SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, PUNE

MOOT COURT EXERCISE 02

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA, 1950

IN THE MATTER OF

Writ Petition No. / 2023

Mr. A & Ors.

V.

Union of Indiana

BEFORE SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS

COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF

INDIANA
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. List Of Abbreviations .......................................................................................................... 2

2. Index Of Authorities ............................................................................................................ 3

3. Statement Of Jurisdiction ..................................................................................................... 4

4. Statement Of Facts ............................................................................................................... 5

5. Statement of Issues .............................................................................................................. 6

6. Summary Of Arguments ...................................................................................................... 7

7. Arguments Advanced........................................................................................................... 8

8. Prayer ................................................................................................................................. 12

1
 List Of Abbreviations

S.NO. ABBREVIATION WORD

No. Number
1.

SC Supreme Court
2.

Hon’ble Honourable
3.

IPC The Indiana Penal Code, 1860

4.

Constitution Constitution of Indiana, 1950

5.

2
 Index Of Authorities

1. Tara Singh Gopichand v. State, AIR 1951 E.P. 27.

2. Sagolsem Indramani Singh And Ors. vs State Of Manipur, 1955 CriLJ 184.

3. Niharendu Dutt Majumdar And Ors. vs Emperor, AIR 1939 Cal 703.

4. Balwant Singh and Anr v. State of Punjab, AIR 1985 SC 1785.

5. Subramanian Swamy v. CBI (2014) 8 SCC 682.

6. Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India, AIR 1960 SC 554.

7. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1.

8. ShayaraBano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1.

9. Justice KS Puttaswamy&Ors. v. Union of India, AIR 2017 SC 4161.

3
 Statement Of Jurisdiction

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indus is vested with jurisdiction to hear the present matter under

Article 32 of the Constitution of Indus.

Article 32 of the Constitution of Indus reads as :

“Right to Constitutional Remedies

32. (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 clauses (1)

and(2), Parliament may bylaw 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”

4
 Statement Of Facts

• The University held an election for the position of department head for students. Mr. A
tried hard, but he couldn't win the election. Mr. A tweeted on his Twitter account claiming
the entire election process was rigged since religion and money were the main factors in
determining the winner as a consequence of his failure and displeasure with the election
results.

• Additionally, he published a tweet with the hashtag "Fight for Freedom" on it. As a result,
there was some little protest at the university level.

• Mr. A was detained on the campus of his university and reportedly accused with violating
Sections 124-A and 153-A of the Indiana Penal Code, 1860.

• By assembling outside the University grounds, Mr. Z and Mr. Y peacefully protested
against Mr. A's detention.However, the Dehla Executive Magistrate refused to provide
consent for a peaceful demonstration, and they instead used Section 144 of the 1973 Indiana
Criminal Code.

• Despite this, a sizable crowd of students from several institutions showed out for the
demonstration. As a result, Mr. Z and 25 other persons were detained by the police. Dehla
Police claimed in a news conference that the students were carrying flags and leaflets with
an anti-nationalistic intent. The kids have specific terrorist networks, according to the
tweets.

• Mr. A, Mr. Z, Mr. Y, and the remaining 25 students were represented by Kitara, a
professional advocate, in a PIL filed in accordance with Article 32 of the 1950 Indiana
Constitution. The Indiana Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022, and Section 124A
of the Indiana Penal Code, 1860, were both challenged by the woman before the Indiana
Supreme Court for their constitutionality. The laws of Indiana and India are equal in
substance.

5
 Statement of Issues

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE LAW OF SEDITION IS ULTRA VIRES THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA?

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE INDIAN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (IDENTIFICATION)

ACT, 2022 IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?

6
 Summary Of Arguments

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE LAW OF SEDITION IS ULTRA VIRES THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA?

The Petitioner's Counsel respectfully submits that the legislation against sedition is
unconstitutional. In situations where individuals are raising their voices in a peaceful protest
against particular governmental actions and practises, the law prohibiting sedition cannot be
used.

ISSUE 2: WHEHER THE INDIAN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (IDENTIFICATION)

ACT, 2022 IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?

