Criminal Appeal No 111/2020

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT BHARATPUR

UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION BHARATPUR

IN THE MATTER OF:

SAVE THE NATION GROUP …PETITIONER

UNION OF BAHARISTAN …RESPONDENT

PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 13
 TABLE OF CONTENT

LIST OF ABBREVATION……………………………..page (2)

INDEX OF AUTHORITY……………………………...page (3-4)

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………page (5)

STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………page (6)(7)(8)

STATEMENT OF ISSUES……………………………..page ( 9)

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT…………………………page (10)

ARGUMENT ADVANCE……………………………..page (11,12,13,14)

PRAYER………………………………………………..page (14)

PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 13
 LIST OF ABBREVATION

AIR ALL INDIA REPORT

SC SUPREME COURT

SCC SUPREME COURT CASE

U/A UNDER ARTICLE

UOI UNION OF BAHARISTAN

Sec SECTION

Hon’ble HONOURABLE

Ors OTHER

PG PAGE

Govt. GOVERNMENT

PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 13
 INDEX OF AUTHORITY

CASE LAWS:

1. Ramlila Maidan Incident v Home Secretary, UOB (2012)

2. Balwant singh & Another v state of Punjab(1995)

3. Kedernath Singh v State of Bihar (1962)

4. Ramlila maidan incident vs Home secretary,union of india (2012)

5. Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam (2011)

LIST OF BOOKS:

1. V. N. Shukla, Constitution of India,(12th edition)

2. MP Jain , Indian Constitutional Law, (7th edition)

3. Indian penal code ,S.N Mishra,(25th edition)

STATUTES
1. The Constitution of Baharistan, 1950.

2. The Citizenship Amendment ACT 2019

3. Citizenship act 1955

4. Foriginers Act 1946

WEBSITES REFFERED:
1. www.scconline.com

2. www.Manupatra.com

3. www.legalservices.com

4. www.indiankanoon.com

5. www.livelaw.com

6. www.barandbench.

7. www.lawoctopus.com

8. www.lawboomi.com

9. www.pathlegal.com

10. www.advocatekhoj.com

11. www.edzorb.com

PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 13
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER HAS APPROACHED

THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF BAHARISTAN UNDER
ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTIUTION OF BAHARISTAN, 1950;
ACCORDING TO WHICH THE HONO’BLE COURT HAS
JURISDICTION WHICH READ AS FOLLOWS:
Art. 226 Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this part-

1. The right to move the high court by appropriate proceedings for the
enforcement of the rights guaranteed by this part.

2. The high court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including
writs in the writs in the nature of the 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 rights guaranteed by this Article shall not be suspended except as otherwise
provided for by this Constitution.

IT SETS FORTH FACTS AND LAWS WHICH THE CLAUSE ARE BASED.

PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 13
 FACTS OF THE CASE:

1.Baharistan being the largest democracy in the world has the lengthiest written Constitution.
The Preamble to the Constitution of Baharistan declares Baharistan as a Sovereign Socialist
Secular Democratic Republic

2. In a democracy, the right and duties of the citizen are broadly specified. The State owes
certain responsibilities towards all its citizens. Baharistan boasts of having the second largest
population of the world.

3. The term Secular was added to the Preamble of the Constitution as part of the basic structure
vide the 42nd amendment to the Baharistan Constitution in 1973.

4. Baharistan has a neighbouring nation, Hazaristan, which is not a secular nation, but an
Islamic Republic.

5. Baharistan does not favour any specific religion, but rather gives equal status and respect to
all religions. Hinduism being the religion that is followed by majority of Baharistanis, i.e.
79.8%, followed by Islam (14.23%) and other religions including Christianity and Buddhism
being 2.3 and 1.72 percent, respectively.

6. The concept of Citizenship, at the same time is very essential in Baharistan, as it being the
second most populous country, can provide certain exclusive rights only to her citizens.
However, the idea of citizenship was alleged to be largely disturbed by the influx of a number of
illegal immigrants in the country via the undefined and poorly demarcated North eastern border
of the country.

7. The country surrounded by multiple nations from the Northern Frontier, has been periodically
reporting the instances of the arrival and settlement of many illegal immigrants since
independence.

8The worst affected state of Baharistan, i.e. Nassam was alleged to have, as many as 50% of its
population, being such immigrants. Owing to this reason, the Central and State government in
collaboration, launched the National Register of Citizens for Baharistan, which contained entries
of the people being original inhabitants of the state and as the government claims, excluded all
the illegal immigrants. The Register was informed to be released with the aim to identify the
real citizens and provide them with certain exclusive citizenship rights, and reach to a nodal
decision w.r.t. the illegal immigrants. However to the astonishment of many, even a big number
of Citizens who claimed themselves to be the original residents of the state did not find their
names in the register.

