MOOT COURT

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

INDIA, 1950.

KAMLA MEHTA………………. (PETTIONER)

V.

UNION OF INDIA……………………. (RESPONDENT)

MEMORIAL SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE

PETTIONER

1|Page
 CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 6
STATEMENT OF FACTS 7
ISSUES RAISED 9
ISSUES CONCERNED 10
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 11
ARGUMENT ADVANCED 12
PRAYER 14

2|Page
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AC Appeal Cases
A.I.R All India Reporters
All Indian Law Reports Allahabad series
A.P Andhra Pradesh
Art. Article
BLJ Bombay Law Journal
Bom LR Bombay Law Reporter
Cr. LJ Criminal Law Journal of India
CrPC Criminal Procedure Code
DPs Directive Policy
Edn. Edition
FRs Fundamental Rights
Guj Gujrat
Hon’ble Honorable
IPC Indian Penal Code
Jul July
Ors. Others
QBD Queen’s Bench Division (Eng)
pat Indian Law Reports Patna series
r/w Read with
S Section
SC Supreme Court
SCR Supreme Court Reporters
Sec. Section
TLR Times Law Reports (Eng)
U.P Uttar Pradesh
u/s Under section
V. Versus

3|Page
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

LEGISLATION

1. THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION ACT, 1950.

2. INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.
3. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973.

CASES REFERRED

1. State of Madras vs/ V.G Row SHALU1

2. Kedar Nath vs. State of Bihar2

BOOKS REFERRED

1. V.N. SHUKLA, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (12TH ED., 2013).

2. DR. D.D. BASU, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, (8TH ED., 2009).
3. P.M. BAKSHI, THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA, (14TH ED., 2017).
4. DR. J.N. PANDEY, THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, (51ST ED.,
2014).
5. H.M. SEERVAI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, (4TH ED., 2010).
6. R.S. BEDI, THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA, (10TH ED., 2013).
7. DR. S.C. KASHYAP, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, (1ST ED., 2008).
8. DR. J. N. PANDEY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA,54 TH EDITION,
2017.
9. K D GAUR, TEXTBOOK ON INDIAN PENAL CODE, SIXTH EDITION, 2018.
10.UNIVERAL’S CRIMINAL MANUAL, 2017 EDITION.
11.SHAILENDER MALIK, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, TWENTY FIFTH
EDITION, 2011.
12.RATANLAL AND DHIRAJLAL, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, THIRTHY
FOURTH EDITION, 2012

1
1962 AIR 955
2
1962 AIR 955

4|Page
 LEGAL DATABASES

 WWW.YOURARTICLELIBRARY.COM
 WWW.LEGALSERVICEINDIA.COM
 WWW.INDIANKANOON.ORG
 WWW.LAWRATO.COM
 WWW.MANUPATRA.COM
 WWW.INDIANCASELAWS.ORG
 WWW.INDLAW.COM
 WWW.JUDIC.NIC.IN
 WWW.LEXISNEXIS.COM
 WWW.SCCONLINE.CO.IN
 WWW.WESTLAW.COM
 WWW.NCBI.NLM.NIH.GOV

5|Page
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

It is most humbly submitted that the Respondent has appeared before this Hon’ble
Court in response to the notice sent to the Respondent with regard to writ petition
filed by the Petitioners under Article 323of the Constitution of India.

3
Article 32 in The Constitution Of India, 1950-
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.

6|Page
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. India is the small developing country where freedom of speech and