The Petitioner's attorney has respectfully pleaded before this honourable court that upholding
the Indiana Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 is not constitutional. In the struggle
against terrorist, separatist, and anti-national organisations, Section 124A of the IPC can be
invoked. But a vibrant democracy's public dialogue must include opposition to and criticism
of the administration. In practise, sedition charges in Indiana can also be brought for
defamation, breaking established moral and decency norms, and other offences that are not
strictly 'in the interest of public order'.

7
 Arguments Advanced

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE LAW OF SEDITION IS ULTRA VIRES THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA

1. The petitioner's attorney respectfully submits that the legislation against sedition is
unconstitutional. In situations when individuals are voicing their concerns and raising their
voices in a peaceful demonstration against certain governmental policies and choices, the
law prohibiting sedition cannot be enforced.
2. In addition, since the application of the law of sedition is founded on the colonial-era
justification of giving the government needless impunity, it constitutes a danger to the
fundamental rights of the populace.
3. The IPC's Section 124A can be used in the fight against terrorist, separatist, and anti-
national groups. However, opposition and criticism of the government are crucial
components of a lively democracy's public discourse.
4. In Indiana, sedition charges in practice are not limited to solely instances “in the interest of
public order” but also extend to occurrences of defamation, deviations from the accepted
standards of morality and decency, etc.
5. It is important to emphasise that Section 124-A IPC1 has a chilling impact on the general
population. This clause defines sedition as a criminal crime and imposes severe fines and
punishments for sedition-related offences. The clause acts as a deterrent to the freedom of
expression guaranteed to people by Article 19(1)(a)2 of the Constitution against the
backdrop of severe penalties.
6. In the case of Tara Singh v. State3, court ruled that this part was invalid since it was clearly
seen to restrict the right to free speech and expression.
7. Based on the facts of the current petition, it appears at first glance that Mr. A was detained
solely on the suspicion of sedition, without even taking into account the circumstances
controlling his freedom of speech and expression. Indramani Singh v. State of Manipur4,
where it was determined that Section 124A, which aims to impose limits on inspiring
simple disaffection, is ultra vires the Constitution, this is directly in line.

1
Indian Penal Code, 1860 § 124A, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India).
2
INDIA CONST., art. 19.
3
Tara Singh Gopichand v. State, AIR 1951 E.P. 27.
4
Sagolsem Indramani Singh And Ors. vs State Of Manipur, 1955 CriLJ 184.

8
8. It is argued that Section 124A of the IPC violates the constitution in that it violates Article
19(1)(a), which guarantees the freedom of speech, and that the phrase "in the interest of
public order" does not protect it. It should be noted that the Federal Court in Indiana used
the opportunity to interpret Section 124A of the IPC and determined that the propensity to
disrupt the peace was a necessary component of seditious activity.5
9. As per the facts of the instant petition, it is evident prima facie that Mr. A and his
companions peacefully protested at the University Level following the shock and alleged
unfair defeat of Mr. A. In lieu of the same, Mr. A was arrested on account of sedition and
rest of the student protesters were also arrested following Mr. A’s arrest and it was alleged
by the Delha Police that the students had anti-nationalistic agendas6.
10. Imposition of Section 144 CrPC7 to curtail peaceful protests under false premise of Sedition
charges would be a violation of Article 19(1)(b) and (c) of The Constitution. In Balwant
Singh and Anr v. State of Punjab8, in which the accused had chanted "Khalistan
Zindabad" outside a movie theatre, it was still decided that two people chanting slogans
casually could not be said to be inciting discontent with the government and that, therefore,
Section 124A would not apply in such circumstances.
11. It can be seen from the aforementioned claims and reasons that the Section 124A, IPC is in
violation of Article 19 of The Constitution. It is further argued that any regulation that
restricts a person's personal liberty violates both Article 19 and Articles 14 and 21 of the
Constitution since there is a legitimate connection between all of these clauses.
12. Since doing so would violate the Constitution's fundamental principles, it is respectfully
argued that, in accordance with Article 13 of the Constitution, the state lacks the power to
restrict the freedoms and rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution.

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE INDIAN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (IDENTIFICATION)

ACT, 2022 IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?

13. The petitioner's attorney respectfully argues that the Indiana Criminal Procedure
(Identification) Act, 2022 is unconstitutional before this honourable court. According to
the argument, the Act's provisions are obviously arbitrary and the legislative authority

5
Niharendu Dutt Majumdar And Ors. vs Emperor, AIR 1939 Cal 703.
6
Moot Compromis, Para 5 & 6.
7
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 § 144, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1973 (India).
8
Balwant Singh and Anr v. State of Punjab, AIR 1985 SC 1785.

