THE 1ST MRINALINI DEVI MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIKIA, INDIKIA

IN THE MATTERS OF:

AMNUAL UNIVERSITY STUDENTS UNION……………………….... PETITIONER

V.

UNION OF INDIKIA ..................................................................................RESPONDENT

WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO. __ /2020

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIKIA, INDIKIA

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIKIA, 1950

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

i
COUNSEL
MEMORIALON BEHALF
ON BEHALF OFOF
THEPETITIONER
RESPONDENT
PRIMIS 2020, SCHOOL OF LAW CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) LAVASA
CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) LAVASA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS...................................................................................................3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.....................................................................................................4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.........................................................................................5

STATEMENT OF FACTS........................................................................................................6

ISSUES RAISED........................................................................................................................9

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS..............................................................................................9

WRITTEN PLEADINGS...........................................................................................................10

1. WHETHER SECTION 124A OF IPC INFRINGES THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF

FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION ENSHRINED UNDER ARTICLE19(1)

(a) OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIKIA

2. HOW FHE UNFURLING OF ARKISTAN FLAG BY ABDUL IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE?

PRAYER..................................................................................................................................15

2
PRIMIS 2020, SCHOOL OF LAW CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) LAVASA
CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) LAVASA

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

IPC INDIAN PENAL CODE

SC SUPREME COURT

SCC SUPREME COURT CASES

V. VERSUS

AIR ALL INDIA REPORT

FIR FIRST INFORMATION REPORT

NGO NON-GOVERNMENTAL
ORGANIZATION

I.e., THAT IS

u/a UNDER ARTICLE

Hon’ble HONORABLE

Anr. ANOTHER

3
PRIMIS 2020, SCHOOL OF LAW CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) LAVASA
CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) LAVASA

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860

2. The Constitution of India, 1950

CASE LAW

1. Dharma Dutt v. Union of India

2. Kedar Nath v. State of Bihar

3. Romesh Thapper v. State of Madras

4. Sanskar Marathe v. State of Maharashtra

5. Ram Nandan v. State of Uttar Pradesh

6. Common Cause & Anr V. Union of India

7. Brij Bhushan vs. State of Delhi

LEGAL DATABASES

 Manupatra
 SCC Online
 Indian kanoon

4
PRIMIS 2020, SCHOOL OF LAW CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) LAVASA
CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) LAVASA

5
PRIMIS 2020, SCHOOL OF LAW CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) LAVASA
CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) LAVASA

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioners have approached the HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIKIA under
Article 32 of the Constitution of Indikia, 1950.1 The Petitioner humbly submits to the
jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

1
32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by
this Part is guaranteed
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of
habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the
enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (1) and (2), Parliament may by law
empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable
by the Supreme Court under clause (2)

6
PRIMIS 2020, SCHOOL OF LAW CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) LAVASA
CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) LAVASA
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution

7
PRIMIS 2020, SCHOOL OF LAW CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) LAVASA

STATEMENT OF FACTS

I. Mitchell is the resident of Doulkhi in the State of Indikia. He is a student studying

Political Science at Amnual University in Indikia. He is a member of the student-run
political initiative known as Amnual University Students Union (AUSU) and has
recently been elected as the President of the same. Abdul, who is resident of
Kashmiranda, a State of Indikia, actively involved in the University politics, has been
elected as its Vice-President. He is also an active member of Kashmiranda Liberation
Front (KLF), a youth organization formed in 1958, professing the ideology that
Kashmiranda should not be an integral part of Indikia and should be separated as an
independent sovereign state.

II. A conference was organized by the Constitutional Studies Committee of the

University, during the event numerous competitions like debates were organized. In
light of the transgressions taking place across the country against the minority
communities, Mitchell and Abdul on the eve of the event gathered around 4300
students. They started giving a speech on the atrocities against the minorities and
continued to blame the present Government for the same.

