BALAJI LAW COLLEGE FIRST INTERNAL MOOT

A.Y. 2019-20

BEFORE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIVA

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

UNDER ART.32 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIVA

KAMALA MEHTA PETITIONER NO. 1

RAJU KUMAR PETITIONER NO. 2

LAMNESTY INTERNATIONAL PETITIONER NO. 3

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIVA RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

SUBMITTEED BY

VISHNU N GAWALI

LL.B III

1
 TABLE OF CONTENT

PAGE NO.

1- LIST OF ABBRIVATION.................................................................3
2- INDEX OF AUTHORITIES..............................................................5
3- STATEMENT OF JURIDICTION...................................................7
4- STATEMENT OF FACT...................................................................8
5- STATEMENT OF ISSUE.................................................................10
6- SUMMARY OF PLEADING............................................................11
7- ARGUMENT ADVANCED..............................................................12-26
FIRST ISSUE.....................................................................................12-23
SECOND ISSUE................................................................................23-26

8 - PRAYER.............................................................................................27

2
 TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATION FULL FORM

AIR All India Reporter

All. Allahabad

Anr. Another

Bom. Bombay

Cal. Calcutta

CrPC Criminal Procedure Code

CrLJ Criminal Law Journal

Dy. Deputy

Edn. Edition

Hon’ble Honorable

i.e. That is

Ibid Ibidem

ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights

ILR Indian Law Reporter

Ker Kerala

Ltd. Limited

No. Number

Ori. Orissa

Ors. Others

Pat. Patna

3
Punj. Punjab

QB Queen’s Bench

Ran. Ranchi

S. Section

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Report

ss. Sections

u/s Under Section

V. Versus

& And

4
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES CITED

1- Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab...............(1955) 3 SCC 214;AIR1955 SC1785

2- Union of India v. Motion Picture Association AIR 1999 SC 23345
3- Ramesh Thapper v. Union of India 1950 SCR, 594
4- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India ..................1978 AIR 597 1978 SCR (2) 621
5- Bennett Coleman co & ors v. Union of India & ors.....(1973) 2 SCR 757 at 829
6- Khusboo v. Kannimal & Anr ..............................(2010)5 SCC600 (para 45)
7- Shreya Singhal v. Union of India........................AIR 2015 SC 1523
8- Kedarnath v. State of Bihar...............................1962 AIR 955
9- Queen Empress v. State of Bihar........................ILR (1898) 22 Bom 112
10- Niharendu Dutt Majumdar v. King Emprror........AIR 1939 cal 703
11- King Emperor v. Sadashiv Narayan.....................(1944)46 Bom LR459
12- Ramanadan v. State............................................AIR 1959 All 101
13- Sanskar Marathe v. State of Maharashtra..........Cri PIL 3-2015
14- Gurjatider Pal Singh v. State of Punjab................(2009) 3 RCR (cri) 224
15- Indra Das v. State of Assam ................................(2011) 3 SCC 380
16- State of Assam v. Fasiullah Hussain ...................(2013) 4 GLT 284
17- State of Rajasthan v. Ravindra Singh....................(2001) 3 WLN 242
18- Chintaman Rao v. State of MP...............................AIR 1951 SC 11
19- Papnasam Labour Union v. Madras Coast Ltd...1955 AIR 2200,1995
SCC(1)501
20- Hanif Qureshi v. State of Bihar..........................AIR 1958 SC 73
21- Calcutta Electricity Supply Corporation (India) Ltd. v. Subhash Chandra
Bose................AIR (1992) 573: (1991) SCR Supl. (2) 267
22- N.H.R.C. v. State of Arunachal Pradesh..........AIR (1996) 1234:(1996) SCC(1)
742
23- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India...................AIR 1978 SC59: (1978) SCC 248
24- Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab..........................(1994) 3 SCC 569

5
ACT, RULES AND INSTRUCTIONS

1- Indian Penal Code 1860

2- Constitution Of India

ONLINE DATABASE

1- Manupatra www.manupatra.com
2- SCC online www.scconline.com
3- Indian kanoon www.indiankanoon.com
4- Jstore www.jstore.com
5- Lexisnexis www.lexisnexis.in

BOOK REFERRED

1- Indian Peal code 5th edition K.D. Guar

2- Indian constitutional Law 7th edition M.P.Jain

6
 SATEMENT OF JURIDICTION

The Petitioner have approached this Hon’ble Court under Article 321 of the
Constitution.

