2ND SANKHLA & ASSOCIATES NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2023

2ND SANKHLA & ASSOCIATES NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2023

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF RASTAN

UNDER ART. 32 AND 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF RASTAN

CASE NO……. / 2023

IN THE MATTER OF

Student’s Union of LBSU……………………………………………………. APPELLANT

v.
Union Of Rastan…………………………………………………….………RESPONDENT
With
Sharjeel Imam & Ors…………………………………………………………APPELLANT
v.
Union Of Rastan…………………………………………………….……. RESPONDENT
With
RHR…………………………………………………………………………. PETITIONER
v.
Union Of Rastan…………………………………………………….……. RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

2ND SANKHLA & ASSOCIATES NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

2ND SANKHLA & ASSOCIATES NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2023

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 2ND SANKHLA & ASSOCIATES NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2023

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviations Expansion
& And
AIR All India Reporter
Art... Article
Ed. Edition
Govt. Government
HC High Court
Hon’ble Honorable
IC Indian Cases
ILR Indian Law Report
UAPA, 1967 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
CrPc Code of Criminal Procedure
Ors. Others
¶ Paragraph(s)
PIL Public Interest Litigation
IPC, 1860 Indian Penal Code, 1860
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
§ Section(s)
U.O. I Union of India
U/A Under Article
U/S Under Section
v. Versus

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 2ND SANKHLA & ASSOCIATES NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2023

The counsel for the Appellants, Student Council of LBU, Sharjeel Imam and RHR hereby
humbly submit to this Hon’ble Supreme Court’s Jurisdiction under Article 134 and under
Article 32, of the Constitution of Rastan.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 2ND SANKHLA & ASSOCIATES NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2023
BACKGROUND
Rastan is a diverse and populous country with a federal system of government and a
parliamentary form of democracy. The Constitution of Rastan enshrines fundamental rights,
including freedom of speech and expression, freedom of assembly and association, and
freedom of conscience and religion. However, these rights are not absolute and are subject to
reasonable restrictions. Two separate incidents involving students celebrating cricket
victories and delivering inflammatory speeches have led to arrests under sedition laws and
the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). In response to these arrests, legal battles
have ensued, questioning the constitutionality and misuse of these laws.

INCIDENT OF OCTOBER 2020

In October 2020, students from Lal Bahadur Shastri University celebrated Pakora's victory
over Rastan in the World Cup final. The celebration involved waving Pakora flags and
chanting slogans. The police, however, arrested them under Section 124A of the Rastan Penal
Code (RPC) and various sections of the UAPA, alleging their involvement in a secessionist
movement and links to banned organizations. The students claimed that their celebration was
an exercise of their freedom of speech and expression.

The students filed a writ petition in the High Court of Zila to challenge their arrest and the
charges against them. They argued that the charges of sedition and UAPA were arbitrary and
violated their right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. However, the High
Court upheld their arrest, stating that the celebration and slogans used were seditious and
amounted to creating disaffection towards the government. It also held that the UAPA was
valid in dealing with terrorism and that the right to freedom of speech and expression was not
absolute.

INCIDENT OF FEBRUARY 2021

In February 2021, Sharjeel Imam, a student from Zelhi University, was arrested for delivering
inflammatory speeches at various places, calling for the secession of eastern states of Rastan.
He was booked under sedition laws and the UAPA. Sharjeel argued that his speeches were
academic and political in nature, exercising his freedom of speech and expression.

The High Court's Decision Sharjeel Imam filed a writ petition challenging his arrest, arguing
that his speeches did not incite violence or hatred. However, the High Court upheld his arrest,

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 2ND SANKHLA & ASSOCIATES NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2023
stating that his speeches advocated secession, making them seditious. The court also found
the UAPA applicable to his case as it involved unlawful activities threatening Rastan's
sovereignty and integrity.

SUBSEQUENT ADVANCES

In response to the incidents and arrests, a group of civil society activists and NGOs, led by
Rastan for Human Rights (RHR), filed a PIL in the Supreme Court of Rastan. They
challenged the constitutional validity of Section 124A of the RPC and various sections of the
UAPA, arguing that these laws were colonial relics and violated the basic structure of the
Constitution.

The Supreme Court admitted both the appeals and the PIL and issued notices to the Central
and State governments and police authorities. The court scheduled the final hearing for
July/August 2023.

