TC: T19

NMIMS KPMSOL 8TH INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION

Before
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDICA

In the matter of:

RAJ SINGH …PETITIONER

v.

UNION OF INDICA …RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL FILED IN BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Abbreviations 3

Index of Authorities 4

Statement of Jurisdiction 5

Statement of Facts 6

Issues Raised 8

Summary of Arguments 9

Arguments Advanced 10

Arguments Advanced 13

Page | 2
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Art Article

Sec Section

Anr Another

AIR All India Reporter

Hon’ble Honourable

Govt Government

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Case

SCR Supreme Court Report

V. Versus

Anr Another

Ors Others

Pvt Private

Ltd Limited

Page | 3
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Statutes
1. The Constitution of India, 1950
2. The Indian Penal Code, 1860
3. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
4. The Information Technology Act, 2000

Books
1. M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, (7th ed. Lexis Nexis 2016)
2. C.K Takwani “Lectures on Administrative Law”, (3rd Edition, Eastern Book Company 2019)

Cases

1. S. Narahari v. S.R. Kumar, (2023) 7 SCC 740

2. Jamshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai (2004) 3 SCC 214
3. Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2021) 1 SCC 1
4. Sudheer Rikhari v. State of Goa, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 570
5. Manzar Sayeed Khan & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 5 SCC 1
6. Ramji Lal Modi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1957) AIR 620,1957 SCR 860
7. Superintendent, Central Prison, Fatehgarh v. Ram Manohar Lohia, (1960) AIR 633, 1960 SCR (2) 821
8. Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, (2002) SC 1771
9. Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 113 of 2016
10. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, AIR 2015 SC 1523
11. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637
12. Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950) SC 124:1950 SCR 1954
13. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) SC 597::1978 1 SCC 246
14. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) Vs Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1
15. Joseph Bain D’Souza & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (1995) BomCR 317
16. Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1997)_ 7 SCC 431
17. Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995) SC 1785: 3 SCC 214: 1995 SCC (Cri) 432
18. Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2020) SC OnLine Bom 732
19. Khalid Memon v. State of Chattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Home & Ors. (2020) SCC
OnLine Chh 2422
20. Maninder Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr. (2013) SCC OnLine P&H 14994
21. Tilak Raj v. State of Punjab & Anr. (2020) SCC OnLine P&H 4892

Page | 4
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
Miscellaneous
1. IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner has approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India under Art. 32 and Art. 136 of the
Constitution of India, 1950.

“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 )
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this
Constitution.”

“136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court

(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to
appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order in any cause or matter passed or made by
any court or tribunal in the territory of India
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order passed or made by any
court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.”

The Petitioner humbly submits to the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court.

Page | 5
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The Union of Indica is a socialist, sovereign, democratic country whose Constitution in

Part III delineates various fundamental rights for citizens as well as non-citizens. In view
of the historical evolution of Union of Indica, the Right to Freedom of speech &
expression is an intrinsic part of the Constitution and is recognized as one of the very
basic fundamental rights. In fact, the judicial evolution and interpretation of the
fundamental rights among others puts this right at a higher pedestal as compared to other
rights. However, these rights are not absolute and come with some Reasonable
restrictions.
2. One of the other most important fundamental rights that derives its existence from
religious practices and faith of worship is Article 25 of the Constitution of Indica. This
fundamental right grants the freedom of religion to the citizens to practice, preach, and
propagate their respective religious philosophies and ideologies. It has been a matter of
record that religious sentiments have always had some correlation with the law-and-order
situation, especially in Indica because of the diversified social demographics that it
comprises.
3. An anonymous author who goes by the pen name “Azaad” regularly writes about the
Civilizational history of Indica and its contemporary issues. He is often considered by
many scholars a far-right author and someone who writes vociferously against certain
sections of society.
4. Raj Singh, a famous actor who belonged to this religion, posted on a social media
intermediary called Chirp, quoting certain extracts from Azaad’s book. He expressed his
agreement with the author’s views. Raj’s post mentioned the following excerpts –
a) “The roots of the said religion in the Union of Indica are a result of a religious driven
communal invasion of foreign invaders of the said religion. It is important for the
majority community to realise and recognize the radical roots of the said religion. More
importantly, people/followers of the said religion who promote the action of Foreign
Invader are by their very nature communal, radical and a threat to the society.”
b) “There are various discriminatory practices that are followed by the followers of the
said religion because of their dogmatic approach which is propounded in their religious
texts and hence, it is the right time to call out such religious practices which are
completely against the ethos of our constitutional provisions”
c) “There is no such entity as God or what some people claim as the creator of this
Page | 6
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
Universe which exists. The very idea of God and his commandments has been misused
by the preachers of religion to misguide and deviate them from their duty towards the
country and the national at large.”
In his post, he also urged his audience to read the book. Raj Singh’s post quickly went
viral on Chirp, gaining a lot of traction as it was retweeted by thousands of people.