1
Article 32 of The Constitution of India:
(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 clauses (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.

7
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

That the indiva is small developing counry where the freedom of speech and
expression is guaranteed as a fundamental right under the constitution of indiva.
Bangistan is the neighbouring country of indiva. In last few months there have been
various instances where freedom of speech and expression has come under the scanner
in indiva.

That the Mr. Pappu Yadav filed a criminal case under section 124A of IPC (Indiva
Penal Code) against Kamala Mehta, an actor-politician who is a member of the Indiva
National Party, the largest opposition party for her comment on social media “Minister
Mohan Singh said that, going to Bangistan is like going to hell”. It is nothing like that.
People there are just like us and there is no difference. They treated us very well”. On
the receipt of the complaint, summon was issued against Kamala Mehta. Kamala
Mehta being aggrieved by these summons challenged the constitutionality of Section
124A of the IPC stating it to be violative of Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of
Indiva before the Supreme Court of Indiva.

That Lamnesty International, an NGO conducted a campaign named “Broken Families

of Vienna” (Vienna being a state of Indiva) where they talked about the human rights
violation to speak. During the debate the Indiva Pepoles Party (IPP, which is the ruling
party) was heavily criticized for its inaction. At the end of the program the debate got
heated and there were heard some anti-Indiva slogans.

That the democratic Student Union (DSU) held protests on the hanging of Faizal Khan
convicted of terror attack on the parliament of Indiva on the campus of Murli Sankar
University for which permission was refused by the University. Anti-Indiva Slogans
slogans to overthrow the government were raised in the event. 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 that the slogans were raised
by a group of outsiders wearing masks.

All Indiva Student Organization (AISO) a student body associated with Indiva Peoples
Party (IPP) was responsible for filing the complaint against Lamnesty International and
Raju Kumar under section 124A of the IPC.

8
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 an alarming
increase in the cases in 2015. In 2016 as many as 21 cases have been filed.

Kamala 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.

As all the above issues concerns interpretation of Article 19(1) (a), 19(2) and 21 of
Indiva Constitution it was placed before a Special Bench of the Supreme Court of
Indiva to decide.

9
 STATEMENT OF ISSUE

Whether Section 124A of IPC infringes the fundamental right of freedom of speech
and expression enshrined under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution?

Whether Section 124A of IPC infringes the fundamental right to life and liberty
enshrined under the constitution ?

10
 SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

ISSUE 1

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

speech and expression enshrined under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution?

It is humbly submitted that section 124A of IPC infringe right of freedom of speech
and expression enshrined under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution.
Every citizen has the right to Freedom of Speech and expression and the same can be
restricted by imposing reasonable restrictions .The offence of sedition has an essential
requirement of disturbance of public order or incitement to violence. The alleged
slogans which were raised by the people and students did not lead to any public
disorder or incitement to violence and thereby arrest of these students by the police by
applying section 124A of IPC is an unreasonable restriction on the Freedom of Speech
and Expression granted under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India .

ISSUE 2

Whether Section 124A of IPC infringes the fundamental right to life and liberty
enshrined under the constitution ?

It is humbly submitted that Section 124A of IPC infringes the fundamental right to
life and liberty enshrined under the constitution. A nation is governed by its
Constitution. It is the Supreme Law of our Country. Constitution declares India a
sovereign, socialistic, secular, democratic, republic, assuring its citizens of justice,
equality and liberty, and endeavors to promote fraternity among them. While looking
at the fundamental rights enumerated in the Constitution, it will be well clear that the
framers of the Constitution had done it in such a way that it acts a pillar to the national
security and integrity of the country. The fundamental rights, embodied in part III of
the Constitution provide civil rights to all the citizens of India and prevent them from
the encroachment of society and also ensure their protection.

