NOVICE INTERNAL MOOT ELIMINATION – 2023

SUBMITTED BY RANISH KUMAR

BEFORE THE HOUNRABLE SUPREME COURT OF RAZANIA

IN THE MATTER OF

MR. WANE ..........................................................................PETITIONER

FREEDOM FOUNDATION (NGO).................................... PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF RAZANIA .............................................................RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION TO THE HONOURABLE JUDGES OF THE SUPREME

COURT OF RAZANIA
ARGUMENT NOTE FOR PETITIONER
 2

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The petitioner humbly submits this memorandum for the petition filed before this honorable
court. According to Part III of the Constitution of Razania grants the petitioner certain
fundamental rights, including the freedom of speech and expression, the right to life and
personal liberty, and the right to privacy. The petitioner claims that these rights have been
violated in this case. Accordingly, this comes under the jurisdiction of the supreme court in
accordance with Article 32 1i of the Razanian Constitution. In addition, RC Act, 2023's
contested sections are arbitrary and unconstitutional, and that the arrest and seizure were
unlawful and unwarranted.

1 constitution of india
 3

THE ARGUMENT ADVANCED

ISSUE 1: maintainability of the petition is valid.

It is humbly submitted before the honorable supreme court of razania that Article 32(1) the
right to move the supreme court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of
fundamental right conferred by this part is guaranteed.

According to Article 32(1) 2 of the razanian Constitution, anyone who believes their right has
been "unfairly excluded" is entitled to file a case in the Supreme Court to seek justice.
Because it is regarded as "the protector and guarantor of Fundamental Rights," the supreme
court has the power to give instructions or orders for the implementation of any rights granted
by the constitution.

This Article's guarantees of rights cannot be suspended. Consequently, we can state that this
article guarantees people an assured right to the enforcement of fundamental rights because it
gives people the ability to approach the Supreme Court directly without having to go through
the drawn-out process of going through lower courts first.
SKILL LOTTO SOLUTION PVT LTD V UNION OF INDIA 3
In this case in the case of Skill Lotto Solutions Pvt Ltd. v. Union of India (2020), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that “Article 32 is an important and integral part of the basic structure of
the Constitution. Article 32 is meant to ensure observance of rule of law. Article 32 provides
for the enforcement of fundamental rights, which is the most potent weapon.
In our case the violation of article 19(1) 4 which talks about the freedom speech and
expression provided by the constitution of razania
Article 215, which talks about the protection of life and personal liberty, the seizor of MR
wanes computer resources and communication devices, could be seen as a violation of his
personal life and liberty.
t is humbly submitted before the honorable supreme court of razania and hence this is how
this petition is maintainable

2 constitution of india
3 CASEMINE
4 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
5 SSCONLOINE
 4

ISSUE 2: Whether the impugned provisions are constitutionally valid or not?

It is humbly submitted before the honorable supreme court of razania that the Breach of
Freedom of Speech and Expression: The RC Act, 2023's provisions are unconstitutional if
they unnecessarily restrict the right to free speech and expression article 19.
Many constitutions recognize the right to free speech as a basic one, and any legislation that
unnecessarily restricts this right may be declared unconstitutional.

Violation of Right to Privacy: The provisions may be violating the right to privacy if they
permit the unjustified seizure of personal property in this case communication devices and
computer resources were seized.
Absence of Proportionality: The RC Act, 2023's provisions may be deemed unconstitutional
if the penalties stipulated therein are out of proportion to the acts committed. Fair laws
shouldn't carry disproportionate punishments.
Vagueness: If the provisions' wording is overly ambiguous and vague in this context there is
no proper definition of what is grossly contemptuous or having intimidating character or
extremely disparaging
Shrya Singhal vs union of India6
In this case the court referred various judgements to the importance of speech and expression
both from the point of view of the liberty of the individual and from the point of view of our
democratic form of government.
For example, in the early case of eomesh thappar v. state of madras {1950} this court said
freedom of speech lay at the foundation of all democratic organization
In Sakal paper(P) ltd. And others vs union of India, {1962} a constitution bench of this
court said freedom of speech and expression of opinion is of paramount importance under a
democratic constitution which envisages changes in the composition of legislature and
government and must be preserved
In separate concurring judgement beg,j said, in bennett coleman and co and others vs
union of india and others {1973} that the freedom of speech and of the press is the ark of
the convent of democracy because public criticism is essential to the working of the
institution
Whitney vs California 71 liberties should be treated as a means as well as an end to justify
suppression of free speech and there should be a reasonable explanation to fear that serious
evil result if such free speech is practiced
Hence 2(V)of it act, defines information, it does not refer to what information can be. It only
talks about dissemination of information

