BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PARI MATERIA WTO

INDIAN CONSTITUTION

IN THE MATTER OF

RAJESH-------------------------------------------------------------PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA----------------------------------------------------RESPONDENT

BEFORE SUBMISSION TO

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICE OF THE

HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

UPON HUMBLE SUBMISSON ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

(COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT)

 Table of Contents

List of Abbreviations
Index of Authorities
Statement of Jurisdiction
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 up to 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 defamation and malicious Prosecution – 3rd Edition DR.HP Gupta
Law of defamation, Damage Malicious Prosecution – 8th Edition Mehrotra
Indian Penal Code 2017 – Bare Act
 Statement of Jurisdiction

The Honorable Supreme Court Has the Jurisdiction in the Matter filed by Rajesh 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
The right to move the supreme court by appropriate Proceedings for the enforcement of the
rights conferred by this part in guaranteed.
The Supreme court shall have power to Issue directions or order or writs, including writs in the
nature of habeas corpus, Mandamus prohibition, Quo-warranto and Certiorari by the part.
 Statement of Facts

Petitioner Rajesh is a Leader of Well reckoned political party. The petitioner 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 reckoned political Leader seeking constitutionality of the
offence of criminal defamation it is inhibited the rights to freedom of expression before the
Honorable 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 intellectual character 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 judgment 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 demanded decriminalizing defamation.
The apex court in an Unanimously judgment uphold the constitutional section 499 and 500 of the
Indian penal code 1860, and 199 of criminal procedure code,1973 the court held that
criminalization of defamation to protect individual dignity of life and reputation is a reasonable
restriction the fundamental rights of freedom of speech and expression or bringing viewed on a
guiding principle 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 false 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 Madhya Pradesh 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 legally dealt with
defamation of law enacted to prevent 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 expression. However, it is no defamation if the acts done fall within the
exceptions provided. The court has to interpret each and every case will almost care they serve as
precedents. On par with these citation, the political leader Rajesh’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 deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the instant case in the interest of justice.

Signature COUNSEL FOR THE REASPODENT