TEAM CODE-TC10R

MOOT COURT MEMORIAL

BEFORE
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION /2024

UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION

IN THE MATTER OF:

DHARMANAND POVER PETITIONER

v.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI RESPONDENT

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF

INDIA

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1
Table of Contents
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION...........................................................................................3
STATEMENT OF FACTS..........................................................................................................4
STATEMENT OF ISSUES........................................................................................................5
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS................................................................................................6
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED....................................................................................................7
PRAYER...................................................................................................................................11

2
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The petitioners have filed the present special leave petition before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in the matter of Dharmanand Pover v, High Court of Delhi under Article 136
of the Constitution of India.
The present memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions, and arguments.

3
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Kamlalal Nohru University ("KNU") is situated in Delhi, India, renowned for offering
post-graduate courses in the liberal arts. Student politics at KNU is historically dominated by
two main factions: the Championist Party of India – Farcist ("CPI-F"), advocating left-
leaning ideologies such as communism, and the Desh Jalao Party ("DJP"), representing a
right-wing stance with a pro-Hindutva agenda. Tensions between these factions often escalate
into verbal altercations and occasional physical violence.
2. Sanwariya Kumar, Kabmar Khalid, and Kamiban Bhattacharya, all affiliated with CPI-F,
are pursuing PhD studies at KNU. Sanwariya Kumar served as the president of the KNU
students' council during the academic year 2016-2017.
3. Annually, certain students at KNU organize a rally to denounce the Indian government's
occupation of parts of Kashmir, a practice dating back to 1984, following the hanging of
Taqbool Jatt, a Kashmiri separatist leader. The rally on February 9, 2016, initially featured
slogans advocating "Azadi" (freedom), symbolizing the Kashmiri struggle against Indian
rule. However, the tone of the slogans escalated into anti-India chants, allegedly including
phrases like "death to India," "we will wage war against this tyrannical state till it crumbles,"
and "we will avenge the murder of Taqbool." Members of DJP recorded the event and
notified the police, leading to the arrest of Sanwariya Kumar, Kabmar Khalid, and Kamiban
Bhattacharya under sedition charges (Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860).
Although released on conditional bail, criminal proceedings against them are ongoing. In
response, CPI-F affiliates organized further rallies, asserting their right to freedom of speech
and expression.
4. In response to the situation, Dharmanand Pover, a public-spirited advocate, agreed to
represent the KNU students. He filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India before the High Court of Delhi, contending that Section 124A's sedition offense
constituted an unreasonable restriction on the constitutional right to freedom of speech and
expression enshrined in Article 19. He argued that Article 19 protects individuals' freedom to
dissent against state policies and actions.
5. The High Court of Delhi rejected Mr. Pover's arguments, affirming the constitutionality of
Section 124A as a reasonable restriction on the freedom of speech and expression under
Article 19. The court likened the contentious slogans to an "infection," suggesting that it
needed to be controlled before spreading further. However, the High Court granted
Dharmanand Pover leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

4
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether the Present special leave Petition is maintainable before the Hon’ble
Supreme court of India?

2. Does Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which criminalizes sedition,
constitute a reasonable restriction on the right to freedom of speech and expression
guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India?

3. Is the expression of dissent and disagreement with state policy, as exemplified by the
slogans raised during the rally at KNU, protected under Article 19 of the Constitution
of India, or does it amount to sedition as interpreted by the High Court?

5
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether the Present special leave Petition is maintainable before the Hon’ble
Supreme court of India?
No, the present special leave petition is maintainable before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India under article 136 of the Constitution.

2. Does Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which criminalizes sedition,
constitute a reasonable restriction on the right to freedom of speech and
expression guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India?
yes, section 124A of the Indian Penal Code 1860 constitute unreasonable restriction
on the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under article 19 of the
Constitution of India.

3. Is the expression of dissent and disagreement with state policy, as exemplified by

the slogans raised during the rally at KNU, protected under Article 19 of the
Constitution of India, or does it amount to sedition as interpreted by the High
Court?
Yes, the expression of dissent and disagreement with state policy amounts to sedition
under section 124(A)

6
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. Whether the Present special leave Petition is maintainable before the Hon’ble
Supreme court of India?
Appeals before the Supreme Court are typically expected to involve matters of public
interest or significance. If the appeal primarily concerns private or individual interests
without broader implications for society, it may be argued that the Supreme Court's
intervention is unnecessary. The Court's time and resources should be allocated to
cases that have a more significant impact on the public at large. Also inciting
violence, dissatisfaction towards govt amounts to sedition which is already decided by
the high court and
2. Does Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which criminalizes sedition,
constitute a reasonable restriction on the right to freedom of speech and
expression guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India?
it could be argued that Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, which
criminalizes sedition, constitutes a reasonable restriction on the right to freedom of
speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. Here
are some potential arguments:

Protection of Sovereignty and Integrity: Section 124A aims to safeguard the

sovereignty and integrity of India by prohibiting any act or speech that incites
disaffection towards the government established by law. In a diverse and pluralistic
society like India, maintaining unity and preventing actions that undermine the
nation's integrity are crucial for stability and progress.

Prevention of Public Disorder: Sedition laws serve to prevent public disorder and
ensure law and order by deterring individuals from making statements or engaging in
activities that could provoke violence or unrest. Such restrictions on speech are
necessary to maintain peace and harmony within society and protect the rights and
safety of all citizens.

National Security Concerns: Sedition laws play a vital role in safeguarding national
security interests. In an era marked by various internal and external threats, including
terrorism and insurgencies, it is imperative for the government to have legal
mechanisms in place to address acts that pose a threat to the nation's security and
stability. Section 124A helps in addressing such concerns by deterring activities that
may undermine national security.

