Petitions were filed by Rajesh ,who is a leader of well reckonrd

policitical party,undert Article 32 of the constitution of india

challenging the constitutional validity of the offense of criminal
defamation as provided for in section 499 and 500 of the indian
penal code and section 199(1)to199(4) of the code of criminal
procedure,1973.The petitioners were charged of criminal
defemation,arguing that it inhibited their right to freedom of
Expression.

N2-PETIONER
(Versus)
N1-RESPONDENT

Table of Contents
 List of Abbrevations

 Index of Authorities

 Statement of Juridiction

 Statement of Facts

 Issue Raised

 Summary of Arguments

 Written Pleadings

 Prayer
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
¶ : Paragraph

A.P. : Andhra Pradesh

A.C. : Appellate Cases

AIR : All India Reporter

Anr : Another

Bom. : Bombay

Cri.L.J : Criminal Law Journal

K.B. : King’s Bench

Ors. : Others

SC : Supreme Court

SCC : Supreme Court Cases

Sd/- : Signed

Supp. : Supplementary

U.P. : Uttar Pradesh

U.S. : United States

Index of Authors and Books

 The Constitution of India Modified upto 15th August 1983(The

Government of India,Ministry of Law Justice and Company)

 The Handbook of Criminal Law – Justice G.Ramarajam (18th Edition

2002)

 Criminal Manual ,2013 – Justice MK.Mallick

 Law of defarmation and malicious Prosection – 3rd Edition DR.HP

Gupta

 Law of defarmation,Damage Malicious Prosection – 8th Edition

Mehrotra

 Indian Penal Code 2017 – Bare Act

 Statement of Juridiction

The Honorable Supreme Court Has the Jurisdiction in the Matter filed
by N2 Concerning his intense and conferred under the

Part – III of the Constitution

Article 32 of a Constitution of India which read as Follows

“32 Remedies for enforcement of right conferred by this part

(1)The right to move the supreme court by appropriate Procedings

for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this part in

guaranteed.

(2)The Supreme court shall have power to Issue directions or order

or writs,including writs in the nature of habeas curpus,mandamus

Prohibition,Quo-warranto and Centiorani by the part.

 Statement of Facts

Petinor Rajesh is a Leader of Well neckoned political party. The

pationer were charged with criminal defamation under chapter

XXI of IPC that is challenging the constitutional validity of the

offence of criminal defamation as provided for in section 499 and

500 of the Indian penal code and sections 199(1) & 199(4) of the

code of criminal Procedure,1973 by contesting constitutionality of

the offence of criminal defamation,arguing that it inhibited their

right to freedom of Expression.

Issue Raised

Whether the petition filed by Rajesh nacked political Leader

seaking constitutionality of the offence of criminal defamation it is

inhibited the rights to freedom of expression before the

honourable supreme court is maintainable?

 Summary of Arguments

 It is humbly submitted the issue has been performed under

article 32 of the constitution by the petitioner who is a

reckoned political leader for enforcement of their

fundamental rights guaranteed under article 32 of the

constitution.It is a well known fact that the petitioner have

faced the offence of criminal defamation in section 499 and

500 of the Indian penal Code with section 199 (1) to 199 (4)

of the code of criminal procedure,1973.

 It is further submitted that the petitioner imputation is to

harm Mr.X is reputation which has directly lower the moral

and interllectual charcter of Mr. X is .

 According to the constitutions,the state should not

necessarily restrict speech in the interest of one of the eight

classes referred. Over the decades,the supreme court has

developed a rich jurisprudence on the question of the what

constitution a fair restriction.In other words,the state must

lay down its laws in such a way that the restrict to speech

only to the extent necessary to achieve a valid purpose and

to restrict individuals freedom and also protect against the

chilling effect.

 In the judgement of the supreme court in Swamys (15 case),

delivered on 13th May Rested on the speculation that

defamation was being decriminalized of the constitutional

law Eniminclizing defamation was upheld.

 When Swamy raised issues and petition filed under article 32

of a Indian constitution varies eminent political figure such

as Subramanian swamy,Rahul Gandhi and Aravind Kajariwal.

Unanimously demended decriminalizing defamation.

 The apex court in an Unanimously judgement uphold the

constitutional section 499 and 500 of the Indian penal code

1860, and 199 of criminal procedure code,1973 the court

held that crimilization of defamation to protect individual

deguity of life and reputation is a reasonable restriction the

fundamental rights of freedom of speech and expression or

bringing viewed on a guiding princilazle to determine the

reasonableness of the restriction.

 Further in the case Subramanian swamy VS Union of India is

very crucial the horrible judges head to decide some of the

important issues such as whether defamation should be

decriminalized an whether defamation is personable

restriction to freedom of speech and expression.The

decision of the supreme court not decriminalized

defamation is very fair and should be commended.

 The argument their defamation in used as a tool to restrict

freedom of speech and expression and they are too vague to

be categorized as a reasonable restriction was held to be

flaswed and on the contrary it was rightly observed that

Reasonableness to the restriction should be tested from the

 point of view of public interest rather than the point of view

of the Individual.

Written Pleading

 The pertinent question which question which arose as to whether

section 499 and 500 of Indian penal code,1860 go beyond the

scope of reasonable restriction.

 Which answering in negative,the supreme court gave a detailed

reasoning of the explanations and exceptions appended to section

499.It was submitted in two earlier Occasions.R.Rajagobal alias

R.R Gopal verus State of Tamilnadu;its held been observed as

follows;
  In all this discussion,we may clarify,we have not gone into the

section 499 and 500 of th Indian penal code.

 Further,in N.Ravi versus union of india

 Chintaman reo versus The state of madhyaPradesh the horrible

Supreme Court laid down the meaning of the term ‘Reasonable

restriction’

Prayer

Reputation is an absent to each and everyone.Any damage to such

asset can be legelly dealt with defemation of law enaeted to prvent

person maliciously using their right to freedom of speech and

expression. The defamation law is also Constitutional and is reasonable

restriction on the right to free speech and expresson.However, it is no

defamation if the acts done fall within the expections provided.The

court has to interpret eah and every case will almost care they serve as

precedents. On par with these citation,the political leader Rajeesh’s

challenges with the law oxay order to be restricted and prays his

petition may also be dismissed.

To pass other further orders as your lordship may deemfit and proper

in the feets and circumstances of the instant case in the interst of

justice.

Signature Counsel Of N1