ISSUES RAISED

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 2ND SANKHLA & ASSOCIATES NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2023

-I-
Whether Section 124A of RPC is violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution?

-II-
Whether Sections 15, 16, 17, 18, 38, 39, 40 of UAPA are violative of Articles
14, 19, 20, 21, and 22 of the Constitution?

-III-
Whether the arrest and detention of the students under Section 124A of RPC and various
sections of UAPA valid?

-IV-
Whether RHR has locus standi to file a PIL challenging Section 124A of RPC and
UAPA?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 2ND SANKHLA & ASSOCIATES NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2023

-I- WHETHER SECTION 124A OF RPC IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 19(1)(A) OF

THE CONSTITUTION.

-II- WHETHER SECTIONS 15, 16, 17, 18, 38, 39 AND 40 OF UAPA ARE
VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14, 19, 20, 21,22 OF THE CONSTITUTION

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 2ND SANKHLA & ASSOCIATES NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2023
-III- WHETHER THE ARREST AND DETENTION OF THE STUDENTS UNDER
SECTION 124A OF RPC AND VARIOUS SECTIONS OF UAPA VALID`

-IV-WHETHER RHR HAS LOCUS STANDI TO FILE A PIL CHALLENGING

SECTION 124A OF RPC AND UAPA

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 2ND SANKHLA & ASSOCIATES NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2023

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

-I- WHETHER SECTION 124A OF RPC IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 19(1)(A) OF

THE CONSTITUTION

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Rastan that section 124A of
RPC is violative to freedom of speech and expression under article 19(1)(a).

1. As per the facts, the students of the Lal Bahadaur Shastri University (LBSU) and
Sharjeel Imam were accused of celebrating the victory of Pakora in the T20 cricket
and raising Anti India Chants and Slogans of Azaadi respectively. It is imminently
clear that their acts did not create any Public Disorder or any incitement of violence,
nor do they fall within the ambit of Section 124A of IPC,1860.
2. Freedom of speech, considered the basic freedom by most philosophical thinkers,
consists of several facets, including the right to express one’s opinion unhindered,
unfettered by the fear of retribution. It is one of the most basic elements for a healthy,
open-minded democracy and is foundation of any democratic society1.
1.1 Under Indian Constitution Freedom of speech and expression has been guaranteed
under Article 19(1)(a)
3. It is humbly submitted that when it comes to democracy, liberty of thought and
expression is a cardinal value that is of paramount significance under our
constitutional scheme. However this right is subject to reasonable restrictions being
imposed under Article 19(2) . The freedom to air ones views is the lifeline of every
democratic institution and any attempt to stifle, suffocate this right would be
inconsistent with the democratic setup. So, it can be construed that freedom of
speech, is crucial to the working of a democratic Constitution and is an aspect of
human self-fulfilment or autonomy.

4. Article 19(1)(a) reads as :“Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech,

etc.—All citizens shall have the right— (a) to freedom of speech and expression.”
The freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) includes the right to express one’s views
and opinions at any issue through any medium.
5. It thus includes the right to propagate opinion. The Preamble of the Constitution of
India inter alia speaks of liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship.
As in RomeshThappar V. Union of India2, Justice Patanjali has rightfully held that
19(1)(g) is the very basis and essence of the constitution and our democracy which is
further supported by Maneka Gandhi V. Union of India3,Bhagwati J.,has emphasized
1
Union of India V. Motion Picture Association , AIR 1999 SC 23345
2
[1950] S.C.R. 594
3
1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 2ND SANKHLA & ASSOCIATES NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2023
on the significance of the freedom of speech & expression in these
words:“Democracy is based essentially on free debate and open discussion, for that is
the only corrective of government action in a democratic set up. If democracy means
government of the people by the people, it is obvious that every citizen must be
entitled to participate in the democratic process and in order to enable him to
intelligently exercise his rights of making a choice, free & general discussion of
public matters is absolutely essential.”The right of free speech is absolutely
indispensable for the preservation of a free society in which Government is based
upon the consent of an informed citizenry and is dedicated to the protection of the
rights of all, even the most despised minorities.4
6. In a separate concurring judgment Beg, J. said in Bennett Coleman & Co. &Ors. V.
Union of India &Ors.5,that the freedom of speech and of the press is the Ark of the
Covenant of Democracy because public criticism is essential to the working of its
institutions.
7. In S. Khushboo V. Kanniamal & Anr.6, this Court stated that the importance of
freedom of speech and expression though not absolute was necessary as we need to
tolerate unpopular views.