Balancing Individual Rights and Collective Interests: While Article 19 guarantees the
right to freedom of speech and expression, it also recognizes that these rights are
subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of
India, public order, and morality. Section 124A represents a carefully crafted balance
between protecting individual rights and safeguarding collective interests, ensuring
that freedom of expression is exercised responsibly and in a manner consistent with
the larger societal welfare.

7
 Judicial Oversight and Safeguards: The constitutionality of Section 124A has been
upheld by the courts, indicating that it is not an arbitrary or disproportionate
restriction on freedom of speech. Additionally, the legal system provides safeguards
against potential misuse or abuse of sedition laws, such as the requirement of prior
governmental sanction for prosecution under Section 124A, ensuring that its
application is judicious and in line with constitutional principles.

In conclusion, Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code constitutes a reasonable

restriction on the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 of the
Constitution of India. It serves legitimate purposes such as protecting national
sovereignty, maintaining public order, and safeguarding national security interests,
while also striking a balance between individual rights and collective welfare.

3. Is the expression of dissent and disagreement with state policy, as exemplified by

the slogans raised during the rally at KNU, protected under Article 19 of the
Constitution of India, or does it amount to sedition as interpreted by the High
Court?
it can be argued that the expression of dissent and disagreement with state policy, as
exemplified by the slogans raised during the rally at KNU, is not unconditionally
protected under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. While Article 19 guarantees
the right to freedom of speech and expression, including the right to dissent, this right
is subject to certain restrictions imposed by law, including those aimed at maintaining
public order and sovereignty. Here are several reasons supporting this argument:

Reasonable Restrictions: Article 19 itself acknowledges that the right to freedom of

speech and expression is subject to "reasonable restrictions" imposed by the State in
the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, public order, and decency or
morality. Therefore, expressions of dissent that pose a threat to public order or
undermine national sovereignty may be subject to legal limitations, such as those
imposed by sedition laws.

Interpretation of Sedition Laws: The Indian Penal Code, specifically Section 124A
which deals with sedition, criminalizes acts that incite violence or promote hatred
against the state. If the slogans raised during the rally at KNU are deemed to fall
within the purview of sedition as interpreted by the courts, they may not be protected
under Article 19.

Balancing Individual Rights with Public Interest: While individuals have the right to
express dissent and disagreement with state policy, this right must be balanced with
the broader public interest, including the maintenance of public order and the
protection of national security. If expressions of dissent have the potential to incite
violence or disrupt societal harmony, they may be curtailed to protect the collective
welfare.

8
Legal Precedents: Judicial decisions in India have recognized that the right to freedom
of speech and expression is not absolute and can be limited by law to protect public
order and prevent violence. Courts have upheld the constitutionality of sedition laws,
indicating that expressions of dissent that cross certain thresholds may be subject to
legal consequences.

National Security Concerns: In the context of the rally at KNU, if the slogans raised
are perceived to threaten national security or incite violence, they may be deemed to
fall outside the scope of protected speech under Article 19. The State has a legitimate
interest in preventing acts that undermine its authority and jeopardize national
security.

In conclusion, while Article 19 of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to

freedom of speech and expression, expressions of dissent and disagreement with state
policy may be subject to legal restrictions, particularly if they pose a threat to public
order or national security. Therefore, the expression of dissent at the rally at KNU
may not be unconditionally protected under Article 19, depending on the specific
circumstances and legal interpretation.

Reasonable Restrictions to article 19 which is right to freedom of speech and

expression-
1. Security of the State: Restrictions can be imposed on speech and expression that
threaten the security of the State, including actions aimed at overthrowing the
government by violent means or promoting secessionist movements.

2. Public Order: Speech and expression that disrupt public order or lead to acts of
violence or civil unrest can be restricted. This includes incitement to violence,
rioting, or any other actions that may disturb public tranquility.

3. Defamation: Restrictions can be imposed on speech and expression that are

defamatory or injurious to the reputation of individuals or organizations. This
includes libel, slander, or any other form of communication that damages
someone's reputation.

4. Contempt of Court: Restrictions can be placed on speech and expression that

undermine the authority or dignity of the judiciary, including actions that obstruct
the administration of justice or show disrespect to the courts.

5. Decency and Morality: Speech and expression that are obscene, indecent, or
offensive to public morality can be restricted. This includes content that violates
societal norms or offends public sensibilities.

6. Incitement to an Offence: Restrictions can be imposed on speech and expression

that directly incite others to commit an offence, such as hate speech, incitement to
violence, or solicitation of criminal acts.

9
7. Sovereignty and Integrity of India: Restrictions can be placed on speech and
expression that undermine the sovereignty and integrity of India, including actions
that promote separatist movements or challenge the territorial integrity of the
nation.

8. Friendly Relations with Foreign States: Restrictions can be imposed on speech

and expression that jeopardize India's relations with other countries, including
actions that incite hostility or provoke conflicts with foreign nations.

These reasonable restrictions are aimed at balancing the right to freedom of speech
and expression with other competing interests such as public order, national security,
individual rights, and societal welfare. They are essential for maintaining the harmony
and stability of Indian society while upholding the principles of democracy and
individual liberty.

10
 PRAYER

In the light of facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
humbly and respectfully prayed before this Hon’ble court to-
1. Do not give relief to the appellant in case of sedition and give them appropriate
punishment

AND/OR pass any other order that the court may deem fit in the interest of justice, equity and
good Conscience. And for this kindness, the Petitioners as in duty bound, shall humbly pray
All of which is respectfully affirmed and submitted.
Counsel for the respondent

11