9
 has been granted a great deal of discretion, which shows grave infringement of the right
to equality provided by Article 14 of the Constitution.

14. In Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India9, It was argued that giving ability to make
administrative orders would violate Article 14 of the Constitution in addition to the
excessive delegation of powers "if such conferment is without any guidance, control, or
checks." It is argued here that the Act grants the functionaries undue latitude in making
administrative judgements and issuing directives, in addition to giving them unrestricted
legislative authority.

15. It is necessary to note that Section 8 of the Act grants the Central Government and the
State Government the authority to make regulations regarding the manner of taking
measurements, collection, storing, preservation and sharing, dissemination, destruction,
and disposal of records. The statute doesn't offer any legislative direction for how the
regulations should be written. Lack of precise instructions in the parent legislation
regarding the standards or guidelines under which the rule-making powers granted to
subordinate authorities are to be used renders any delegation of legislative authority null
and void.10

16. It is also argued that a legislation restricting basic rights must be sufficiently explicit and
specific regarding the degree, type, and scope of the interference permitted, as well as
having enough safeguards to avoid authority misuse. The mere gift of discretion is not a
reason for alarm as long as there are rules controlling how those powers are utilised.11

17. It is further contended that a law that restricts fundamental rights must be sufficiently
clear and precise in terms of the extent, scope and nature of the interference allowed,
along with the presence of sufficient safeguards to prevent abuse of powers by
authorities. As long as there are guidelines limiting how discretionary powers are used,
the mere grant of discretion is not cause for concern.

18. In Shayara Bano v. Union of India12 the test of manifest arbitrariness standard had been
established as a separate ground for dismissing parliamentary legislation under Article14.
In addition, it is commonly acknowledged that in order to fulfil the constitutional test of
Article 14 a legislative categorization must be fair. A categorization is considered

9
Subramanian Swamy v. CBI (2014) 8 SCC 682.
10
Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India, AIR 1960 SC 554.
11
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1.
12
ShayaraBano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1.

10
 acceptable if it meets both requirements. The classification must, first and foremost, be
based on discernible characteristics that distinguish one class from another.

19. There must be a reasonable connection between the differentia and the goal of the Act.
The proviso to Section 3 of the Act, it is argued, creates a categorization that has no
logical connection to the Act's goals and, as a result, violates Article 14 of the
Constitution.

20. Therefore, it is claimed that this clause violates the Indian Constitution's guarantee of the
right against self-incrimination, which provides that "no person accused of an offence
shall be compelled to be a witness against himself." However, this clause gives the
authorities the authority to force individuals to testify against themselves.

21. It is argued that the right to privacy is protected in Article 21 of the Indiana Constitution
as a basic right. Informational privacy, which includes biometric and other individually
identifiable information, is covered under the right to privacy. Data retention including
private information is a violation of the right to privacy.13

22. It is argued that the Act's provisions allow for the acquisition of biometric data, including
fingerprints, iris scans, and retinal images, even from those who are not involved in
criminal proceedings (by the Magistrate's order under Section 5). The level of intrusion
into people's private lives reveals how seriously the right to privacy has been violated.
The systematic gathering of images and audio samples for the goal of identifying persons
through data processing was also acknowledged by the ECtHR as an invasion of privacy.

23. In light of the aforementioned factors, it is claimed that the Indiana Criminal Procedure
(Identification) Act, 2022 is not legally lawful since it violates Articles 14, 20(3), and 21
of the Indian Constitution.

13
Justice KS Puttaswamy&Ors. v. Union of India, AIR 2017 SC 4161.

11
 Prayer

WHEREFORE, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited may this
Hon’ble court be pleased to:

1. Declare that the Section 124A of Indiana Penal Code, 1860 is ultra vires the
Constitution
2. Declare that the Indiana Criminal Procedure (Identification)Act, 2022 is ultra vires the
Constitution

AND / OR

Pass any order that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of

Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

And for this act of kindness, the counsel for the Petitioner shall duty bound forever pray.

Counsel for Petitioner

12