expression is guaranteed as a fundamental right under the constitution of
India. Bangistan is the neighboring country of India.
2. That in last few months there have been various instances where freedom of
speech and expression has came under the scanner in India.
3. That Mr. Pappu Yadav an actor-politician who is member of the Indian
National party (INP) the largest opposition party for her comment on social
media "Minister Mohan Singh said that Going to Bangistan is like going to
hell.
4. That Mr. Pappu Yadav filed a criminal case under section 124(A) of IPC
against Kamla Mehta.
5. That It is nothing like that. People there are just like us and there is no
difference. They treated us very well".
6. That on the receipt of the complaint, summons were issued against Kamla
Mehta. Kamla Mehta being aggrieved by these summons challenged the
constitutional validity of section 124 (A) of IPC stating it to be violative of
Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India before Supreme Court of India.
7. That Lamnesty International, an NGO conducted a campaign named
"Broken Families of Vienna (Vienna being a State of India)" where they
talked about the human rights violations by Indian Army onthe people of
Vienna.
8. That the debate the Indian People Party (IPP), which is the ruling was
heavily criticized for its inaction. Moreover at the end of Program the debate
got heated and there were heard some Indian slogans.
9. That Democratic Students Union (DSU) held protests on the hangit Faizal
Khan convicted of terror attack on the Parliament of India on the campus of
Murli Santhar University for which the permission was refused by the
University.
10.That Anti-Indian slogans and slogans to overthrow the government were
raised in the event.
11.That A complaint was filed against Raju Kumar the President of DSU for the
charges of sedition. The disciplinary committee of the University
investigated the matter to find out that slogans were raised by a group of
outsiders wearing masks.
12.That All India Students Organisation (AISO) a student body associated with
Indian People Party (IPP), was responsible for filing the complaint against
Lamnesty International and Raju Kumar under Section 124A of the IPC.
13.That National Crime Records Bureau in its report stated that in 2014 as
many as 47 cases of sedition were filed leading to the arrest of 58 people and
there has been alarming increase in the cases in 2015.
14.That In 2016 as many as 21 cases have been filed.

7|Page
 15.That Kamla Mehta, Lamnesty International and Raju Kumar filed a PIL
challenging the validity of Section 124A as being violative of Article 19 (1)
(a) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. As all the above issues
concerns interpretation of Article 19 (1) (a), 19 (2) and 21 of the Indian
Constitution, it was placed before a special bench of Supreme Court of India
to decide.

8|Page
 ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE 1. Whether Section 124A of IPC infringes the fundamental rights of

freedom of speech and expression enshrined under article 19(1)(a) of the
constitution?

ISSUE 2. Whether the people enjoy unfettered right to freedom of speech and
expression?

ISSUE 3. Whether someone who advocates the use of violence to overthrow

the government is entitled to protection under Article 19 (1) (a)?

ISSUE 4. Does a harsh criticism of the Government amount to an act that

undermines the security of the state or a disruption of public order to make a
case under section 124A?

ISSUE 5. Whether Section 124A of IPC infringes fundamental right to life and
liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution?

9|Page
 ISSUE CONCERNED

1. Whether Section 124A of IPC infringes the fundamental rights of

freedom of speech and expression enshrined under article 19(1)(a) of
the constitution?

10 | P a g e
 SUMMARY OF PLEADING

Whether Section 124A of IPC infringes the fundamental rights of freedom of

speech and expression enshrined under article 19(1)(a) of the constitution?
It is humbly submitted that Art19(1)(a) give the citizens of India the Fundamental
right of free speech and expression, Section 124A states whosoever by words
either spoken or written or by science or by visible representation or otherwise
brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt or excites or attempt to excite
disaffection towards the government by law as committed the said crime.

11 | P a g e
 ARUGMENTS ADVANCED

Whether Section 124A of IPC infringes the fundamental rights of freedom of

speech and expression enshrined under article 19(1)(a) of the constitution?