5. This created a lot of controversy, and there was widespread backlash against the religious
group in the country. In response, Mr. X founder of the Centre for Religious Freedom, a
Non-Governmental Organization filed an F.I.R against Raj Singh for his deliberate and
malicious act, intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class by insulting its
religion, under Section 153A, 295A, and 298 of the Indican Penal Code, 1860 and other
relevant provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The said organization has
filed the F.I.R. based on several complaints that were made to them by followers of the
said religion.
6. The Police registered an F.I.R. under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 based on the said information. The actor was arrested from his residence by the
respective state authorities. In the trial that followed, the Magistrates Court convicted Raj
for the offences under sections 153A, 295A, and 298 of the Indican Penal Code and other
relevant provisions of the IT Act. He was sentenced to two years of imprisonment.
7. Raj Singh has now filed a petition against the notification (No. 13(4)/2023) issued by
MeITy under rule 3 of IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code)
Rules, 2021 for violating his fundamental rights under Article 19 and 21 of the
Constitution of Indica thus also challenging the validity of the said rule. He filed another
petition in the Supreme Court to set aside the Magistrate’s order of conviction while
challenging the constitutional validity of section 295A of the Indican Penal Code. In a
preliminary hearing, the Supreme Court, to do complete justice, has clubbed these
petitions.

Page | 7
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

ISSUES RAISED

I. The petitions filed by Raj Singh are not maintainable as there is no violation of his fundamental
rights, and also does not have a right to appeal when there is an order of conviction passed against
him by a subordinate court.

II. The notification (No. 13(4)/2023) issued by MeITy to take down Raj’s Post, does not violate his
fundamental rights under Articles 19 & 21 of the Constitution of Indica, and Rule 3 of the IT Rules,
2021 under which the notification was issued is constitutionally invalid.

III. The lower court was justified in convicting the petitioner for the offences under sections 153A,
295A and 298 of the Indican Penal Code.

IV. Section 295A of the Indican Penal Code is constitutionally valid.

Page | 8
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. The petitioner, Raj Singh, has filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court. However, the
respondent argues that the petition is not maintainable on the ground that Article 136 of the
Constitution of India does not confer the right to appeal. It is an extraordinary power given to the
Supreme Court to be exercised for granting justice under special circumstances. The petitioner had
failed to establish that the lower court's decision was a substantive question of law which does not
comply with the principle of res judicata. The petitioner had an alternative remedy available to him
by way of an appeal to the High Court against the Magistrate's order of conviction and it does not
meet the criteria of curative petition. The petitioner is raising a frivolous or unsubstantiated ground
of challenge, namely, the constitutional validity of Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, which
has been upheld by the Supreme Court on several occasions. The respondent argues that the
petitioner's special leave petition should be dismissed.

II. Chirp, the social media intermediary, was valid in disabling and removing access to Raj Singh's post
because it threatened the unity, integrity, defence, security or sovereignty of India, public order, and
caused incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence. The argument is based on Rule(3)
(1)(viii) of the IT Rules,2021 and Section 69A of IT Act,2000, which gives the government the
authority to block public access to certain information on the internet when they believe it's
necessary for reasons like protecting India's sovereignty, defense, security, friendly relations with
other countries, public order, or to prevent the encouragement of criminal activities.

III. It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the Magistrate’s court had rightfully convicted
Mr. Raj Singh on his hateful post to create disturbances between the majority and minority
communities in Indica. Mr. Raj singh misused his right to free speech and used his fame and public
outreach to spread hatred for a specific religious community. Mr. Raj Singh is a classic example of
an Indican individual of high social status misusing his popularity and free speech rights to create a
state of confusion and outraging religious feelings between religious communities of Indica. There
exists provisions like Section 153A and 295A of the Indican Penal code to put a break and bring
such hate promoters of the society to conviction.