1.2 There was no incitement to an offence or public disorder caused, hence the offence
of Sedition has not been committed

8. It is submitted that The Constitution of India does not define the word sedition. Section
124-A of the Indian Penal Code defines the offence of ‘Sedition’ and provides as follows
“Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or
otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite
disaffection towards, the Government established by law in India7, As per the Indian law,
sedition is any form of speech, action, writing that incites hatred against the established order
and harms the systematic peace of the country.8

9. In the case of Ramnandan V. State9, Allahabad HC declared Section 124A of IPC

unconstitutional as the Court was of the opinion that the said section transgressed
4
Speiser V. Randall, 357 US 513.
5
[1973] 2 S.C.R. 757 at 829 ; See also Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. & Ors. V. Union of India, (1962) 3 S.C.R. 842 at
866; RomeshThappar V. The State Of Madras,1950 AIR 124
6
(2010) 5 SCC 600(Para 45)
7
Section 124A of Indian Penal Code,1860
8
Kedarnath V. State of Bihar , 1962 AIR 955
9
AIR 1959 All 101

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 2ND SANKHLA & ASSOCIATES NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2023
its authority by imposing unreasonable restriction on the freedom of speech
enshrined under Article 19(1)(a). As a result of this, the meaning of the term
“Sedition” given by the Privy Council was rejected.
10. The after math of the case is reflected in Kedarnath V. State of Bihar 10 where the
Privy council’s interpretation of “Sedition” was edited i.e. it was narrowed down
to fit the current scenario as well as to fall within the ambit of 19(2) thereby
becoming a reasonable restriction.The SC made it clear that allegedly seditious
speech and expression may be punished only if the speech is an ‘incitement’ to
‘violence’, or ‘public disorder’.The crime of sedition over the years has been
narrowed down to the extent that merely criticizing the policies and actions of
government will not attract the crime of sedition but if the actions and words
incite the feelings of hatred and disaffection in the minds of the audience, it will
be considered as sedition.11
11. 1It is submitted that now sedition is being used as a political tool. The law has
been misinterpreted time and again. More than fifty years have passed since
Kedarnath judgment, which laid down the interpretation of sedition as it is
understood today. The provision under Section 124A is being allowed to be put to
use irrespective of whether or not the alleged act or words are, in fact, seditious
acts, or words constituting a “tendency to cause public disorder or incitement to
violence”12.
12. It is submitted that the charges of sedition against the accused have failed to stand
up to judicial scrutiny. Charges for the offence of sedition today are framed with a
view to instil fear and to scuttle dissent and are in complete violation of the scope
of sedition laid down Kedarnath’s case13.
13. In 1979, India ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR), which sets forth internationally recognized standards for the protection
of freedom of expression14. However, misuse of sedition law under Section 124A
and arbitrary slapping of charges continue to restrict speech in ways inconsistent
with ICCPR.

10
1962 AIR 955
11
1962 AIR 955
12
Sanskar Marathe V. State of Maharathra, Cri.PIL 3-2015
13
Kedarnath V. State of Bihar , AIR 1962 SC 955
14
Artcile 19 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 2ND SANKHLA & ASSOCIATES NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2023
14. It is acknowledged that the words which directly provoke violence or which
directly threaten the maintenance of public order may deserve censure under the
restrictions mentioned in Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution 15. However, that
is not what the misapplication of sedition law seeks to achieve. The present
practice of misapplication of sedition law aims to crush all opposition to the ruling
political party. Its regular use continues to hamper freedom of speech and
expression in the country.
15. It is submitted that though a very small number of sedition cases leads to actual
conviction,it causes harassment of individuals till the time judgment comes out.
There have been many cases :
(i) Prof. Binayak Sen, a civil right activist was arrested and convicted of the offence
of sedition in 2007 for having links with naxalites. Prof. Sen was granted bail on
an appeal filed before Chhattisgarh HC.16
(ii) In September 2012 Aseem Trivedi, a noted political cartoonist was arrested on the
09.09.2012, based on a political activist’s complaint that his cartoons insulted the
country. The charge was in connection to a cartoon he had made depicting the
national emblem in support of the anti-corruption movement in the country.17
(iii) In 2014 67 Kashmiri students were charged with sedition by the Uttar Pradesh
police for supporting Pakistan in a cricket match between India and Pakistan.
Later the Uttar Pradesh government dropped the charges, which is similar to what
happened in the present case.
(iv)A resident of Kerala, Anwar Sadhik was arrested by police under Section 124A
for a derogatory Facebook comment.