It is submitted that according to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) Report,
20142 as many as 47 sedition cases were reported in 2014 alone, across India which

2
National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) Report, 2014

11
did not involve violence or incitement to violence. As per the NCRB figures total of 58
persons were arrested for the same with only one conviction.
The golden triangle provides full protection to individuals from any encroachment
upon their rights from the society and others as well. i.e. Article 14, 19 and 21. They
are inter related with each other. Freedom of speech and expression is integral part of
Article 21.

12
 ARGUMENT ADVANCED

ISSUE 1

It is humbly submitted that section 124A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 constitutes
an unreasonable restriction to freedom of speech and expression under article
19(1)(a).

As per the facts Kamala Mehta just express her opinion on the comment made by the
Mr.Pappu Yadav. Which does not incite the people against the government of Indiva.
Art 19(1)(a).gives freedom to express the views or opinion by word, speech, sign etc.

Further the explanation 3 of S.124A of IPC provides that,

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.

The anti-slogans which were raised at the campaign held by Lamnesty International
NGO and at protest held by students of Murali Shankar Universiry is some lonesome
slogans. Such slogans did not constitute any threat to the Government establish by law
nor could the same give rise to feeling of enmity or hatred among different
communities or religious of other groups.
In the case of Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab3, the Court refused to penalise
casual raising of slogans few times against the State by two persons (Khalistan
Zindabad, Raj Karega Khalsa, and Hinduan Nun Punjab Chon Kadh Ke Chhadange,
Hun Mauka Aya Hai Raj Kayam Karan Da). It was reasoned that raising of some
lonesome slogans, a couple of times by two individuals, without anything more, did
not constitute any threat to the Government of India as by law established nor could
the same give rise to feelings of enmity or hatred among different communities or
religious or other groups.

Freedom of speech, considered the basic freedom by most philosophical thinkers,

consists of several facets, including the right to express one’s opinion unhindered,

3
(1995)3 SCC 214: AIR 1995 SC 1785

13
unfettered by the fear of retribution. It is one of the most basic elements for a healthy,
open minded democracy and is foundation of any democratic society4.
Under Indian Constitution Freedom of speech and expression has been guaranteed
under Article 19(1)(a) reads as :“Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of
speech, etc.—All citizens shall have the right— (a) to freedom of speech and
expression.”
The freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) includes the right to express one’s views
and opinions at any issue through any medium. It thus includes the right to propagate
opinion. The Preamble of the Constitution of India inter alia speaks of liberty of
thought, expression, belief, faith and worship.

As in RomeshThappar V. Union of India5, Justice Patanjali has rightfully held that

19(1)(g) is the very basis and essence of the constitution and our democracy which is
further supported by Maneka Gandhi V. Union of India6,Bhagwati J.,has emphasized
on the significance of the freedom of speech & expression in these words:“Democracy
is based essentially on free debate and open discussion, for that is the only corrective
of government action in a democratic set up. 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 & general discussion of public matters is absolutely
essential.”The right of free speech is absolutely indispensable for the preservation of a
free society in which Government is based upon the consent of an informed citizenry
and is dedicated to the protection of the rights of all, even the most despised
minorities.7
In a separate concurring judgment Beg,J. said in Bennett Coleman & Co. &Ors. V.
Union of India &Ors.8,that the freedom of speech and of the press is the Ark of the
Covenant of Democracy because public criticism is essential to the working of its

4
Union of India V. Motion Picture Association , AIR 1999 SC 23345
5
[1950] S.C.R. 594
6
1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621
7
Speiser V. Randall, 357 US 513.
8
[1973] 2 S.C.R. 757 at 829 ; See also Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. & Ors. V. Union of India, (1962) 3 S.C.R.
842 at 866; RomeshThappar V. The State Of Madras,1950 AIR 124

14
institutions.In S. Khushboo V. Kanniamal & Anr.9, this Court stated that the
importance of freedom of speech and expression though not absolute was necessary as
we need to tolerate unpopular views.