9. This led to a state of disruption in Nassam, and the government proposed multiple editions of
the amended NRCs. Meanwhile, to tackle the issue of illegal immigrants at National Level, the
Central Government came up with a bill called Citizenship Amendment Bill, which was alleged
to have some provisions being grossly against secularism, and being discriminatory against
Muslims.

10.The controversial provision that spiked this disruption was a Proviso being added to Section
2 of the Citizenship Amendment Act 1955 by the Citizenship Amendment Bill 2019.

11. Despite of the objections, the bill was passed in both the houses of the baharistan
Parliament, which led to widespread protests around the Nation. A midst the protests, the bill
even received the President’s assent and converted into a full fledged Act on 12th October,
2019.

12.The constitutional validity of the Citizenship Amendment Act was challenged into various
High Courts and Supreme Court, by the Shislamians, claiming that the bill arbitrarily

PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 13
discriminates against Shislamians and the government having a long term agenda of combining
it with PAN NRC, and declaring Muslims as illegal immigrants, putting them either in
Detention Camps or sending them to Major Muslims Countries.

On the other hand, the Central Government denied any such claim and argued that the Act is
constitutionally valid and in no way challenges the Fundamental Rights of any Religious
Community and also the citizenship status of the community. Nor does the bill has any agenda
to sweep off the Muslims as Baharistan being a secular country gives equal respect to all
religions. Even the Home Minister of Baharistan claimed that Muslims are in no way the
religiously persecuted minorities and nor does the bill has any agenda to sweep them off.

13. The protests soon turned violent and led to mass bloodshed between the two religious
groups. It majorly involved students from certain universities and political groups like PMI and
KNU, leading to large scale loss of lives.

14. In response to the legislation, several sit off protests were organized by the member of
Muslims community. This was morally supported by the opposition members through their
statements and visit.

15. One such site of protest being Rahim Baugh witnessed a sit in protest. However, soon after a
few days a complaint of road blockage and Public Nuisance to started finding their place in
media reports. The ruling party started widespread discouragement towards the protest,
highlighting major public inconvenience and affixing their stand of not standing the Act back.

16. Various state governments took cognizance of the situation asking the protesters to halt their
actions. However, continuous denial and an explicit incident of making a call through
loudspeaker from a local mosque, which called the members of the Muslim community to
continue their fight for justice, invited prompt action by the government.

17. Some of the state governments in turn ordered an Internet ban in various cities. Local people
including organizers of protest moved to High Court on the ground of violation of their
Fundamental Rights.

The High Court realizing the gravity, clubbed all the Petitions filed in various High Courts and
transferred it to itself as a single Petition.

PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 13
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES:

1. The alleged protesters are guilty of sedition and shall be punished?

2. Organizing protests against state amounts to threat to space and public

order of state?

3. The citizenship amendment act is against constitutional values of

Baharistan?

4 .The expulsion of illegal immigrants is not a threat to right of minorities of

Baharistan?

5.The persecuted minorities have a right to acquire citizenship under

Baharistan law?

PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 13
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

 organizing protests against state amounts to threat to space

and public order of state
That the citizens of India have a fundamental right to assembly and peaceful
protest that cannot be taken away by an arbitrary executive or legislative action.As
stated in Article 19(1)(a)and Article (19)(1)(b) Protesting is not only a
fundamental right granted by Indian Constitution but protesting against injustice is
also a moral duty thus creates and obligation on a state to not intervene during the
peaceful protests unless contrary to any provision of the law

PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 13
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE.2 WHETHER OR NOT THE PROTESTS LEADING TO RIOTS COULD BE

INCLUDED AS VALID PEACEFUL PROTESTS?

That the citizens of India have a fundamental right to assembly and peaceful protest that cannot
be taken away by an arbitrary executive or legislative action. 1 Protesting is not only a
fundamental right granted by Baharistani Constitution but protesting against injustice is also a
moral duty.

It was inManeka Gandhi v UOB that Justice Bhagwati said, “If democracy means
government of the people by the people, it is obvious that every citizen must be entitled to
participate in the democratic process and in order to enable him to intelligently exercise his
rights of making a choice, free and general discussion of public matter is absolutely essential”.

It is humbly submitted that the protest in the said matter was peaceful only matter was, it held at
a public place. Whereas the International democratic standards recognize that using public
spaces for protests purposes is as legitimate as other uses of the same space.2

That the term “public order” used in Article 19(2) as a legitimate ground of restriction can be
reasonable only when there is evidence that protesters will incite lawless or disorderly acts and
that such acts are likely to occur.

Freedom of assembly is bound to collide with competing rights, such as right to freedom of
movement. Protest may cause a certain level of disruption to ordinary life and encounter
hostility.