16. With reference to facts of the present case18 in Gurjatinder Pal Singh V. State of
Punjab19, Punjab & Haryana HC quashed the FIR filed against him under Section
124A of the IPC, where in a religious ceremony organised in memory of the
martyrs during Operation Blue Star, the petitioner gave a speech to the people
present advocating the establishment “Khalistan”. He stated that the Constitution
was a “worthless/useless” books for the Sikhs. The supporters of the petitioner

15
Article 19(2) of The Constitution of India, 1950
16
Dr VinayakBinayak Sen 2 Pijush ... V. State Of Chhattisgarh, Criminal Appeal No 20 of 2011
17
Sanskar Marathe V. State of Maharashtra , Cri.PIL 3-2015
18
Moot Proposition (Para 2)
19
(2009) 3 RCR (Cri) 224

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 2ND SANKHLA & ASSOCIATES NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2023
then raised aggressive slogans and naked swords were raised in the air. The High
Court cited the decision of the SC in Balwant Singh V. State of Punjab 20, where
it was held that the mere casual raising of slogans a couple of times without the
intention to incite people to create disorder would not constitute a threat to the
Government of India.
The court have acquitted the citizens accused of the charge of sedition on the grounds
that the prosecution had failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove that they had
committed a seditious act21.
17. In the light of cases mentioned, sedition law is used to threaten civilians with
legal action. The Law is misunderstood by the Police Authority, in carrying out
arrests and slapping charges, rarely have they given respect to the restriction of
‘incitement to violence or threat of public disorder’. 22 In spite of the fact that there
being no imminent threat, even then it is used to curb the right to free speech and
expression.
18. In Chintaman Rao V. State of M.P.23 SC said:"The phrase 'reasonable restriction'
connotes that the limitation imposed on a person in enjoyment of the right should not
be arbitrary or of an excessive nature, beyond what is required in the interests of the
public. The word 'reasonable' implies intelligent care and deliberation, that is, the
choice of a course which reason dictates. Legislation which arbitrarily or excessively
invades the right cannot be said to contain the quality of reasonableness and unless it
strikes a proper balance between the freedom guaranteed in Article 19(1)(g) and the
social control permitted by clause (6) of Article 19, it must be held to be wanting in
that quality."
a. The following principles and guidelines has been laid down for
considering the constitutionality of a statutory provision upon a challenge on
the alleged vice of unreasonableness of the restriction imposed by it24:
(a) The restriction sought to be imposed on the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Article
19 of the Constitution must not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature so as to go
beyond the requirement of felt need of the society and object sought to be achieved.
20
(1995) 3 SCC 214 : AIR 1995 SC 1785
21
Indra Das V. State of Assam ((2011) 3 SCC 380) ; State of Assam V.FasiullahHussain (2013) 4 GLT 284. ;
State of Rajasthan V. RavindraSinghi (2001) 3 WLN 242
22
Sanskar Marathe V. State of Maharashtra , Cri.PIL 3-2015
23
AIR 1951 SC 11
24
Papnasam Labour Union V. Madura Coats Ltd, 1995 AIR 2200, 1995 SCC (1) 501

