Inrr Petitioner Memorial For Moot On Sedition

lOMoARcPSD|34937490
INRR Petitioner - Memorial for moot on sedition
Constitutional Law - II (Christ (Deemed To Be University))
Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

Downloaded by Anuj Raj (anujraj.2707@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|34937490
Team Code: INRR 145
Internal National Ranking Rounds 2022-2023
IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF PICARONES

AT MOCHI
WP No.: ____/2022
MOCHI PUBLIC WELFARE ASSOCIATION
V.
UNION OF PICARONES
BEFORE SUBMISSION TO HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES
OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF PICARONES
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETIOTIONERS

lOMoARcPSD|34937490
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................................i
LIST OF ABBREVAITION.......................................................................................................ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.....................................................................................................iii
STATEMENT OF JUSRISDICTION......................................................................................vii
STATEMENT OF FACTS......................................................................................................viii
STATEMENT OF ISSUES........................................................................................................x
SUMMARY OF ISSUES..........................................................................................................xi
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED.................................................................................................xiii
ISSUE 1..................................................................................................................................xiii
ISSUE 2.................................................................................................................................xvii
ISSUE 3………………………………………………………………………………………xx
ISSUE 4………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. .xiv
PRAYER...............................................................................................................................xviii
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

lOMoARcPSD|34937490
LIST OF ABBREVAITIONS
Abbreviations Definition
WP Writ Petition
Hon’ble Honorable
Mr. Mister
NGO Non-governmental Organisation
FIR First Information Report
PIL Public Interest Litigation
CPC Civil Procedure Code
v. versus
& And
UOI Union of India
IPC Indian Penal Code
Vs. versus
Ors. Others
Re Reference
DNA Deoxyribonucleic Acid
NCRB National Crime Records Bureau
CrPC Code of Criminal Procedure
NPCP National Penal Code of Picarones

lOMoARcPSD|34937490
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases:
1. SP Gupta vs. Union Of India (1982) 2 SCR 365

2. Hussanara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) AIR 1369
3. Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra (1983) AIR 378
4. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1980) AIR 1579
5. Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982) AIR 1473
6. Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v Abdul Thai (1976) AIR 1455
7. Kedar Nath v. State of Punjab (1962) AIR 955
8. Sanskar Marathe v. State of Maharashtra (2015) AIR 374
9. Vinod Dua v UOI (2020) AIR 154
10. Javed Habib v. State of Delhi AIR 2009 SCR 17
11. Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950) AIR 124
12. Tara Singh Gopi Chand v. The State (1951) CriLJ 449
13. Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India and Anr AIR 2018 SC 3476
14. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Deoman Upadhyaya, AIR 1960 SC 1125
15. S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India (1967) AIR 1427
16. United States v. Wunderlich, 1951 SCC OnLine US SC 93
17. Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)
18. S. R. Jayaram v. State of Mysore, AIR 1968 SC 346
19. E. P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) AIR 555
20. Bijoe Emmanuel v State of Kerala (1987) AIR 748
21. M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954) SCR 1077
22. Nandhini Sathpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978) AIR 1025
23. Balasaheb v. State of Maharashtra (1994) CriLJ 3044
24. State of Bombay v.Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961) AIR 1808
25. Selvi v. State of Karnataka AIR 2010 SC 1974
26. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597
27. Justice. K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2018) 1 SCC 809
28. Common Cause v. Union of India (2018) 5 SCC 1

lOMoARcPSD|34937490
29. Kesavananda Bharati v. Union of India, (1973) 4 SCC 225

30. Hamdard Dawakhana v. UOI, 1960 AIR 554
31. Re Delhi Laws Act, 1951 AIR 332
32. Sanskar Marathe v. State of Maharashtra, 2015 CriLJ 3561
Statutes and Legislations:

1. Indian Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022
2. Indian Penal Code, 1860
3. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

lOMoARcPSD|34937490
Websites:
1. Sakshar Law Associates, Interpreting Order VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code,
1908, Lexology (September 2, 2020) at https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?
g=54dd49e1-d888-4264-b916-64f379ee8fe4.
2. Shawaiz Nisar, Relaxation of the Principles of Locus Standi in Public Interest Cases,
Lawsisto (June 13, 2020) at
https://lawsisto.com/legalnewsread/NTcwOQ==/RELAXATION-OF-THE-
PRINCIPLE-OF-LOCUS-STANDI-IN-PUBLIC-INTEREST-CASES .
3. Akash R. Goswami, Right to Constitutional Remedies, Blog iPleaders (July 27, 2019)
at https://blog.ipleaders.in/constitutional-remedies-supreme-court/#Role_of_Judiciary.
4. Yash Thakur, Locus Standi: Meaning and Essential ingredients of Locus Standi, Legal
Study Material (May 17, 2021) at https://legalstudymaterial.com/locus-standi-
meaning-and-essential-ingredients-of-locus-standi.
5. Suryansh Verma, Order 7 Rule 11: Rejection of Plaint, Blog iPleaders (August 16,
2019) at https://blog.ipleaders.in/order-7-rule-
11/#Limitation_on_an_application_made_under_Order_VII_Rule_11.
6. Vrinda Grover, Assessing India’s legal framework on the Right to peaceful assembly
at https://www.icnl.org/wp-content/uploads/India-freedom-of-assembly-report-2021-
final.pdf.
7. Shaoni Das, The Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 violates various
constitutional mandates at https://theleaflet.in/the-criminal-procedure-identification-
act-2022-violates-various-constitutional-mandates/
8. Siddharth R. Gupta and Kerti Sharma, Article 14 and Arbitrariness vis-a-vis
Legislative Action at https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/10/11/article-14-and-
arbitrariness-vis-a-vis-legislative-action/
5

lOMoARcPSD|34937490
9. Meher Menga, Sedition law: A threat to Indian democracy at
https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/sedition-law-threat-indian-democracy/
10. Prenavpreet Kaur Sedition under Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code: An
Analysis by https://www.ijlmh.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Sedition-Under-
Section-124-A-of-the-Indian-Penal-Co-An-Analysis.pdf
11. Arun Jaitley, Can the state restrict a citizens right to protest? At
https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/can-the-state-restrict-a-citizens-right-to-
protest.
12. Anirban Banerjee, Student radicalism and the issue of sedition at
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311992855_STUDENT_RADICALISM_AN
D_THE_ISSUE_OF_SEDITION
Books and Journals:
1. LM Sighvi, Jagadish Swarup Constitution of India, 2nd Edition,

2. Narayana Aishwarya, A Theoritical Analysis of Law on Sedition in India (2021)
3. Anushka Singh, Sedition and its political functions, the law of the Executive (2022)

lOMoARcPSD|34937490
STATEMENT OF JUSRISDICTION
The petitioner has humbly approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Picarones under the
writ jurisdiction provided under Article 32 of the Constitution of Picarones for the
enforcement of fundamental rights conferred by Part-III of the Constitution.
The Petitioners submit to the court all their disputes and on the basis of the foregoing, this
Court is requested to adjudge the disputes in accordance with the laws and legislations of the
Union of Picarones.
“Article 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.”
The Petitioner submits to the aforesaid jurisdiction. The Petitioner shall accept the court’s
decision as final and binding and execute it in good faith and with due diligence.
7

lOMoARcPSD|34937490
STATEMENT OF FACTS
 Picarones is a Sovereign, Democratic and Secular country with a population of over

100 crores. Mochi, the capital of the country faced constant protests and
demonstrations due to the lack of criminal justice process in the country. Picarones
Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 was enacted on 12 th March, 2022. This
Act allowed police authorities to collect and maintain a record of any person
convicted, arrested or detained.
 Kataifi University is a central University located in Monchi. Mr Xeno Syrinki, a final
year student of the University, and also a member of the Monchi Public Welfare
Association, a legal NGO started a Debate and Awareness club named Unagi with
Longan Persimmon, the club Secretary who was a 4th year law student. Both Xeno and
Longan belonged to a minority religion in Picarones.
 On 25th March, the University Student Body election was conducted in which Xeno
applied for the head of the student body. Despite a successful campaign, Xeno lost the
election. Following this, Longan lashed out his disappointment at the results by
creating a post on his Twitter Account claiming that the entire election was rigged and
that religion and money played a major role in deciding the winner.
 Additionally, he shared the post on the social media pages of Unagi with the caption
“Fight for Freedom”. Other members of Unagi retweeted about the post making it
viral across the nation. This was coupled with small scale protests around the campus.
 On 10th April, 2022 Longan was arrested in the University Campus and a FIR was
filed against him under Section 124 A and Section 153-A of the National Penal Code
of Picarones.
 Following this, Xeno and other members of Unagi decided to peacefully protest
against Longan’s arrest on 15th April by gathering outside the college premises.
However, the local police authorities did not grant permission for the protest and
imposed Section 144 of the Picarones Criminal Code around Kataifi University.
 Despite the restriction, large number of students from different colleges gathered
around on the day of the protest. The students continued protesting despite warning
form the local police. As a result, Xeno along with 20 other protestors were arrested
by the Mochi Police Authority. The Police issued a statement that the arrested parties

lOMoARcPSD|34937490
carried flags and pamphlets that had an anti-nationalistic agenda. Additionally, they
contended that the social media pages of Unagi indicated that the club’s agenda was
rebellious and anti-governments thereby had terrorist links.
 At the police station, all the detainee parties were forced to give their finger
impressions, photographs, iris and retina scans, physical and biological samples with
other body measurements in accordance with the Picarones Criminal Procedure
(Identification) Act, 2022. They were permitted to leave at the end of the day with a
warning.
 Xeno was worried of the fact that he was detailed and that his personal information
collected by the police could impede his chances of becoming a public servant.
 Vitara, a lawyer, who worked with Xeno at Mochi Public Welfare Association filed a
PIL under Article 32 of the Picarones Constitution. She approached the Supreme
Court of Picarones thereby challenging its constitutional validity and necessity of
section 124 A of the National Penal Code of Picarones and the Picarones Criminal
Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022.

lOMoARcPSD|34937490
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
ISSUE-1
Whether the petitioner has sufficient locus standi to file this petition?
ISSUE-2
Whether Section 124-A of the National Penal Code of Picarones is constitutionally valid?
ISSUE-3
Whether the Picarones Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 is violative of the
Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Picaronian Constitution?
ISSUE-4
Whether Section 8 of the Picarones Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 suffers
from excessive delegation and is thus unconstitutional?
10

lOMoARcPSD|34937490
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
Issue 1: Whether the Petitioner has sufficient locus standi to file this petition?
It is submitted that the petitioner has sufficient locus standi to file this petition as the
organisation Mochi Public Welfare Association is proactive in fighting cases for the rights of
prisoners and excessive police authority. The petitioner had previously worked with Mr.
Longan who brought about the problem for the present petition to be filed and thus the
petitioner was personally affected by the Act and Section in question. It is thus, humbly
submitted that the petition is maintainable under Order VII, Rule XI of the CrPC.
Issue 2: Whether Section 124-A of the national penal code of picarones is

constitutionally valid?
It is submitted that the Section 124- A of the Picarones National Penal Code is
unconstitutional. Based on the reading of the bare text of the Section it can be inferred that
the interpretation is very ambiguous in nature resulting in easy accusations of persons under
the section and very few convictions. Furthermore, it is submitted that the Section 124-A
NPCP is violative of Article 19(1)(a) which is regarding the Right to Freedom of Speech and
Expression as it is used arbitrarily by the government to stifle dissent and silence voices of
those protesting against them. In addition, it is also submitted that the Section violated Article
19(1)(b) which grants the Right to assemble freely without arms.
Issue 3: Whether the Picarones Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 is

violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Picaronian constitution?
It is submitted that the Picarones Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 is violative of
fundamental rights under Article 14, 19(1), 20(3), 21 and 22 of the Constitution of Picarones.
The Act fails the various tests and doctrines prescribed by the Supreme Court to uphold a
legislation under the said fundamental rights.
11

lOMoARcPSD|34937490
Issue 4: Whether Section 8 of the Picarones Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act,
2022 suffers from excessive delegation and is thus unconstitutional?
It is submitted that Section 8 of the Picarones Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022
suffers from excessive delegation wherein the Legislature has abdicated its legislative duty
and given it to the Executive with any proper guidelines in place thus making the parent
statute unconstitutional based on the principles given by the Supreme Court in several
landmark cases.
12

lOMoARcPSD|34937490
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE 1
WHETHER THE PETITIONER HAS SUFFICIENT LOCUS STANDI TO FILE THIS
PETITION?
The Latin Maxim ‘Locus Standi’ consists of two terms, namely, ‘locus’ and ‘standi,’ which
means the place and the right to bring about an action, respectively. So, collectively, it means
the right to bring an action before the court. As per this maxim, one needs to establish his
legal capacity for suing someone and this ought to be done prior to approaching the court. In
simple language, a person can approach the court only when his personal interest is suffered
or a legal injury is inflicted upon him.
In India, the concept of locus standi is mentioned under Order 7 Rule 11 (often written as
Order VII, Rule 11) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as CPC). This
rule, being known as ‘the law on rejection of plaints,’ questions the maintainability of the suit
filed by the petitioners.
For instituting any action, the plaintiff or the appellant (plaintiff in the present case) must
prove his locus standi first and then the trial will start thereafter. The court first decides if
there is any legitimate cause of action’ and can accordingly dismiss the entire case,
irrespective of however relevant the merits of the case are, if the requirement of locus standi
stands unfulfilled.
As per order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, there are certain ingredients that a petition must contain
for it to be maintainable and they are as follows:
(i) Presence of Injury - The most basic and primary requirement for instituting a suit is that
the person must have suffered some injury (violation of any legal right or some other physical
or monetary harm that occurred to any person as defined in the Oxford dictionary). The injury
can occur from the act of private parties or the act of state.
In the case at hand, the petitioner’s fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14, 19(1)(a),
19(1)(b), 20(3) and 21 are being violated.
13
Memorial on behalf of
Petitioners

lOMoARcPSD|34937490
(ii) Causation - The term ‘causation’ means the cause & effect relationship. It emphasises on
the need to have a sufficient relationship between the act of one party and the injury suffered
by the other party. The main objective behind having this ingredient is to ensure that the
injury can be traced back to the action of the defendant.
In the circumstances of the present case, the injury suffered has been already been previously
mentioned and the act which caused such injury is on the part of the police authorities in the
capital of Mochi and the union of Picarones not only for intruding in the privacy of Logan,
Xeno and other protestors but also for stripping them of their fundamental right to free speech
and expression, to assemble peacefully without arms and to carry out protests as guaranteed
under the Part-III of the Picaronian Constitution.
This essential also further ensures that the impugned injury is not related to some independent
or some other third party.
In the present case, the petitioners have moved the Hon’ble Apex Court under the provision
of Article 32 (1) which reads as follows:
“The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the
rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.”
The traditional rule with respect to the doctrine of locus standi is that judicial redress shall be
available only to a person who has suffered a legal injury by reason of violation of his legal
right or legally protected interest by the impugned action of the State or a public authority or
any other person or who is likely to suffer a legal injury by reason of threatened violation of
his legal right or legally protected interest by any such action.
It states that ‘only an aggrieved party can approach the Supreme Court for redressal for the
enforcement of a fundamental right, Article 32 being a fundamental right in itself’. However,
in 1981, a new era of PIL proclamation was done by Justice P. N Bhagwati in SP Gupta vs.
Union Of India1. In this case, it was held that “any member of public action or group with
Bonafide intention can invoke the writ of Jurisdiction from High Court and Supreme Court
seeking redressal against violation of the legal or constitutional right of a person who due to
social or economic or other reasons cannot approach to the court”.
1 SP Gupta vs. Union Of India (1982) 2 SCR 365
14
Petitioners

lOMoARcPSD|34937490
Due to the influence of this case, PIL became a powerful weapon for the enforcement of
public duties, thus relaxing the traditional rule of locus standi by expanding of scope of
persons covered in the term ‘aggrieved party’.
Another landmark judgement in relaxation of the principle of locus standi is that of

Hussanara Khatoon v. State of Bihar 2, wherein a writ petition filed by an advocate was
entertained by the court on the basis that public interest was involved in the matter. The
petition described the poor conditions of undertrial prisoners and their inability to safeguard
their personal liberties and thus the court held that right to speedy trial is a fundamental right
under Article 21 of the constitution and took up the matter immediately despite the fact that it
was brought to the court’s notice by an independent third party.
Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra3 and Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration4 were
among few other cases in which the Apex Court actively took cognizance of the issues of
prisoners and helped revive their fundamental rights regardless of the factuality that an
independent third party had filed action for the same.
In the case of Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India,5 the court permitted a
Public Interest Litigation what is also known as ‘Social Interest Litigation’ at the instance of
‘Public spirited citizens’ for the enforcement of constitutional & legal rights of any person or
group of persons who because of their socially or economically disadvantaged position are
unable to approach court for relief.
(iii) Redressability - It must be likely, rather than merely speculative, that a favourable
verdict of the court will redress the injury.
In familiarity with the present case is the landmark verdict of Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v.
Abdul Thai6, wherein Justice V. R Krishna Iyer rightfully held that “the right to approach
courts when similar individual rights of several people are infringed is the appropriate
remedy in our socio-economic context.” This perfectly fits with the case at hand since the
whole suit brings into question the constitutional validity of the Picarones Criminal Procedure
(Identification) Act, 2022 which is alleged to be in grave violation of Articles 14, 19, 20(3)
and 21, as a matter of public interest at large. Furthermore, in the present matter, the
2 Hussanara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 98
3 Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra (1983) AIR 378
4 Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra and Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1983) SC 378
5Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, (1982) AIR 1473
6 Mumbai Kamgar Sabha v. Abdul Thai (1976) AIR 1455
15
Petitioners

lOMoARcPSD|34937490
petitioner has sufficient locus standi for the suit to be maintainable as Mochi Public Welfare
Association regularly fights for the fundamental rights of the prisoners and against excessive
police authority.
16
Petitioners

lOMoARcPSD|34937490
ISSUE 2
WHETHER SECTION 124-A OF THE NATIONAL PENAL CODE OF PICARONES
IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?
Section 124-A of the National Penal Code of Picarones defines sedition as “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 excite disaffection towards, the Government
established by Law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may
be added, or with fine”.
A. That the mere expression of discontent against the government and fundamental
principles does not violate Section 124-A of the National Penal Code of Picarones.
The Supreme Court in Kedar Nath v. State of Bihar7clearly stated that only those actions
which tend to resort to violence and as a result generate the inclination to cause public
disorder or disrupt public peace can lead to the invocation of Section 124-A of the Indian
Penal Code. The court in the judgement stated that for an action to qualify as the offence of
sedition shall be capable of inciting hatred or contempt towards the government established
by law. In the present case, the petitioner made certain contentions against the government by
exercising his fundamental right of speech and expression. However, the use of strong
language to stifle dissent cannot come within the ambit of section 124-A.
In Sanskar Marathe v. State of Maharashtra8, the court held that the use of strong words to
express disapprobation of the measures of government with a view to their improvement or
alteration by lawful means would be outside the definition of sedition. In the case of Vinod
Dua v UOI9, the court clearly laid down that a citizen has the right to criticise the
functionaries of the Government so that he does not incite people to violence against the
7Kedar Nath v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SCC 955
8 Sanskar Marathe v. State of Maharashtra, 2015 CriLJ 3561

9 Vinod Dua v UOI (2020) AIR 154
17
Petitioners

lOMoARcPSD|34937490
Government established by law to create public disorder. In Javed Habib v. State of Delhi,10
the Apex Court stated that holding an opinion against the Prime Minister or criticisms of the
actions of the government or drawing inference from the speeches and actions of the leader of
the Government against a particular community cannot be considered as sedition under
Article 124A of the IPC as the criticism of the Government is the hallmark of democracy.
From the aforementioned judgements it is clear that in order to sustain conviction under 124-
A of the Picarones National Penal Code, two ingredients must be satisfied-
1. The accused must attempt to bring hatred or contempt to excite dissatisfaction.

2. Such hatred or contempt should be towards the government established by law.
In the present matter, Mr. Longan exercised his fundamental right of freedom of speech by
expressing his dissatisfaction towards the governmental and constitutional framework of
Picarones. However, it stemmed out of his loss in university elections and they had no reason
to disrupt the public tranquillity, resulting in public disorder. Even if it is assumed that their
actions resulted in public disorder, the same actions do not fall within the ambit of the above-
mentioned criteria for sustaining conviction under section 124-A of Picarones National Penal
Code.
Therefore, the reading of the bare text of 124-A is very vague in its interpretation. The law
commission of India in 2018 questioned the validity of section 124-A which was a colonial
judgment. Additionally, the Supreme Court has repeatedly reiterated that the mere reading of
Section 124-A leads to the wrongful acquisition acts of sedition by the government. and there
is no need for having such a law to still be in place in Picarones. Therefore, mere expression
of discontent against the government and fundamental principles does not violate Section
124-A of the National Penal Code of Picarones
B. That the Section 124-A of the National Penal Code of Picarones violates Article 19(1)
(a) of the Constitution of Picarones.
Article 19(1) of the National Penal Code of Picarones provides for freedom of speech and
expression, which states that all citizens have the right to express their opinions and views
freely. This right is subject to a set of reasonable restrictions to the extent that the limitation
10 Javed Habib v. State of Delhi AIR 2009 SCR 17
18
Petitioners

lOMoARcPSD|34937490
imposed upon a person for the enjoyment of his right shall not be excessive in nature. A
citizen has a right to say anything about the government so long as he does not incite people
to violence against the government with the intention of creating public order. Section 124-A
has been characterized as an offense against a state, and repeatedly has acted as a restriction
of freedom of speech and expression.
In Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras11, the Supreme Court held that for a speech to be
held violative of Section 124-A, it needs to threaten the security of the state. In Tara Singh
Gopi Chand v. The State,12 the Apex Court marked Section 124-A as unconstitutional for it
being in direct contravention of Article (1) (a) of the Constitution contending that since its
enactment the law has come about various changes and the said provision has become
inappropriate by the very nature of the change which has come about. The Apex Court in the
case of Sanskar Marathe v. State of Maharashtra stated that a spoken or written statement
could be considered seditious only when it brings the Government to contempt or hatred or
cause disaffection or disloyalty with the intention of creating pubic disorder.
In the present matter, there are no words used to instigate hatred, contempt, or dissatisfaction
toward the Indian Government. A mere dissatisfaction with comments that criticize or
lampoon the government shall not be reasonable ground to book individuals under the said
provision. Usage of strong words to prove disapprobation and a demand for a change by
lawful means shall not come within the ambit of Section 124-A of the Picarones Constitution.
The whole intent behind sedition law essentially is supressing free thought and free speech,
both of which are popular with the government. A critique can be silenced on a threat to life
imprisonment itself acts on a deterrence on exercising free speech. This law acts as a tool to
shut down free speech and for the same reason is violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution of Picarones.
C. That the Section 124-A of the National Penal Code of Picarones violates Article 19(1)
(b) of the Constitution of Picarones.
Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of Picarones states the right to peaceful assembly. The
Apex Court in Re-Ramlila Maidan Incident vs Home Secretary and Ors 13, held the right to
peaceful protest an essential part of free speech and the right to assemble. The Court further
11
12 Tara Singh Gopi Chand v. The State, 1951 CriLJ 449
13 Re-Ramlila Maidan Incident vs Home Secretary and Ors, (2012) 5 SCC 1
19
Petitioners

lOMoARcPSD|34937490
held that it is the affirmative obligation of the state to make the exercise of this right
effective.
Freedom of speech and right to assemble and peaceful agitations are the basic features of our
democratic system. It is our right to raise our voice against the actions and decisions of the
Government and allow us to act as the watchdogs of Government policies and rules. The
Apex Court in the case of Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India and Anr,14
the court directed the police authorities to devise a proper mechanism for the use of public
protest and laid parameters for the limited use of the area.
In the present case, Mr. Xeno and other members of the Unagi decided to hold a peaceful
protest in response to the arrest of Mr. Longan but they were denied permission by the local
police authorities. This is violative of the fundamental right to protest and assemble
peacefully without arms. Section 124-A of the Picarones National Penal Code has been used
arbitrarily in the present matter to silence the voices of the protestors who had no intention to
disrupt public order as the peaceful protest concerned the arrest of Mr. Longan and
furthermore the protest was supposed to take place inside the university premises.
ISSUE 3
WHETHER THE PICARONES CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (IDENTIFICATION)

ACT, 2022 IS VIOLATIVE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS GUARANTEED
UNDER THE PICARONIAN CONSTITUTION?
A. That the Act is violative of Article 14 of the Picaronian Constitution.
Article 14 provides for equality before the law and equal protection of law. It comprises of
both ‘positive content’ and ‘negative content.’ Equality before law is the negative content and
equal protection of law is the positive content. 15 One of the important facets of Article 14 is
absence of arbitrary power which is the first essential of the rule of law on which our whole
constitutional system is based. Thus, non-arbitrariness is the key requisite for any legislative
action to be valid under Article 14. In the case of S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India 16 the
14 Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India and Anr, AIR 2018 SC 3476
15 State of Uttar Pradesh v. Deoman Upadhyaya, AIR 1960 SC 1125
16 AIR 1967 SC 1427
20
Petitioners

lOMoARcPSD|34937490
court held that ‘absence of arbitrary power’ as sine qua non to rule of law with confined and
defined discretion.
Justice. Bhagwati in the case of E. P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu 17 introduced the
Doctrine of Arbitrariness by asserting that “Equality is the antithesis of arbitrariness and
they are soul enemies. Equality belongs to the rule of law in a republic and arbitrariness
belongs to the whims and fancies of an absolute monarch. If an act is arbitrary, it can be held
violative of Article 14”. Thus, in case of there being arbitrariness in state action by the
legislature or the executive or by any other authority under Article 12 then Article 14
immediately springs into action and strikes down such a state action.
As per the Picarones Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022, the Magistrate has the
power to order collection of personal data of any person and the Magistrate does not have to
provide any reason for such an action, making it discretionary on its part. Discretion on the
part of state action must be reasonable as “where discretion is absolute man has always
suffered18.” The Picarones Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 grants unreasonable
and unrestricted power to the Magistrate and any other delegated authority to collect and
distribute personal information. However, this is arbitrary in nature as vesting of uncanalised
and unguided discretion of the Executive is opposed to the positive content of Right to
Equality19.
Thus, the Picarones Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 is violative of Article 14 of
the Picaronian Constitution.
B. That the Act is violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the Picaronian Constitution.
The Supreme Court of United States in 1929 gave a classic interpretation of the need for
freedom of speech in a democracy- “Public discussion is a political duty and should be the
fundamental principle of the government. The importance of this right is that it helps us in
attaining self-fulfilment and in discovering the truth20.” Article 19(1)(a) guarantees one the
fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, which allows one to express one’s
own or other’s ideas, opinions, etc freely by any communicable medium or by visible
representation.
17
18 United States v. Wunderlich, 1951 SCC OnLine US SC 93
19 S. R. Jayaram v. State of Mysore, AIR 1968 SC 346
20 Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)
21
Petitioners

lOMoARcPSD|34937490
At the same time, the Right not to speak is also included under freedom of speech and
expression. The same can be inferred from the judgements of Bijoe Emmanuel v State of
Kerala and Salman v. State of Kerala21 by the Supreme Court and the High Court
respectively. As per Section 2 of the Act, behavioural attributes can also be collected by a
police officer or a prison officer. A person refusing to allow his measurements being taken
and refusing to answer questions and exercising his Right not to speak can affect the
behavioural attribute data or report which is being collected by the police or prison officers.
The petitioners merely exercised their right to free speech and expression by tweeting on a
social media platform expressing their protest and dissatisfaction while ensuring that none of
reasonable restrictions were violated. For this act Mr. Longan was arrested and his
measurements were taken as per the Picarones Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022.
The Act is vulnerable in the sense where it can be misused by the government to stifle dissent
and take arbitrary action against anyone voicing their Right to freedom of Speech and
expression under Article 19(1)(a).
Thus, the Picarones Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 is violative of Article 14 of
the Picaronian Constitution.
C. That the Act is violative of Article 20(3) of the Picaronian Constitution.
Article 20(3) states that no person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be witness
against himself. The privilege against self-incrimination is available at both trial and pre-trial
stage which means that even when the investigation in a case is ongoing, the person or
persons who are accused in the investigation cannot be made to incriminate themselves of the
crime to aid the investigation22. The right against self-incrimination is available at every stage
where information is produced and is available to witness and the accused in the same
manner23. This however does not imply that the accused has absolute immunity from
testifying in the case. The accused can only refuse to answer those questions which might
incriminate him24.
As per Section 6 of the Act, those who refuse to allow their measurements from being taken
then the police or prison authorities can take the measurements through their own way and
21 Bijoe Emmanuel & Ors vs State Of Kerala & Ors, 1986 SCR (3) 518
22 M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, 1954 SCR 1077
23 Nandhini Sathpathy v. P.L. Dani, 1978 AIR 1025
24 Balasaheb v. State of Maharashtra, 1994 CriLJ 3044
22
Petitioners

lOMoARcPSD|34937490
the refusal would be an offence under Section 186 of the Picarones National Penal Code.
Such a criminalisation violated Article 20 (3) as it can be used as forcible extraction of
testimony of the accused persons. This provision also contains an element of compulsion. If a
person is compelled to make a statement that would incriminate him and there is duress
involved in doing so, and if that duress is a physical objective act, then Article 20(3) would
apply25. Through Section 6 of the Act the measurements can be taken under duress as the
duress is the threat of committing an offence under Section 186 of Picarones National Penal
Code. Furthermore, the utility, reliability, and validity of narco-tests and specially DNA tests
have already been rejected by the Supreme Court as the answers and samples given during
such tests are not voluntary and consciously given and thus it amounts to testimonial
compulsion and is therefore protected under Article 20(3)26.
Thus, the Picarones Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 is violative of Article 20(3)
of the Picaronian Constitution.
25 State of Bombay v.Kathi Kalu Oghad, 1961 AIR 1808

26 Selvi v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2010 SC 1974
23
Petitioners

lOMoARcPSD|34937490
D. That the Act is violative of Article 21 of the Picaronian Constitution.
Article 21 is the foundation of fundamental rights. Former Chief Justice of India Justice. S. A.
Bobde while declaring Right to Privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 stated that
consent is essential for distribution of personal records of an individual. Autonomy over
personal decisions, bodily integrity as well as personal information are a part of an
individual’s privacy. However, it is also recognised that in certain cases Article 21 can be
interfered with and for the same the Supreme Court has devised a triple test27:
a. It must prescribe a procedure
b. The procedure must withstand the test of one or more fundamental rights under
Article 19 which may be applicable in the given situation
c. It must withstand the test of Article 14
It is contended that as per the above-mentioned arguments, the Picarones Criminal Procedure
(Identification) Act, 2022 is violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and (b), and 20(3) of the
Picaronian Constitution. Thus, the Act fails the triple test under Article 21 and cannot be
justified by the government and is thus violative of Article 21. The Puttaswamy decision has
established that the right to privacy is a fundamental right protected under Articles 14, 19 and
21. The Supreme Court established a four-fold test which defines and applies the tests of
1. legitimate aim
2. suitable means
3. necessity of said means and
4. proportionality to adjudicate the constitutionality of any State action vis-à-vis the
right to privacy.
However, the procedure adopted in the Act is neither suitable nor proportional in meeting its
stated aim, which is to aid in the investigation of criminal matters.
27 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597

24
Petitioners

lOMoARcPSD|34937490
Furthermore, in the case of Justice. K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India 28 the
Supreme Court stated that the in case any state action violates an individual's Right to Privacy
then such measures must be proportionate and reasonable to be legal. The Act contains
provisions which can be used to forcefully collect an individual’s personal and bodily data
which is illegal as the Supreme Court upheld the right of an individual against forceful
intrusion into one’s body and keeping the bodily integrity and autonomy of an individual
intact in the case of Common Cause v. UOI29.
ISSUE – 4
WHETHER SECTION 8 OF THE PICARONES CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
(IDENTIFICATION) ACT, 2022 SUFFERS FROM EXCESSIVE DELEGATION AND
IS THUS UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
Separation of powers though not explicitly mention in the Constitution Picarones, is a part of
the basic structure of the Constitution30. Delegated legislation is the power wherein the
Legislature transfers or delegates its law-making power to any Executive authority. This is
done to ensure effectiveness in governance and implementation of laws however the problem
lies when there is excessive delegation by the Legislature. The question whether any
legislation suffers from excessive delegation has to be decided based on its subject matter, the
scheme, the provision of the statutes including preamble and the background in which the
statute was enacted.
Furthermore, it is essential that any delegated legislation be consistent with the parent act and
must not violate any legislative policies. Importantly, reasonableness under Article 14 and 19
is another essential factor for a delegated legislation to be held valid. Any executive authority
cannot make changes in the delegated legislation or rules to a parent act to turn over the
decision given by the Court. This would be considered as contempt of court.
28 Justice. K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2018) 1 SCC 809

29 Common Cause v. Union of India, (2018) 5 SCC 1
30 Kesavananda Bharati v. Union of India, (1973) 4 SCC 225
25
Petitioners

lOMoARcPSD|34937490
Moreover, under Section 4 the NCRB has been empowered with storing, preservation of
measurements and storing, sharing, dissemination, destruction, and disposal of records.
Although collection and dissemination of citizen records has been authorised, but there is a
big lacuna as to how this data is going to be used and shared since there is no legislative
policy to ensure the same. This aspect is delegated purely to the executive with no guidelines
by the legislature at all.
With absolutely no framework devised for implementation, the executive has been given the
power to make rules regarding the manner of collection, storage and sharing of records. And
history is witness to the fact that implementation without proper policy and supervision can
lead to disastrous consequences, as has already been seen in the case of several Aadhaar data
breaches. Therefore, it would be right to state that Section 8 of the Act suffers from the vice
of excessive delegation since the legislature has clearly abdicated its legislative function vide
this Section.
There is no doubt that there is presence of excessive delegation as provided by Section 8 of

the Act gives the Central and State government authorities the power to make rules but there
are very general guidelines which provide no legislative contours to the exercise of the rule-
making power by the Central and State governments. The executive is, as a result, given
broad rule-making powers without proper oversight.
Hence, because of the same, a door of excessive delegation opens because not only is Section
8 excessive in nature but also arbitrary. This puts the very purpose of this section in conflict
with Article 14 and Article 21 since it meddles with the personal data of people to a
troublesome extent, and invades into one’s right to privacy, respectively.
In the present Act, Section 8 allows the Central and State governments to abdicate its
legislative functions and make rules for the Act without providing any coherent guidelines to
the Executive. The Supreme Court in the case of Hamdard Dawakhana v. UOI31 has held
that delegation is not valid if there are no proper guidelines; in the present case Section 8 of
the Act delegate powers to the executive without proper safeguards and guidelines. In
addition, the essential legislative functions cannot be transferred by the Legislature to the
Executive but in the Picarones Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022, the essential
function of collecting and safeguarding the personal data is delegated to the executive which
31 Hamdard Dawakhana v. UOI, 1960 AIR 554

26
Petitioners

lOMoARcPSD|34937490
is against the judgement given by the Supreme Court in Re Delhi Laws Act32. Therefore, the
statute i.e., the Picarones Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 must be declared ultra
vires the Constitution as it exceeds the allowable bounds in delegating powers.
Thus, Section 8 of Picarones Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 suffers from
excessive delegation and is thus unconstitutional.
32 Re Delhi Laws Act, 1951 AIR 332

27
Petitioners

lOMoARcPSD|34937490
PRAYER
Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, authorities cited and arguments advanced, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of Picarones be pleased to:
1. That the petition is maintainable and the writ of Mandamus be granted.
2. That Section 124-A of the National Penal Code of Picarones is Unconstitutional.
3. That the Picarones Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 is violative of the
Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Picaronian Constitution and is
Unconstitutional.
AND/OR
Pass any other order it may deem fit, in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.
All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.
Counsel on behalf of Mochi Public Welfare Association
{Petitioners}
Sd/-
28
Petitioners

Inrr Petitioner Memorial For Moot On Sedition

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Inrr Petitioner Memorial For Moot On Sedition

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

lOMoARcPSD|34937490

INRR Petitioner - Memorial for moot on sedition

Constitutional Law - II (Christ (Deemed To Be University))

Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

Team Code: INRR 145

Internal National Ranking Rounds 2022-2023

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF PICARONES

MOCHI PUBLIC WELFARE ASSOCIATION

BEFORE SUBMISSION TO HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE

AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES

OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF PICARONES

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETIOTIONERS

Downloaded by Anuj Raj (anujraj.2707@gmail.com)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

Downloaded by Anuj Raj (anujraj.2707@gmail.com)

NGO Non-governmental Organisation

FIR First Information Report

PIL Public Interest Litigation

CPC Civil Procedure Code

UOI Union of India

IPC Indian Penal Code

DNA Deoxyribonucleic Acid

NCRB National Crime Records Bureau

CrPC Code of Criminal Procedure

NPCP National Penal Code of Picarones

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

Downloaded by Anuj Raj (anujraj.2707@gmail.com)

1. SP Gupta vs. Union Of India (1982) 2 SCR 365

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

Downloaded by Anuj Raj (anujraj.2707@gmail.com)

29. Kesavananda Bharati v. Union of India, (1973) 4 SCC 225

Statutes and Legislations:

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

Downloaded by Anuj Raj (anujraj.2707@gmail.com)

1908, Lexology (September 2, 2020) at https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?

Lawsisto (June 13, 2020) at

Study Material (May 17, 2021) at https://legalstudymaterial.com/locus-standi-

constitutional mandates at https://theleaflet.in/the-criminal-procedure-identification-

8. Siddharth R. Gupta and Kerti Sharma, Article 14 and Arbitrariness vis-a-vis

Legislative Action at https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/10/11/article-14-and-

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

Downloaded by Anuj Raj (anujraj.2707@gmail.com)

9. Meher Menga, Sedition law: A threat to Indian democracy at

12. Anirban Banerjee, Student radicalism and the issue of sedition at

Books and Journals:

1. LM Sighvi, Jagadish Swarup Constitution of India, 2nd Edition,

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

Downloaded by Anuj Raj (anujraj.2707@gmail.com)

enforcement of fundamental rights conferred by Part-III of the Constitution.

“Article 32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.

for by this Constitution.”

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

Downloaded by Anuj Raj (anujraj.2707@gmail.com)

 Picarones is a Sovereign, Democratic and Secular country with a population of over

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

Downloaded by Anuj Raj (anujraj.2707@gmail.com)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

Downloaded by Anuj Raj (anujraj.2707@gmail.com)

from excessive delegation and is thus unconstitutional?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

Downloaded by Anuj Raj (anujraj.2707@gmail.com)

Issue 2: Whether Section 124-A of the national penal code of picarones is