III. Mitchell, who is a Muslim, in his speech, said, "We've elected a Government full of
absolute nincompoops, and they are not willing to do anything to protect us. All of
our elected representatives are known to be corrupt and care only about filling their
banks and not working for the people. All these government leaders should be
publicly executed." His statements received massive responses and as a result of this,
Mitchell with his four friends, namely Ananya, Roop, Abdul and Neem decided to
conduct a rally at a bigger scale the next day. Almost eleven thousand people,
including the students of Amnual University, participated in the rally, which
culminated near the Pearl Maidan. They shouted slogans like "Give us Freedom from
oppression, Freedom from the Brahmanical structure freedom for this nation. We
won't get Freedom until this Government is overthrown." Overcome by the
movement, Abdul stood up and shouted slogans, like "Kashmirandaki needs to be
Freed." and lowered the Indikian National flag held by a student. At the same time,
unfurling the flag of Arkistan, Mitchell immediately handled the situation and took
the flag from his hand. Still, News Channels covered it and frequently displayed the

8
PRIMIS 2020, SCHOOL OF LAW CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) LAVASA

same. Mitchell gave a speech saying that "We should organize and revolt against this
oppressive regime to get rid of their pseudo policies. until proper attention is given to
the hardships faced by numerous communities & our security is to be guaranteed, or
we will go against the current Government." He further stated that "the reservation
policies currently in force are less than ideal for appropriate representation in all the
fields, and the Government needs to make changes and implement new policies.
However, this Government continues

IV. To ignore us and treats us like second class citizens. We should boycott their policies
and let's vow to choose our leaders wisely next time."

V. However, Mitchell did not stop there and the following day with the help of his friend
Hovior, a student of Amnual University and a spokesperson for News Daily, gave a
live speech. This speech allegedly degraded the image of the Prime Minister,
Parliament and the National Flag of Indikia. Upon hearing this speech, Karse Yuvak
Sangh, the youth wing of the Indikian Janta Party (the ruling party), organized a large-
scale protest in front of the Pearl Maidan and shouted that AUSU is an anti-national
organization and thus, along with other similar student bodies should be banned. This
received immense media attention and gained tremendous publicity which led to
social disorder as students came out on roads.

VI. Owing to public unrest the Police lodged an FIR against Mitchell, Abdul and their
other three friends and charged them under Sections 124A, 121, 120B, 34,153, 505 of
Indian Penal Code along with Section 2 of The Prevention of Insults to National
Honour Act, 1971. One separate FIR was also filed against Hovior which charged him
with Sections 499 and 124A of Indian Penal Code and also Section 2 of The
Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971. Soon the Police reached the
Amnual University to arrest Mitchell, Abdul and their three friends but were
prevented from entering the campus area by the student body. There was a clash
between the students and the Police. Students started chanting slogans against the
Government and made allegations stating that the Government is trying to suppress
the voices of the minorities- The Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, OBCs and
Muslims. The Police went on and conducted lathi-charge to disperse and control the
unruly mob and arrested Mitchell, Abdul, Hovior and three other accused. They were
later released on conditional bail, and criminal proceedings against them are pending.

9
PRIMIS 2020, SCHOOL OF LAW CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) LAVASA

A ban was on the News Daily from telecasting shows/ speeches like that given by
Hovior. The ban gave rise to significant unrest in the media against the Government.
However, AUSU is continuously conducting student rallies in order to defend their
Freedom of speech and expression.

10
PRIMIS 2020, SCHOOL OF LAW CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) LAVASA

ISSUES RAISED

1) WHETHER SECTION 124A OF IPC INFRINGES THE FUNDAMENTAL

RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION ENSHRINED UNDER
ARTICLE19(1)(a) OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIKIA.

2) HOW FHE UNFURLING OF ARKISTAN FLAG BY ABDUL IS NOT

JUSTIFIABLE?

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

1) WHETHER SECTION 124A OF IPC INFRINGES THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF

FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION ENSHRINED UNDER ARTICLE19(1)(a) OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIKIA.

Section 124A IPC violates the fundamental right as guaranteed u/a 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of
Indikia. The basic right provided by the impugned article is infringed by the words used in sec
124A. The statute when read as a whole ignores the basic element of any criminal offence, i.e.,
mens rea.
Also, the essential of democracy (by the people, of the people, for the people) being free discussion
and debate for the measures of the government steps is curtailed by this impugned section. Hence,
this is violative of freedom of speech and expression.

2) HOW FHE UNFURLING OF ARKISTAN FLAG BY ABDUL IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE?

As we all know, "Looks can be deceiving" the petition would like to propose that this case is not
valid on any grounds and this complete procedure is a clear infringement of the basic fundamental
right. Therefore, this petition absolutely challenges the arrest of Mitchell, Abdul, Hovior and three
others claiming violation of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 & 21 of
Constitution of Indica. Further, the petition also challenges the validity of section 124A of the IPC.
11
PRIMIS 2020, SCHOOL OF LAW CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) LAVASA

Then, the ban on the News Daily has to be uplifted on the basis of Freedom of Press.