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 2ND SANKHLA & ASSOCIATES NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2023
(b) There must be a direct and proximate nexus or a reasonable connection between the
restriction imposed and the object sought to be achieved.
(c) It is imperative that for consideration of reasonableness of restriction imposed by a
statute, the Court should examine whether the social control as envisaged in Article
19 is being effectuated by the restriction imposed on the Fundamental Rights.
(d) Although Article 19 guarantees all the seven freedoms to the citizen, such guarantee
does not confer any absolute or unconditional right but is subject to reasonable
restriction, which the Legislature may impose in public interest. It is therefore
necessary to examine whether such restriction is meant to protect social welfare
satisfying the need of prevailing social values.
(e) Restriction imposed on the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 19 of the
Constitution must not be arbitrary, unbridled, uncanalised and excessive and also not
unreasonably discriminatory.
19. In the light of above findings, it is submitted that the object of section 124A is to
punish any person for bringing the government into contempt or to excite disaffection
towards the government by ‘violent means’ and in the present there has been an
expression of an opinion by the students. The charge of sedition section 124A of RPC
is arbitrary and excessive which goes beyond the requirement of the need of the
society, the alleged raising of slogans did not result in any disturbance to public order
or any violence. There is no direct and proximate nexus or a reasonable connection by
charging the students for sedition and the object sought to be achieved by this. The
test of reasonableness has to be determined in an objective manner and from the
standpoint of the interest of general public25.The charge of sedition is
unreasonableness restriction and no social control can be effectuated by imposing
such restriction.
20. It is humbly submitted that the restriction imposed by Section 124A of IPC constitutes
and unreasonable restriction on the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression
(Article 19) and the same should be declared unconstitutional.
21. In the alternative, the present appeal before this Hon’ble court arises out of Special
Leave to appeal from the decision of High court. Prima facie the case is not made out
due to the absence of any public disorder or imminent threat. Even the judiciary have
failed to take notice of this and has convicted the accused for the crime of sedition.

25
Hanif Qureshi V. State of Bihar AIR 1958 SC 731

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 2ND SANKHLA & ASSOCIATES NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2023

-II- WHETHER SECTIONS 15, 16, 17, 18, 38, 39 AND 40 OF UAPA ARE
VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14, 19, 20, 21,22 OF THE CONSTITUTION

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 2ND SANKHLA & ASSOCIATES NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2023

-III- WHETHER THE ARREST AND DETENTION OF THE STUDENTS UNDER

SECTION 124A OF RPC AND VARIOUS SECTIONS OF UAPA VALID`

1.1. ] Detention under Section 124A of RPC is valid.

1.2. ] Detention under various sections of UAPA [ Unlawful Activities

(Prevention) Act] is valid.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

2ND SANKHLA & ASSOCIATES NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2023

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 2ND SANKHLA & ASSOCIATES NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2023

-IV- WHETHER RHR HAS LOCUS STANDI TO FILE A PIL CHALLENGING

SECTION 124A OF RPC AND UAPA

4.1. ] RHR has locus standi to file PIL

1. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) refers to such legal action which is initiated in a court
of law in order to enforce the public interest or general interest in which the common
people have some interest by which their legal right or liability is affected. The PIL is
a tool to safeguard the socially disadvantaged communities who cannot represent
themselves and claim justice in a court of law.
2. Any individual or organisation can file a PIL either in his/her/their own standing i.e.
to protect or enforce a right owed to him/her/them by the government or on behalf of
a section of society who is disadvantaged or oppressed and is not able to enforce their
own rights. RHR is an NGO, i.e., a Non-Governmental Organization who has a locus
standi to file a PIL on behalf of number of people.
3. According to the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Order XXXVIII talks about filing PIL
under Article 32 of the Constitution. Sec 12(1)(d) of Order XXXVIII of SC Rules
clearly mentions that a PIL can be filed by presenting a petition. Correspondingly,
RHR, an NGO, has rightfully filed a petition for PIL.
4. In the case of S.P Gupta vs Union of India (1982), the Supreme Court observed that in
India a large number of persons are exploited and ignorant of their legal rights. These
weaker sections of the country are not in a position to approach the court for judicial
remedy. So, in order to provide justice to these people, the principle of locus standi
should be relaxed. It further held that whenever the legal rights of a person or class of
persons is violated and by any reason they cannot approach the court, then any public-
spirited person can file a petition on behalf of them under Articles 226 and 32 of the