It is submitted that, the right to freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of expression and
freedom of association, are considered indispensable in a democratic society, and states are
expected to accord due weightage to their importance. The right to freedom is not just another
right, but one of the primary and most important foundations of any democratic structure. The
undermining of freedom of expression directly affects the central nerve of the democratic
system and the state has obvious duty to safeguard this right.

The Thomas Committee3 recommended reversing the burden of proof against protestors.
Accepting the suggestion, the Court held that public property has been damaged has to be prove
by prosecution.

by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution4. Right to internet is a fundamental right forming a part
of the right to privacy and the right to education U/A 21 of the Constitution.5

The internet also plays a very important role in trade and commerce and some business were
completely dependent on the internet, therefore, the freedom of trade and commerce by using
the internet was also constitutionally protected under Article 19 (1)(g).

It was held in Balwant singh & Another v state of Punjab (1995) Supreme court had observed
“The casual raising of the slogans ,once are twice by two individuals alone cannot be said to be
aimed at exciting or attempt to excite hatred or disaffection towards the government …..Section
124A of IPC ,would in the facts and circumstances of the case have no application whatsoever
and would not be treated to the facts and circumstances of the case

PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 13
It is humbly submitted that the protesters were not involved any act against the state and there
was no attempt to instigate any hatred against the state.

Hence mere raising of slogans cannot be treated as an act of violence or hatred against a state if
the government restrict the protests this way it will lead to the deterioration of the spirit of the
constitution.

It was held in Kedernath Singh v State of Bihar(1962) A five Judge bench of the Supreme
court ( 1962) that while the clause was constitutional ,its operation was limited only to activities
or intention or tendency to create public disorder or cause disturbance of public peace ‘’

So as per the judgement ,an allegedly sedition speech will not attract the charge unless it is
established that it incited violence or mooted creating public order.

Thus it is humbly requested before this hon’ble court to drop the charges against the protesters
and deliver the fair and just compensation to them.

As stated in section 124A of ipc that 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
excites or attempts to 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 imprisonment
which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.

Explanation 1.— The expression “disaffection” includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity

.Explanation 2.— Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the Government

with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to excite
hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.

Explanation 3.— Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action

of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection,
do not constitute an offence under this section.

Thus the protesters were not in a any contavention of section 123A because in the explanation 3 of
the section 124A it is clearly mentioned that person Comments expressing disapprobation of the
administrative or other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred,
contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.

Thus it is humbly requested before this hon’ble court to drop the charges against the protesters
and deliver the fair and just compensation to them .

The act of the governement is againist the ARTICLE 51A of the constitution as it violates the
Article 51A (e),(f) .(e) to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all
the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities; to
renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women;(f) to value and preserve the rich
heritage of our composite culture;

Thus it is humbly requested before this hon’ble court to protect my fundamental right and drop
charges against the protesters and deliver the fair and just compensation to them .

Thus the arguments presented by the state are unsatisfactory because they are againist the
principal ‘’Fight for survival for many may temporary suffering for some”

Thus it is humbly requested before this hon’able court that protesters should be released and
charges should be droped on fair and just grounds.

InRamlila maidan incident vs Home secretary,Union of india and Or s Supreme court held
that “Citizens have a fundamental right to assemble and peaceful protests which cannot be taken
away by an arbitrary executive or legislative action.

PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 13
Thus it is humbly requested before this hon’able court that the action of the police should be
declared arbitrary and proper inquiry and investigation should be made and protester should be
released on fair and just grounds.

Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam (2011): The Court held that for an act to be considered
seditious, there must be a direct incitement to violence or intention to create public disorder.

Accused's participation in a peaceful protest and expression of dissent through slogans should
not be considered seditious unless there is clear evidence of incitement to violence.

Thus it is humbly requested before this hon’able court that the action of the police should be
declared arbitrary and proper inquiry and investigation should be made and protester should be
released on fair and just grounds.

PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 13
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS USED, ISSUE RAISED,

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND AUTHORITIES CITED, IT IS MOST HUMBLY
AND RESPECTFULLY PRAYED THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED
TO ADJUDGED AND DECLARED THAT:

1.THAT THE PROTESTERS LEADING AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT POLICIES

WERE NOT AGAINST THE STATE.

2.THAT THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLE (19)(1)(A) AND (19)(1)

(B)WERE VIOLATED BY THE ACT AND THE GOVERNMENT FAILED TO FULFIL
CONSTITUTIONAL DIRECTIVES.

3.FIR AGAINST THE PROTESTERS SHOULD BE QASHED IMMEDIATELY. AND PASS

THE ORDER THAT HON’BLE COURT MAY BE DEEM FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUST,
EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.

SD/

COUNSEL

PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 13