WRITTEN PLEADINGS

1. WHETHER SECTION 124A OF IPC INFRINGES THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION ENSHRINED UNDER
ARTICLE19(1)(a) OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIKIA?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Bench that section 124A of IPC infringes the
Fundamental Right of speech and expression enshrined u/a 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of Indikia.

Sec. 124A IPC states that:

Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or visible representation, or otherwise,

brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites disaffection towards, [***] the
government established by law in [India], [***] shall be punished with [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 the
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.

Speech and Expression is not merely a right, it is the right to Freedom of Speech and
Expression.
Dharma Dutt v. Union of India1

Out of several rights enumerated in clause (1) of Article 19, the right in sub-clause (a) is not
merely a right of speech and expression but a right to freedom of speech and expression. The
enumeration of other rights is not by reference to freedom.

It is most humbly submitted before this bench that Right of Freedom of Speech and Expression is
being violated by the impugned section. The section itself is vague. The said legislation is
misapplied and there is being wide abuse of law under the cover of this impugned section.

The sedition law is becoming a tool of harassment.

While the provision of sedition can only be applied under extraordinary circumstances,
accompanied by sanctions from relevant authorities, practically it has become a tool of
harassment.

1
(2004) 1 SCC 712
12
PRIMIS 2020, SCHOOL OF LAW CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) LAVASA

Kedar Nath v. State of Bihar2

“Comments” however strongly worked expressing disapprobation of action of Government,

without exercising those feelings which generate the inclination to cause public disorder by acts of
violence, would not be penal. In other words, disloyalty to government established by law is not
the same thing as commenting in strong terms upon the measures or acts of government or its
agencies so as to ameliorate the condition of the people or to secure the cancellation or alteration
of those acts or measures by lawful means, that is to say, without exciting those feeling of enmity
or disloyalty which imply excitement to public disorder or the use of violence.”

Difference between hate speech and sedition:

The 267th Report of the Commission on ― Hate Speech, (2017), distinguished between ‘sedition’
and ‘hate speech’, providing that the offence of hate speech affects the State indirectly by
disturbing public tranquility, while the sedition is directly an offence against the State. The Report
adds, that to qualify as sedition, the impugned expression must threaten the sovereignty and
integrity of India and the security of the State.

In the present matter at hand, the petitioner Kamla Mehta, while giving her comment stated that
People there are just like us and there is no difference. They treated as well.

Being an actor-politician, the petitioner was trying to maintain harmonious relationship with the
neighboring country Bangistan. It is rightly known to all that these public figures have influential
value on the public- at- large. The intention behind the comment was not to create the feeling of
hatred or disaffection towards Indikia as it was just a praise for that particular country and nothing
mentioned in the comment was exciting hatred towards Indikia. Moreover, to constitute any
offence mens rea is an important aspect which is not present in the said comment in the present
matter.

Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras3

It was rightly observed by Shastri J. Freedom of Speech and Expression and of press lay at the
foundation of all democratic organization, for without free political discussion, no public
education, so essential for the proper functioning of the process of Government, is possible.
The petitioner, Lamnesty International is an NGO working on the human rights of the people. The
organization organized a debate which is totally legal. As the facts is clear on the part that the
citizens of Vienna were already the victims of violation of human rights, the debate was not the
point of extended heated up arguments and rage in the particular state.

Sanskar Marathe v. State of Maharashtra4

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

In the impugned case, petitioner Lamnesty International did not intended or provoke people to

2
(1962) AIR 955
3
(1950) AIR 124
4
(2015) SCC Online Bom 587
13
PRIMIS 2020, SCHOOL OF LAW CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) LAVASA

create violence against the government.

The petitioner Raju Kumar also, did not incite people to violence. The facts are very clear on this
part, where it was in the reports of the disciplinary committee that the slogans were raised by a
group of outsiders wearing masks. The case filed against Raju Kumar is also politicized. It is very
obvious that the AISO, who filed the complaint was associated with the IPP which is the ruling
party. Raju Kumar being in a position which is not secured by any member of the ruling party, is a
victim of the game plan and politics. Hence, there is abuse of law.

Ram Nandan v. State of Uttar Pradesh5

The Court quoted Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru, who while introducing the first Constitution of India
(Amendment) Bill 1951, referred to sedition and stated: Now so far as I am concerned that
particular section is highly objectionable and obnoxious and it should have no place both for
practical and historical reasons, if you like, in any body of laws that we might pass. The sooner we
get rid of it the better. We might deal with that matter in other ways, in more limited ways, as
every other country does but that particular thing, as it is, should have no place, because all of us
have had enough experience of it in a variety of ways and apart from the logic of the situation, our
urges are against it.
The counsel on behalf of petitioner humbly submits that section 124A IPC is violating the freedom
of speech and expression enumerated under article and hence is ultra vires and unconstitutional.