6 SSCONLINE
 5

The supreme court declared section 66A of it act as unconstitutional and struck it down on
the ground of curtailment of freedom of speech
The court said such a law, which was often misused by police in various state to arrest the
innocent person for posting critical comment about the social and political issues and leader
on social networking sites, hit at the root of liberty and freedom of expression, the two
cardinal pillars of democracy
III. Whether the arrest and seizures which took place are illegal and unconstitutional or
not?
It is humbly submitted before the honorable supreme court of razania that the arrest and
seizures which took place here are not illegal and unconstitutional, but it should be illegal and
unconstitutional as we know that the police followed the procedures which is laid down in
RC act of 2023. but it seems that this is the misuse of power by the government of razania in
present scenario because anyone who criticize the government can't be held liable to Rc act
2023,
There have been several cases in India which is like this where arrest in this type of Cases
were declared unconstitutional by the supreme court of India. {since the constitution of
razania is para-Materia to the constitution of India}
The arrest and seizure should be declared unconstitutional because it violates principle of
natural Justice. Violates the right to freedom of speech and expression laid down in article
19(1)(a). Article 21 Right to Life and Personal liberty, Article 22 7 provides protection against
arrest and detention in certain cases.

The following are scenarios in which the natural justice principles apply to Mr. Wane's case:

The concept of a fair hearing, or Audi Alteram Partem, holds that no one should be sentenced
without a hearing. Before a decision is made, a person must be given the chance to state
their case.
It must be claimed that this principle was broken {before a decision is made, a person must
be given the chance to state their case] if Mr. Wane had not been given the chance to defend
himself prior to his detention and the confiscation of his gadgets in this case MR wane’s law
of natural justice was violated.
No one can be a judge in their own cause,
according to the bias principle (Nemo Judex in Causa Sua). the officials who detained Mr.
Wane and took his electronics were motivated by personal gain, which was speaking against
him or criticizing the government
There have been several cases in which this type of arrest and seizure were granted
unconstitutional

7 INDIAN CONSTITUTION
 6

In case of "Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978,8

Natural Justice Principle: "The principles of natural justice constitute the fundamental
elements of fair hearing, having their roots in the innate sense of fair play and justice
The Audi Alterum Partem Concept:
The meaning of this Latin phrase is "listen to the other side." According to this theory, no one
ought to be condemned before ever having a fair trial. This idea upholds natural fairness.
in this case Mr. wane was not given the opportunity to defend themself before the arrest.
It also violates Right to Life and Personal liberty in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India,
1978,
Article 21: This Article states that, “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty
except according to procedure established by law
Right to privacy9is also being infringed in this case the right to privacy is also considered as
a important part of the right to life and the personal life and liberty the seizure of the me
wanes computer was in the way which violates the right to privacy under article 21(1) a of
the constitution
Article 22 of the razanian constitution which talks about the protectionn against arrest and
detention in certain cases
In shreya seghal vs union of India
The Supreme Court of India rendered a historic decision in the Shreya Singhal v. Union of
India case, invalidating Section 66A of the Information Technology Act. This clause allowed
for the arrest of people who allegedly uploaded offensive content to the internet.
In this case there was also an incident where kerla police act sec 118-A got invalidated by
supreme court of india
To incorporate Section 118-A into the Kerala Police Act (2011)10, the Kerala government
has proposed a regulation. This means that any person who sends or creates any content that
is offensive or intended to offend or threaten another person may face up to three years in
prison, a fine of up to Rs 10,000, or both which was overruled by the indias supreme court
Hence here we can say that the arrest and seizures which took place are illegal and
unconstitutional.

8 INDIAN KANOON
9 INDIAN KANOON SHREYA SINGHAL VS UNION OF INDIA
10 SSC ONLINE
 7

PRAYER
Supreme Court of Razania In the above premises, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be
pleased to:

In the Matter of Mr. Wane and Freedom Foundation v. The Government of Razania

Prayer for Relief

The Court may declare that the impugned vittles of the RC Act, 2023, videlicet, Sections 76
E and 77, are unconstitutional and void.

The Court may quash and set aside the arrest of Mr. Wane and the seizure of his bias under
the vittles of the RC Act, 2023.

The Court may direct the Government of Razania to incontinently release Mr. Wane's bias
and compensate him for any damage suffered because of the unlawful arrest and seizure.

The Court may grant similar other and farther relief as may be supposed just and indifferent
in the circumstances of the case.

Hypercritically submitted,

Counsel for the Pleaders)

8
9
 10