It is submitted that when it comes to democracy, liberty of thought and expression is a

cardinal value that is of paramount significance under our constitutional scheme.10
However this right is subject to reasonable restrictions being imposed under Article
19(2)11. The freedom to air ones views is the lifeline of every democratic institution
and any attempt to stifle, suffocate this right would be inconsistent with the democratic
setup.12 So, it can be construed that freedom of speech, is crucial to the working of a
democratic Constitution and is an aspect of human self fulfilment or autonomy.

It is submitted that The Constitution of India does not define the word sedition.
Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code defines the offence of ‘Sedition’ and provides
as follows “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 India13, As per the Indian law, sedition is any form of speech, action, writing that
incites hatred against the established order and harms the systematic peace of the
country.14
With increasing incidents of mutiny and the rising wave of nationalism, the offence of
sedition was incorporated by the British Government under Section 124A of the
IPC.The main object to bring in such a tool was to suppress the voices against the
British, not to serve the people but to rule. Bal Gangadhar Tilak was tried under
sedition law, was convicted and sentenced to six years imprisonment to Mandalay
jail15.

9
(2010) 5 SCC 600(Para 45)
10
ShreyaSinghal V. Union of India AIR 2015 SC 1523
11
Article 19(2) The Constitution of India, 1950
12
LIC V. Manubhai D. Shah, AIR 1993 SC 171
13
Section 124A of Indian Penal Code,1860
14
Kedarnath V. State of Bihar , 1962 AIR 955
15
Queen Empress V. Bal Gangadhar Tilak, ILR (1898) 22 Bom. 112.

15
 Mahatma Gandhi was tried in 1922 for his articles published in the
magazine Youth India. Mahatma Gandhi said that ‘the section 124-A under which
he was charged is perhaps the prince among the political sections of the IPC
designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen’16.

In Niharendu Dutt MajumdarV. King Emperor17, The Federal Court held that
“public disorder or the reasonable anticipation or likelihood of public disorder is the
gist of the offence”. The court was of the view that sedition implies resistance or
lawlessness in some form. In King Emperor V. Sadashiv Narayan Bhalerao18 ,the
Privy Council overruled the decision of the Federal Court and held that excitement of
feelings of enmity to the government is sufficient to make one guilty under Section
124A of IPC.

A prominent objection to the inclusion of sedition as an exception to the freedom of

speech and expression under Article 19(2) was raised by Sardar Hukum Singh19. He
also criticised the validation of laws on the ground that they were “in the interest of
public order” or undermined the “authority or foundation of the state” as classifications
that were too vague.20. Most vocal opposition to the inclusion of the term sedition
came from Mr. K.M. Munshi 21
.The term ‘sedition’ was thus dropped from the
suggested amendment to Article 13 of the Draft Constitution.
Even P.M. Jawaharlal Nehru was against the existence of offence of sedition22,Nehru’s
government decided to amend the Constitution inserting the words ‘public order’ and
‘relations with friendly states’ into Article19 (2) and the word ‘reasonable’ before
‘restrictions’, which was meant to provide a safeguard against misuse by the
government23.

16
A.G. Noorani Indian Political Trials: 1775-1947, page no. 235
17
AIR 1939 Cal 703
18
(1944) 46 BOMLR 459
19
Constituent Assembly Debates on December 7, 1948,
20
Constituent AssemblyDebates on December 7, 1948
21
Constituent Assembly Debates on 1 December, 1948 Part I Volume VII
22
Parliamentary Speech on the Bill relating to the First Constitution of India Amendment 1951
23
The Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951