IV. The Indian Penal Code's (IPC) Section 295A tries to prevent activities that inflame religious feeling.
The Section discusses intentional and malicious actions designed to offend someone's religious
sentiments by disparaging their religion or religious beliefs. The IPC classifies as an offence any
actions that insult or seek to insult a religion or religious beliefs, whether they are spoken, written,
on signs, or in any other way that is apparent. The crime is categorised as a cognizable offence,
which allows the police to detain someone on the basis of a simple "suspicion" or in response to a

Page | 9
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
"complaint" in order to advance their investigation or stop any subsequent crimes from being
committed. This helps in proper delivery of justice.
In the case of Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P. (1957), the Supreme Court held that Section 295A of
the IPC is not unconstitutional and that it does not violate the fundamental right to freedom of
speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The Court
reasoned that Section 295A is a necessary restriction on freedom of speech and expression in order
to protect the religious sentiments of the people.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. The special writ petition filed by Raj Singh is not maintainable before this Hon’ble Court

1.1 Article 136 of the Indica Constitution does not confer the Right to Appeal. It is an extraordinary power
given to the Supreme Court to be exercised for granting justice under special circumstances. In Pritam Singh V.
State, the Supreme Court held that the power given to Supreme Court under Article 136 must be given in
special circumstances only in which grave injustice is provided.

1.2 It is humbly submitted that the special leave petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable as he failed
to establish that lower court’s decision was a substantive question of law which does not comply with the
principle of res judicata, i.e. a matter adjudicated before the court.

1.3 It is humbly submitted that the special leave petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable as the
petitioner had an alternative remedy available to him by way of an appeal to the High Court against the
Magistrate's order of conviction and it does not meet the criteria of curative petition. In the case Rupa Hurra V.
Ashok Hurra, the Supreme Court established that curative petitions are only maintainable in exceptional
circumstances and that it is only available in cases where there is a gross miscarriage of justice or where the
judgment is based on a fundamental error of law.

1.4 It is humbly submitted that the Supreme Court will not grant special leave in cases where the petitioner is
raising a frivolous or unsubstantiated ground of challenge. In this case, the petitioner’s challenge to the
constitutional validity of Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code may be considered frivolous or
unsubstantiated, as this Section has been upheld by the Supreme Court on several occasions. In the Ramji Lal
Modi case, the Supreme Court held that Section 295A is a valid restriction on the freedom of speech and
expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The Court held that the Section is necessary to
protect the religious sentiments of the people and to maintain public order.

Page | 10
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
2. The Notification (no. 13(4)/2023) issued by MeITy to take down Raj Singh’s post on chirp violates
his fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of Indica and Rule 3 of the IT
Rules. Rule 3 of the IT Rules under which the notification was issued is constitutionally invalid.

2.1 It is humbly submitted that Rule(3)(1)(viii) of the IT Rules,2021 mandates Chirp, the social media
intermediary to observe the due diligence while discharging its duties if the said remark made by the appellant
threatens the unity, integrity, defence, security or sovereignty of India, public order, or causes incitement to the
commission of any cognisable offence. The appellant, Raj Singh posted extracts from the author Azaad’s book
which did not comply with what’s there in Rule(3)(1)(viii) as the usage of the extracts led to violent
disturbances in various parts of the country and created a law-and-order situation amongst the people across
different faiths and sects and therefore, Chirp disabling and removing access to Raj Singh’s post was valid.
In Tehseen. S. Poonawalla. V. UOI, the Supreme Court had directed the government to halt the dissemination of
Explosive messages and videos on social media platforms, which are of the nature of inciting mob violence and
lynching of any kind.
2.2 It is humbly submitted that under Section 69A of IT Act,2000 the Central Government has the authority to
issue directions to block public access to certain information on the internet when they believe it's necessary for
reasons like protecting India's sovereignty, defense, security, friendly relations with other countries, public
order, or to prevent the encouragement of criminal activities and can direct the intermediary to take down the
same. In the case of X Corp. v. Union of India, the court upheld the government's power to have entire accounts
blocked under Section 69A of the IT Act, which it felt is a more effective deterrent as compared to tweet-
specific bans and it felt that extreme measures are necessary to block users with repetitive and highly
objectionable posts.

3. The lower court was justified in convicting the petitioner for the offences under sections 153A,
295A and 298 of the Indican Penal Code.