I submit before the honourable court The law of Sedition in Indivsa has assumed
controversial importance especially because of constitutional provision of freedom
of speech and expression guaranteed as a fundamental right under Article 19(1) of
the constitution.
One can approach the Supreme court if a fundamental right of a citizen of India
has been affected in this particular case, we observe that the fundamental right
guaranteed to the petitioner under article 19(1)(a) and 19(2) is been infringed upon
Section 124A of IPC which states an offence against the state and this particular
section talks about sedition.
Art. 19(1) under Part III of the constitution is enshrined as a fundamental right, the
petitioner has been booked under the charge of IPC, section 124A which talks
about sedition, which is contradictory in nature because the constitution under Part
III states Art.19(1), guarantees every citizen the legal right to freely express his/her
opinions.
The freedom is guaranteed under Art.19(1) each of these right is liable to be
controlled, curtailed and regulated to some extent, by laws made by the parliament
of state legislature, accordingly clause 2-6 of Art.19 laid down the ground and
purpose which a legislature can impose “reasonable restrictions”.
Limitation imposed by Art19(2) to 19(6) on the freedoms guaranteed by the
Art.19(1)(a) -(g) served a twofold purpose, i.e on one hand they specify that these
freedoms are not absolute and are subject to regulation on the other hand, the put
limitation on the power of the legislature to restrict these freedom, a legislature
cannot restrict these freedoms, beyond the requirements of Art.19(2).
The court has not decided on the exact definition of “reasonable” each case is to be
judged by its own merits. As the supreme has observed in the State of Madras vs
V.G Row4, “It is important in this context to bear in mind that the test of
reasonableness whenever prescribed should be applied to each individual statue
impugned and no abstract standard or general pattern of feasibleness can be laid
down as applicable to all cases.
The Section 124A, I.P.C, punishes any person who by words, spoken or written,
attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites disaffection towards the
government established by law. In pre-independence era, this section has been
interpreted very broadly, and excitingor attempting to incite bad feelings towards
the government was held punishable whether or not it resulted in public disorder.
Obviously, the section in such a broad form could not be sustained under

4
1952 AIR 196, 1952 SCR 597

12 | P a g e
Art.19(2). In Kedar Nath vs. State of Bihar 5, the Supreme Court Upheld Section
124A by interpreting it respectively-as rendering penal only such activities as
would be intended, or have a tendency to create disorder.
In Kedar Nath Singh vs State Of Bihar6 the court took the position that when a
provision of law is capable to interpretation, one of which makes it constitutional
and the other unconstitutional, the interpretation makes it constitutional should be
preferred. Accordingly, the court ruled that a mere criticism of government action,
however strongly worded, would be consistent with the fundamental right of
speech and expression. Only the words having the pernicious tendency to create
disturbance of law and order would be penal in the interest of public order. The
gist of the offence, the supreme court said “Is incitement to disorder or tendency or
likelihood of public disorder or reasonable apprehension thereof” for determination
of criminality, the court in each case has to determine whether the words in
question have “the pernicious tendency and the uttered has the “intention of public
disorder or disturbance of law and order” then only the penal law would take note
of the utterance.
It is stated that under Art13 a key fundamental right which gives teeth to all the
following fundamental rights, the effect of Art.13 is that the fundamental rights
cannot be infringed by the government either by enacting a law or through
administrative action. Art13(1) declares that all pre-constitution laws shall be void
to the extent of their inconsistency with the fundamental right. Art. 13(1) deals
with the pre-constitution laws; if any such law is inconsistent with a fundamental
right, it becomes void the date on which the constitution of India came into force.
The Section 124A of IPC States that whosoever 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 the law shall be punished to which fine might be added,
or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine might be
added. Art 19(1)(a) Provides us with the Fundamental Right of Freedom of speech
and expression. We infer that the freedom of speech and expression that has been
provided to the citizen of India is incomplete as the concerned penal section of
124A makes any utterance or expression against the state as a criminal offence,
curtailing the democratic freedom to criticize the working of the government a
fundamental institution to any democracy.

5
1962 AIR 955
6
1962 AIR 955

13 | P a g e
 PRAYER
1. In the light of the argument advanced and authorities citied and the question
presented, we humbly pray before the Hon’ble court to acquit the petitioners
in the present case under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Any such other order in the interest of justice may be passed.

AND/OR
3. PASS ANY ORDER THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE COUNSELS FOR THE
RESPONDENT AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

SD/
Counsel for Petitioner

14 | P a g e