Common Cause & Anr V. Union of India6

In order to make sure that Section 124 is not misused, it is necessary that before making arrest and
filing case under sedition law, it must be compulsory for the concerned authority to produce a
reasoned order from the Director General of Police (DGP) of the Commissioner of Police, as the
case may be, certifying that the “seditious act” either lead to the incitement of violence or had the
tendency or the intention to create public disorder, before any FIR is field or any arrest is made on
the charges of sedition against any individual. The same should also apply to cases concerning
sedition pending before any trial court in the country. Similarly, in cases where private complaint
alleging sedition is made before a Ld. Magistrate, it should be made compulsory that the order
taking cognizance certifies that the “seditious act” either lead to the incitement of violence or had
the tendency or the intention to create public disorder. Furthermore, investigations and
prosecutions must be dropped in cases where such a reasoned order as prayed for above is not
provided and the act in question involved peaceful expression or assembly.

5
AIR 1959 All 101, 1959 CriLJ 1
6
215 OF 2005
14
PRIMIS 2020, SCHOOL OF LAW CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) LAVASA

HOW FHE UNFURLING OF ARKISTAN FLAG BY ABDUL IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE?

In the Appeal submitted by the petitioner side, it clearly states the circumstances in which the
wrongful charges imposed upon the student’s union and the members individually can be avoided
under reasonable law procedures.

To preserve the democratic way of life it is essential that people should have the freedom of
express their feelings and to make their views known to the people at large. The press, a powerful
medium of mass communication, should be free to play its role in building a strong viable society.
Denial of freedom of the press to citizens would necessarily undermine the power to influence
public opinion and be counter to democracy.

Freedom of press is not specifically mentioned in article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution and what is
mentioned there is only freedom of speech and expression. In the Constituent Assembly Debates it
was made clear by Dr. Ambedkar, Chairman of the Drafting Committee, that no special mention
of the freedom of press was necessary at all as the press and an individual or a citizen were the
same as far as their right of expression was concerned.

The framers of the Indian constitution considered freedom of the press as an essential part of the
freedom of speech and expression as guaranteed in Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution.
1) All citizens shall have the right
(a) To freedom of speech and expression;
(b) To assemble peaceably and without arms;
(c) To form associations or unions;
(d) To move freely throughout the territory of India;
(e) To reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and
(f) Omitted to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business

At last, it can be concluded that, The Freedom of the Press is nowhere mentioned in the Indian
constitution. The Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression is provided in Article 19 of the
Indian Constitution. It is believed that Freedom of Speech and Expression in Article 19 of the
Indian constitution include freedom of the press.

Freedom of expression enables one to express one’s own voices as well as those of others. But
freedom of the press must be subject to those restrictions which apply to the freedom of speech
and expression. The restrictions mentioned in Art. 19 are defamation, contempt of court, decency
or morality, security of the state, friendly relations with other states, incitement to an offence,
public order and maintenance of the sovereignty and integrity of India.

The status of freedom of the press is the same as that of an ordinary citizen. The press cannot
claim any immunity from taxation, is subject to the same laws regulating industrial relations, and
press employees are subject to the same laws regulating industrial employment
15
PRIMIS 2020, SCHOOL OF LAW CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) LAVASA

Romesh Thaper vs. State of Madras and Brij Bhushan vs. State of Delhi7

The Supreme Court took it for granted the fact that the freedom of the press was an essential part
of the right to freedom of speech and expression. It was observed by Patanjali Sastri J. in Romesh
Thaper that freedom of speech and expression included propagation of ideas, and that freedom
was ensured by the freedom of circulation.

Hence, the petition humbly requests the Hon’ble bench to consider the facts and laws of the
Article19(1) (a) and establish a firm relationship to the present case and therefore look not to
provide this under criminal proceedings.

7
(1950) AIR 124 AND (1950) AIR 129

16
PRIMIS 2020, SCHOOL OF LAW CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) LAVASA

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
humbly requested that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare:

 The following petition filed by the petitioners is maintainable,

 The Fundamental Right are violated on arrest
 Grant a bail to all the Petitioners.

And pass any such order, other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and

Good Conscience.

And for this, Petitioner as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

17