3.1 It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the Magistrate’s court had rightfully convicted Mr. Raj
Singh on his hateful post to create disturbances between the majority and minority communities in Indica. Mr.
Raj singh misused his right to free speech and used his fame and public outreach to spread hatred for a specific
religious community.
3.2 Mr. Raj Singh in his post shared, “There are various discriminatory practices that are followed by the
followers of the said religion because of their dogmatic approach which is propounded in their religious texts
and hence, it is the right time to call out such religious practices which are completely against the ethos of our
constitutional provisions” here, he very conveniently tried to hide behind the constitutional validity provision
and embedded in the mind of his followers hatred and a feeling of discrimination by the said religious
community. The sole intention of his behind such absurd remarks is to simply create chaos and public disorder
to gain fame and spread a feeling of hatred. He has ironically questioned that the community is discriminatory
and against constitution but is himself promoting monotheism and trying to create supremacy of specific
religious beliefs that is against thesoul of the constitution, i.e., its Preamble.
3.3 Similarly, when he posted saying: “The roots of the said religion in the Union of Indica are a result of a
religious driven communal invasion of foreign invaders of the said religion. It is important for the majority
community to realise and recognize that radical roots of the said religion. More importantly, people/followers
of the said religion who promotes the action of Foreign Invader are by their very nature communal, radical
Page | 11
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
and a threat to the society.” he deliberately uses the words ‘majority community to realize....’ in order to create
public disparity and communal hatred, violence which he somehow succeeded in doing so when the public
outburst took place just before the case.

3.4 He goes on to say that the people of this community are ‘a threat to the society’. Mr. Raj Singh is a classic
example of an Indican individual of high social status misusing his popularity and free speech rights to create a
state of confusion and outraging religious feelings between religious communities of Indica. There exists
provisions like Section 153A and 295A of the Indican Penal code to put a break and bring such hate promoters
of the society to conviction.
3.5 When he posted such hateful comments on Chirp, he violated the provisions of Section 295A and Section
298 of the Indian penal code. His actions were deliberate and intended to disrupt public order and the
Magistrates Court had rightfully convicted him after takin all the necessary steps towards natural justice and
concept of sovereignity.

4. Section 295A of the Indican Penal Code is constitutionally valid.

4.1 The Indian Penal Code's (IPC) Section 295A tries to prevent activities that inflame religious feeling. The
Section discusses intentional and malicious actions designed to offend someone's religious sentiments by
disparaging their religion or religious beliefs. The IPC classifies as an offence any actions that insult or seek to
insult a religion or religious beliefs, whether they are spoken, written, on signs, or in any other way that is
apparent. The crime is categorised as a cognizable offence, which allows the police to detain someone on the
basis of a simple "suspicion" or in response to a "complaint" in order to advance their investigation or stop any
subsequent crimes from being committed. This helps in proper delivery of justice
4.2 In the case of Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P. (1957), the Supreme Court held that Section 295A of the IPC
is not unconstitutional and that it does not violate the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression
guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The Court reasoned that Section 295A is a
necessary restriction on freedom of speech and expression in order to protect the religious sentiments of the
people.
4.3 In Secy. Ministry of Information and Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal, the Supreme Court
broadened the meaning of the fundamental right to free speech and expression to include both the right to be
informed, educated, and entertained as well as the right to free speech. According to the court, the telecaster has
the right to do the first and the viewer has the right to do the second.
4.4 In the case of Subhash Patrika v. Union of India (1991), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier stand and
upheld the constitutionality of Section 295A of the IPC. The Court held that Section 295A is a valid restriction
on freedom of speech and expression in order to maintain public order and harmony.
4.5 In the case of Arnab Goswami v. Union of India (2020), the Supreme Court once again upheld the
constitutionality of Section 295A of the IPC. The Court held that Section 295A is a necessary restriction on
freedom of speech and expression in order to protect the religious sentiments of the people and to maintain
public order.

Page | 12
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

PRAYER
Where for in the lights of the facts stated, the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is most
humbly prayed and implied before the HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDICA, that it may be graciously
pleased to
1. The petitions filed by Raj Singh are not maintainable as there is no violation of his fundamental rights,
and also does not have a right to appeal when there is an order of conviction passed against him by a
subordinate court.
2. The notification (No. 13(4)/2023) issued by MeITy to take down Raj’s Post, does not violate his
fundamental rights under Articles 19 & 21 of the Constitution of Indica, and Rule 3 of the IT Rules,
2021 under which the notification was issued is constitutionally invalid.
3. The lower court was justified in convicting the petitioner for the offences under sections 153A, 295A
and 298 of the Indican Penal Code.
4. Section 295A of the Indican Penal Code is constitutionally valid.

Also, pass any order that the Hon’ble court may deem fit in the favour of the Respondent to meet the ends of
equity, justice, and good conscience.
For This act of kindness, the Respondent shall forever bound pray.

Submitted Respectfully
Counsel for Respondent

Page | 13