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 2ND SANKHLA & ASSOCIATES NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2023
Indian Constitution in high court and Supreme Court respectively. Similarly, in this
case RHR has filed a PIL for the greater good of the people.
5. In the case of S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, the SC further said that every Indian
citizen has the right to challenge the constitutional validity of the laws passed by the
Parliament as the Indian Constitution belongs to all its citizens and this is also
mentioned in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution. Correspondingly, in this case
RHR has rightly challenged the constitutional validity of Sec 124A of RPC and
various sections of UAPA as they violate the fundamental rights of the citizens of the
country.
6. The Hon’ble SC has, in the case of Janata Dal v. H.S.Chaudhary, [(AIR 1993 SC
892), held that lexically, the expression ‘PIL’ means a legal action started in a court
of law for the enforcement of public/general interest where the public or a particular
class of the public some interest including pecuniary interest that affects their legal
rights or liabilities. Correspondingly, in this case the general public’s fundamental
right like Freedom of Speech and Expression is violated as proved in ISSUE I and
therefore, RHR clearly has locus standi to file a PIL.
7. In the Judges Transfer Case - Court held Public Interest Litigation can be filed by any
member of public having sufficient interest for public injury arising from violation of
legal rights so as to get judicial redress. This is absolutely necessary for maintaining
Rule of law and accelerating the balance between law and justice. Similarly, in this
case, RHR should have locus standi as the fundamental rights of students of LBU and
Sharjeel Imam has been violated and to stop further violation of rights of protestors,
PIL filed by RHR should be valid.
8. In the case of K.Hanumantha Rao and Ors. vs. Principal sub-Judge, Vijayawada and
Ors reported in 1997 SCC online AP 221, the Andhra Pradesh High Court observed
that the Public Interest Litigation in India is basically concerned with the issues
relating to infringement of legal and fundamental right of poor masses by the agencies
of the state and offers a viable strategy improving the lives of less advantaged persons
of the society through the judicial process. Correspondingly, violation of fundamental
rights of students as proved will make the filing of PIL valid.

4.2.] PIL filed by RHR is maintainable.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 2ND SANKHLA & ASSOCIATES NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2023
1. The PIL filed by RHR satisfies each and every section and sub-section or clause
mentioned in the “Maintainability of Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010” and thus
is maintainable before this Hon’ble SC of Rastan.
2. The PIL filed by RHR also satisfies the “Supreme Court of India Compilation of
Guidelines to be followed for entertaining a petition received in the SC as PIL”. All
the guidelines mentioned in the SC guidelines for PIL has been rightly followed and
therefore the PIL filed by RHR should be maintainable.
3. In case of Powrasamithi v. Rajan Thattil, the court said that any PIL filed challenging
the validity of statutes because it violated the fundamental rights of the aggrieved is
maintainable. Correspondingly, in this case, RHR has filed the PIL challenging the
constitutional validity of Sec 124A of RPC and various secs of UAPA because these
violated the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression i.e., Article 19(1)
(g).
4. In the case of Sai Kripa Mangal Karyalaya & Ors. Vs. Nagpur Municipal Corporation
& Ors. the Hon’ble SC has held that if the PIL lacks bonafide and if there is
inordinate delay in filing writ petition, PIL shall not be entertained by this Court.
However, in the present case, none of the exceptions carved out for non-
maintainability of PIL and hence PIL filed by RHR is thus maintainable.
5. A PIL challenging the constitutionality of a particular statute or section etc., as it is
violating fundamental right is maintainable under Article 32 of the Indian
Constitution in SC and under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution in HC. This was
laid down by Sc in the case of S.P. Gupta v. Union of India. Similarly, in the present
case, the PIL filed by RHR is rightly maintainable.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 2ND SANKHLA & ASSOCIATES NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2023

PRAYER

WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

AND AUTHORITIES CITED, IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THIS HON’BLE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA MAY BE PLEASED,

1. TO DECLARE that Section 124A of RPC is violative of Article 19(1)(a).

2. TO DECLARE that Sections 15, 16, 17, 18, 38, 39 and 40 of UAPA are violative of
Articles 14, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution.

3. TO DECLARE that the arrest and detention of various students under Section 124A of
RPC and various sections of UAPA is not valid.

4. TO DECLARE that RHR has the locus standi to file PIL challenging Section 124A of RPC
and UAPA.

AND

PASS ANY OTHER ORDER, DIRECTION, OR RELIEF THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT
MAY DEEM FIT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, EQUITY & GOOD CONSCIENCE.
FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE RESPONDENT SHALL BE DUTY BOUND
FOREVER.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT