0

MOOT PROPOSITION

1. The Republic of Bharatland (“Bharatland”) is situated in South Asia and boasts the
second-largest population globally. It is surrounded by sea on its east, west, and south,
providing it with distinctive geographical and ecological advantages. Gaining
independence from colonial rule in 1947, Bharatland drew inspiration from the
constitutions of prominent democracies worldwide while meticulously crafting its own
constitution with the contributions of the Constituent Assembly. The constitution-making
process was influenced by the national freedom movement and the lessons learned from
the curtailed civil liberties during colonization.

2. A law commission was constituted in 1834, by the colonial forces for preparing a
comprehensive Penal Code for the sub-continent to bring about consistency and uniformity
in criminal law. After ascertaining the views of judges, jurists, lawyers and policymakers,
the process culminated in the Bharatland Penal Code, 1860 (“BPC”). The constitutionality
of BPC is presumed to be intact by the Constitution of 1949. Chapter VI of the BPC makes
sedition a punishable offence.

3. Bharatland’s Northeast region is a diverse blend of cultures, landscapes, and ethnicities

across its eight states. While it boasts various indigenous communities, the region grapples
with developmental challenges and occasional ethnic tensions. Factors like geographical
isolation, intricate social dynamics, and relative underdevelopment compared to other parts
of the country contribute to a complex array of demands. The extensive international border
and limited communication with the rest of Bharatland further complicate the political
landscape in the region.

4. One such Northeastern state is Veeranchal Pradesh (“Veeranchal”). Veeranchal has

witnessed geopolitical tensions and border disputes, particularly with the neighbouring
nation Huan. Huan has many a time referred to Veeranchal as “South Huan”, due to the
territorial claims overlap. The Huan-Bharatland War of 1962 resulted in territorial changes,
and Veeranchal was briefly occupied by Huan’s forces before a unilateral withdrawal. Since
then, the border situation has remained sensitive, with occasional incidents along the
border.

5. The Bharatland Forces (Special Powers) Act (“BFSPA”) was brought in 1958 by the Union
to maintain public order and suppress claims of secessionism in conflict zones of
Veeranchal. It grants the military special powers to combat insurgency, including search
and arrest without warrants. Proponents of BFSPA justify it for national security, while
critics raise concerns about human rights abuses and demand its repeal.

6. Since 2005, Bharatland is ruled by the Bharatland Nagrik Party (“BNP”). The government
led by its Prime Minister Amarendra Singh (“Amarendra”) won 303 seats out of the 545
seats contested in the last elections. The opposition in the minority has remained vocal and
watchful of the government since it came to power. The government is often criticized by

1
 the opposition for issues related to economic policies, socio-religious diversity, and alleged
erosion of democratic institutions.

7. However, in contrast to 2005, there has been a significant decline of 76% in extremist
incidents in 2020. Likewise, the fatalities among security personnel and civilians have seen
a substantial decrease of 90% and 97%, respectively, during this timeframe. The Home
Minister of the governing party has provided factual evidence, indicating that since 2018,
the application of BFSPA has been curtailed in three northeastern states whenever the
security conditions have shown improvement.

8. In Veeranchal, an army action, in the exercise of powers under BFSPA, called ‘Operation
Moon’ (“Moon”) was initiated by the Central Government in 2010 to counter an armed
insurgency for a separate state. It fuelled tensions, ultimately leading to the invocation of a
prolonged army operation indefinitely in Veeranchal which has continued till date. The
anxieties of Moon have relatively subsided and normalcy is on its way to Veeranchal. In
2015, BNP, known for its strong national presence, also formed a coalition government
with local partners at the state level to secure a majority in the legislative assembly of
Veeranchal. They continue to form the government in the state.

9. Teeter is a prominent social media platform for public discourse, news dissemination, and
social engagement in Bharatland. With a crore of active users, it plays a vital role in shaping
conversations on diverse topics, politics, and cultural trends across the country. A ‘ting’ can
be published by each user in the form of text up to 150 words on Teeter. Multiple tings can
be published without any limitation at any time. Pictures and videos can also be posted as
tings on Teeter.

10. On 5th January 2020, Mr Tashi, a Veeranchal-based journalist and anchor for local news
channel ‘Mahaul’ posted a writeup on Teeter. In his writeup, he stated:

“Years and years of neglect and carelessness have emptied our states. On top of it, we are
met with brutal state action and military abuse by the Central Government. I wonder if the
government has any intention whatsoever of treating us as equal citizens. I wonder if our
state could be cut off from the rest of Bharatland through a highway blockade. We need to
remember Hans Christian Andersen’s story, the ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’, where the
emperor was clothed in nothing but his sycophantic courtiers did not tell him so. Only a
little innocent child in the entire kingdom dared to ask the naked emperor – where are your
clothes? I too ask today to the Prime Minister – Emperor, Where are your clothes?”

11. Ambar is another investigative journalist who has recently started creating political satire
in the form of cartoons. Her cartoons are illustrated satirical commentaries, employing
humour and caricature to convey political messages. They often feature exaggerated
depictions of politicians and events, offering social or political critique. In the wake of the
ongoing BFSPA watch in the state of Veeranchal, she published a cartoon on 10th January
2020 on Teeter. In the cartoon, she created a man pointing towards a central reserve police
force personnel while saying –

2
 “You come up with this decision to continue BFSPA and call yourself proportional? The
hypocrisy reaches new heights every day. If you want us citizens to care about you and like
you, these practices have to be given up. What’s the difference between a cattle life and that
of ours under this rule? If you don’t want to compromise on personnel, start treating us like
humans.”

12. In a curious turn of events, on the morning of 12th January 2020, Tashi found his Teeter
account access restricted to some extent. He couldn’t post any photo/video from his
account. His account showed that these actions were taken in line with Teeter’s community
guidelines and terms of use and Teeter’s legal obligations under the laws of Bharatland. He
was still allowed to comment on tings, express likes on them, and could post 24-hour-long
tings only from his account in the form of content. A notification to such effect was visible
in the notifications section of their accounts which read only: “Your account has been kept
under restrictions for breach of community guidelines and terms of use”. Nothing else
except for this text was visible in the notification or anywhere in the account settings
regarding the decision so taken.

13. Ambar’s cartoon was also flagged with a ‘sensitive content warning’ on the same day. In
the next seven days, huge masses on social media criticised Ambar for her cartoon calling
her insensitive to national security and secessionist experiences. Many tings published
videos asserting that her remarks could distort the reasoning of necessity behind BFSPA.
They commented that in the garb of criticising BFSPA, she was delegitimising the
government rule. On 20th January 2020, she was also disabled from posting images/videos.
She could only like the tings posted by others but couldn’t comment anything on them. She
could publish textual tings limited to 100 words per ting.

14. On 22nd January 2020, Tashi and Ambar were arrested for their posts as criminal complaints
were lodged against them for the offence of Sedition under the Bharatland Penal Code,
1860. Aggrieved by the criminal cases filed against them, Tashi and Ambar sought the ears
of the Veeranchal High Court, filing (1) a petition under Section 482 of the Bharatland Code
Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“BCr.P.C, 1973”) to quash the criminal cases lodged against
them. In the writ petition, Tashi and Ambar claimed that the criminal proceedings were
initiated with ulterior motives to harass them instead of a case of sedition being made out
against them.

15. Two additional writ petitions were also filed by Tashi and Ambar to (2) challenge Section
124A of the BPC, which criminalised sedition, as unconstitutional; and (3) seek from Court
directions to the Union that the rules and regulations notified under BITA which govern
social media platforms lack adequate safeguards and adjudicating mechanisms, thereby
asking for consideration of a robust regime. They buttressed this petition on their self-
experiences and claimed that the rules lack any safety valves to protect the freedom of
speech of individuals, promote self-censorship by private bodies, and can be open to
dominant abuse by these big social media players, running foul of rule of law.

16. Finding that the matter involved the determination of substantial questions affecting a large
number of persons and questions of constitutional review, the HC merged all three petitions.
On 17th March 2020, the High Court dismissed the petition to quash the criminal cases filed

3
 against Tashi and Ambar. The court also ruled against the petition to declare Section 124A
unconstitutional and found Teeter to not violate BITA or any rules or regulations applicable
to it.

17. Aggrieved by the decisions of the High Court, Tashi and Ambar filed Special Leave
Petitions before the Supreme Court of Bharatland. As some matters involved determining
key Constitutional issues while others were appealed by the special leave petition, the Chief
Justice of Bharatland constituted a 5-judge Constitution bench to hear all the matters
together, in observing the renewed furore in Bharatland around the constitutionality of
sedition. Teeter was also issued notice by the Court.

18. Challenging the constitutionality of sedition law, Tashi and Ambar petitioned that
criminalizing sedition infringes on the right to freedom of speech, citing its misuse to
suppress political dissent, given its vagueness. They emphasized changes since
independence, deeming the application of reasonableness to Section 124A outdated. They
explicitly contended that the law, a colonial relic, was manifestly arbitrary, curbing the
personal liberty of innocent citizens.

19. The Union, in the High Court, had earlier argued that sedition implies a tendency to create
public disorder through violence or incitement, asserting that the section has safeguards to
protect legitimate criticism and strong-worded comments and that it was vital for
government functionality without subversion or rebellion even today. The Union pointed
out instances from states where democratically elected governments were put to selective
criticisms which were unfair in nature and were directed against the government itself
rather than the policies.

Accordingly, the Court has framed the following issues for its hearing on January 5th, 2022:

1) Whether the criminal cases filed against Tashi and Ambar on charges of sedition ought to
be quashed?

2) Whether the criminalisation of sedition violates Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Bharatland
Constitution?

3) Whether there are adequate safeguards and mechanisms within BITA and/or in any rules or
regulations made in exercise of powers granted under it to address the grievances of the
petitioners?

4
 DRAFTERS’ NOTE

1. The laws of Bharatland are pari materia to the laws of India.

2. All references are fictional. The legal system, history, and political circumstances of India
and China apply mutatis mutandis to Bharatland and Huan, respectively. For the sake of
argument, please assume Teeter is equivalent to Twitter; BFSPA to AFSPA, 1958; BPC to
Indian Penal Code, 1860; BCr.P.C, 1973 to Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (India); and
BITA to Information Technology Act, 2000 of India (and respective rules notified
thereunder).

3. Counsels may articulate and present submissions on any number of sub-issues under the
aforesaid three issues but cannot add/amend/reduce the scope of given issues. Oral
submissions/memorials must address all the given issues.

4. Any citations, without actual para/page references, are discouraged. Unnecessary citations
and passim references are to be avoided. In the case of oral arguments, primary references
for all case-laws being referred to is mandatory. Primary reference may be made to select
treatises which are treated as authorities in their own right.

5. Procedural law, wherever tweaked shall not affect the substantive content of the problem.
Counsels are advised to prioritise the substance of the issues framed over procedural
legality. The judges shall be advised to restrict modes of enquiry to substantive questions
alone.

6. Counsels have to assume that the date of the hearing is January 5th, 2022. Any legal
development post January 5th, 2022 cannot be incorporated and shall be treated as
inapplicable.

7. To confine written submissions within the word limit given in the rulebook, counsels are
advised to prepare specific, nuanced, and concise outlines of relevant law rather than long,
explanatory paragraphs of little value.

DRAFTED BY

The problem has been drafted by Bhavya Adhana (Batch Of 2025), Anushri Bhuta (Batch Of
2025), Amishi Aggarwal (Batch Of 2024), and Lokesh Soni (Batch Of 2025).
The drafters acknowledge the support extended by Sushrut Kaplay (Batch Of 2021, LLB),
Shubham Shaankrit (Batch of 2022, LLM), and Tilak Dangi (Batch Of 2022, LLB) in reviewing
the problem.
(Please note that any attempt to contact any of the aforementioned individuals for matters
relating to this problem shall result in immediate disqualification.)