upon the maintenance of law and order is
the very basic consideration upon which legislation, with view to punishing offences
against the State, is undertaken. Such a legislation has, on the one hand, fully to
protect and guarantee the freedom of speech and expression, which is the sine quo
non of a democratic form of Government that our Constitution has established. …
But the freedom has to be guarded against becoming a licence for vilification and
condemnation of the Government established by law, in words, which incite violence
or have the tendency to create public disorder. A citizen has a right to say or write
whatever he likes about the Government, or its measures, by way of criticism or
comment, so long as he does not incite people to violence against the Government
established by law or with the intention of creating public disorder.”

As Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes said: “Every idea is an incitement...eloquence may set fire
to reason.” Therefore, it is contended that Section 124A of the Vaishali Penal Code is
violative of Article19 (1)(a) and is not saved by Article 19 (2).
15
Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955

14
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PETITIONER
2.3. Section 124A of the IPC violates Article 21 of the Constitution of Vaishali.

It has been stated in the Francis Coralie Case16 that right to life includes facilities for
reading, writing and expression for oneself in diverse forms which covers the basic necessity.

Also, in Shreya Singhal v. Union of Vaishali17, it has been by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court
that
“A penal law is void for vagueness if it fails to define the criminal offence with sufficient
definiteness. Ordinary people should understand what conduct is prohibited and what is
permitted. Also those who administer the law must know what offence has been committed so
that arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of law does not take place.”

Owing to the manifestly ambiguous words of Section 124A the government is at an

unfettered liberty to arrest any person who has expressed a bona fide criticism, forcefully
subjecting him to the judicial process and the sufferings of an under-trial, by taking
advantage of the absence of clarity between a harmless disapprobation and a failed attempt at
exciting disaffection.

Therefore, it is contended that section 124A is violative of Article 21 and prayed that this
provision of the Vaishali Penal Code designed to suppress the liberty of the citizens be given
the speedy and unceremonious burial it deserves.

Therefore, this controversial legislation has no relevance in the present times and hence, in
the interest of the public at large and its right to express its dissent against the Government in
a democratic set up, this section should be declared unconstitutional and be repealed with
immediate effect.

16
Francis Coralie Mullin vs The Administrator, Union territory of Delhi & Ors, AIR 1981 SC 746

15
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PETITIONER
3. NASEEM SHAIHK SHOULD BE RELEASED PROMPTLY.

Naseem Shaihk is under arrest and detention for a heinous offence he did not commit. He did
not not commit any offence chargeable under sec 124A. His exercise of fundamental rights
was curtailed by the police and he is enduring punishment for an innocent expression of his
opinions through caricature. He ought to be released as soon as possible and his detention
should not comtinue anymore.

3.1. Naseem Shaihk has not committed offence under section 124A of the Vaishali Penal
Code.

It is humbly submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that Naseen Shaihk is a political cartoonist by
profession18 and has only made a caricature and had no intention to incite violence in any manner.
Expressing his thoughts is a fundamental right19 which was exercised by him.

In the leading case of Kedar Nath Singh Vs. State of Bihar 20, a Constitution Bench of the
Supreme Court examined the question "how far the offence, as defined in  Section 124A of IPC,
is consistent with the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution",
and observed:

“…the section has taken care to indicate clearly that strong words used to express
disapprobation of the measures of Government with a view to their improvement or alteration
by lawful means would not come within the section. Similarly, comments, however strongly
worded, expressing disapprobation of actions of the Government, without exciting those
feelings which generate the inclination to cause public disorder by acts of violence, would not
be penal.”21

“A citizen has a right to say or write whatever he likes about the Government, or its measures,
by way of criticism or comment, so long as he does not incite people to violence against the
Government established by law or with the intention of creating public disorder.” 22 

17
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, 2015 (5) SCC 1
18
Supra note 4
19
VAISHALI CONST, Art 19(1)(a)
20
Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955
21
Ibid
22
Ibid

16
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PETITIONER
In the case of Virendra v. The State of Punjab 23, the Supreme Court held that “the provisions of the
sections read as a whole, along with the explanations, make it reasonably clear that the sections
aim at rendering penal only such activities as would be intended, or have a tendency, to create
disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to violence. As already pointed out, the
explanations appended to the main body of the section make it clear that criticism of public
measures or comment on Government action, however strongly worded, would be within
reasonable limits and would be consistent with the fundamental right of freedom of speech and
expression. It is only when the words, written or spoken, etc. which have the pernicious tendency
or intention of creating public disorder or disturbance of law and order that the law steps in to
prevent such activities in the interest of public order.” 24 

In S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram and others, 25 the Apex Court laid down the following
principle,

“Our commitment to freedom of expression demands that it cannot be suppressed unless the
situations created by allowing the freedom are pressing and the community interest is
endangered. The anticipated danger should not be remote, conjectural or farfetched. It should
have proximate and direct nexus with the expression. The expression of thought should be
intrinsically dangerous to the public interests. In other words, the expression should be
inseparably locked up with the action contemplated like the equivalent of a "spark in a powder
keg."26

Even if there is a mockery in the caricature of the Constitution, which is debatable, it ought to
be charged under Section 2 of The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 197127
which reads

“Whoever in any public place or in any other place within public view burns, mutilates,
defaces, defiles, disfigures, destroys, tramples upon or otherwise shows disrespect to or
brings into contempt (whether by words, either spoken or written, or by acts) the Indian

23
AIR 1957 SC 896
24
Id
25
(1989) 2 SCC 574
26
Ibid
27
The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, (ACT NO. 69 OF 1971)

17
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PETITIONER
National Flag or the Constitution of India or any part thereof, shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”28

The caricature made by Naseem has not incited any violence and ‘creating disharmony
amongst the society at large’29 as alleged by the police is just a farfetched conjecture. As such
Naseem Shaihk has not in any manner committed the heinous offence of section 124A
charged against him.

3.2. Charging of Section 124A against Naseem has violated Supreme Court guidelines.

The Supreme Court, in Sanskar Marathe vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr 30, while
considering a criminal case related to section 124A propounded the following guidelines.

“In view of the felt need to issue certain guidelines to be followed by Police while
invoking Section 124A IPC, the following pre-conditions must be kept in mind whilst
applying the same:

(i) The words, signs or representations must bring the Government (Central or State) into
hatred or contempt or must cause or attempt to cause disaffection, enmity or disloyalty to the
Government and the words/signs/ representation must also be an incitement to violence or
must be intended or tend to create public disorder or a reasonable apprehension of public
disorder;

(ii) Words, signs or representations against politicians or public servants by themselves do

not fall in this category unless the words/signs/representations show them as representative of
the Government;

(iii) Comments expressing disapproval or criticism of the Government with a view to

obtaining a change of government by lawful means without any of the above are not seditious
under Section 124A;

28
Ibid, § 2
29
Supra note 3, ¶1
30
Sanskar Marathe vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr Criminal PIL No. 3 Of 2015

18
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PETITIONER
(iv) Obscenity or vulgarity by itself should not be taken into account as a factor or
consideration for deciding whether a case falls within the purview of Section 124A of IPC,
for they are covered under other sections of law;

(v) A legal opinion in writing which gives reasons addressing the aforesaid must be obtained
from Law Officer of the District followed within two weeks by a legal opinion in writing
from Public Prosecutor of the State.”31

The first guideline32 expressly states that ‘words, signs or representations must also be an
incitement to violence or must be intended or tend to create public disorder or a reasonable
apprehension of public disorder’ which is not at all the case in this factual scenario.

‘Comments expressing disapproval or criticism of the Government with a view to obtaining a

change of government by lawful means are not seditious under Section 124A.’33 In this
scenario even if the caricature of the Parliament can be considered a criticism of the
government, it is done through lawful means and is not at all seditious as per the words of the
Supreme Court,

Thus arrest and detention of Naseem is in violation of the Supreme Court guidelines and
hence illegal. Naseem ought to be released from his illegal detention and that too with
promptness.

31
Id
32
Ibid
33
Ibid, Guideline (iii)

19
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PETITIONER
 PRAYER

In the lights of issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited; it is most humbly
prayed that the court may please adjudge and declare that:

1. The Public Interest Litigation filed under article 226 is maintainable.

2. Section 124A of the VPC is violative of fundamental rights enshrined under Part III of the
Constitution of Vaishali.
3. Naseem Shaihk should be released promptly.

And the court may pass any other order that deems fit in the interest of justice, good faith
and equity.

SD/-
(Counsel for the petitioners)

20
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PETITIONER