16
In the case of Ramnandan V. State24, Allahabad HC declared Section 124A of IPC
unconstitutional as the Court was of the opinion that the said section transgressed its
authority by imposing unreasonable restriction on the freedom of speech enshrined
under Article 19(1)(a). As a result of this, the meaning of the term “Sedition” given by
the Privy Council was rejected.
The after math of the case is reflected in Kedarnath V. State of Bihar25 where the
Privy council’s interpretation of “Sedition” was edited i.e. it was narrowed down to fit
the current scenario as well as to fall within the ambit of 19(2) thereby becoming a
reasonable restriction.The SC made it clear that allegedly seditious speech and
expression may be punished only if the speech is an ‘incitement’ to ‘violence’, or
‘public disorder’.The crime of sedition over the years has been narrowed down to the
extent that merely criticizing the policies and actions of government will not attract the
crime of sedition but if the actions and words incite the feelings of hatred and
disaffection in the minds of the audience, it will be considered as sedition.26

It is submitted that now sedition is being used as a political tool. The law has been
misinterpreted time and again. More than fifty years have passed since Kedarnath
judgment, which laid down the interpretation of sedition as it is understood today. The
provision under Section 124A is being allowed to be put to use irrespective of whether
or not the alleged act or words are, in fact, seditious acts, or words constituting a
“tendency to cause public disorder or incitement to violence”27.

It is submitted that the charges of sedition against the accused have failed to stand up
to judicial scrutiny. Charges for the offence of sedition today are framed with a view to
instil fear and to scuttle dissent and are in complete violation of the scope of sedition
laid down Kedarnath’s case28.
In 1979, India ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR), which sets forth internationally recognized standards for the protection of

24
AIR 1959 All 101
25
1962 AIR 955
26
1962 AIR 955
27
Sanskar Marathe V. State of Maharathra, Cri.PIL 3-2015
28
Kedarnath V. State of Bihar , AIR 1962 SC 955

17
freedom of expression29. However, misuse of sedition law under Section 124A and
arbitrary slapping of charges continue to restrict speech in ways inconsistent with
ICCPR.
It is acknowledged that the words which directly provoke violence or which directly
threaten the maintenance of public order may deserve censure under the restrictions
mentioned in Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution30. However, that is not what the
misapplication of sedition law seeks to achieve. The present practice of misapplication
of sedition law aims to crush all opposition to the ruling political party. Its regular use
continues to hamper freedom of speech and expression in the country.

It is submitted that though a very small number of sedition cases leads to actual
conviction,it causes harassment of individuals till the time judgment comes out. There
have been many cases :

(i) Prof. Binayak Sen, a civil right activist was arrested and convicted of the
offence of sedition in 2007 for having links with naxalites. Prof. Sen was
granted bail on an appeal filed before Chhattisgarh HC.31
(ii) In November 2010, noted writer and activist Arundhati Roy was charged
with Sedition by Delhi Police for allegedly having made anti-India remarks
at an event organized in Kashmir on 21.10.2010.
(iii)In September 2011 Anti-Nuclear activist S.P. Udayakumar, faced several
cases of sedition for protesting against Kudankulam Nuclear power Plant in
Tamil Nadu.
(iv) In September 2012 Aseem Trivedi, a noted political cartoonist was arrested
on the 09.09.2012, based on a political activist’s complaint that his cartoons
insulted the country. The charge was in connection to a cartoon he had
made depicting the national emblem in support of the anti-corruption
movement in the country.32

29
Artcile 19 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
30
Article 19(2) of The Constitution of India, 1950
31
Dr VinayakBinayak Sen 2 Pijush ... V. State Of Chhattisgarh, Criminal Appeal No 20 of 2011
32
Sanskar Marathe V. State of Maharashtra , Cri.PIL 3-2015

18
 (v) In 2014 67 Kashmiri students were charged with sedition by the Uttar
Pradesh police for supporting Pakistan in a cricket match between India and
Pakistan. Later the Uttar Pradesh government dropped the charges.
(vi) In October 2015 Tamil folk singer S Kovan was slapped with a sedition
case for singing songs critical of Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa
and her liquor policy. He had criticized the state government for allegedly
profiting from state-run liquor shops at the expense of the poor. The
petition was later dismissed.
(vii) A resident of Kerala, Anwar Sadhik was arrested by police under
Section 124A for a derogatory Facebook comment.
(viii) On 15.02.2016 Former DU lecturer S.A.R Geelani was arrested on
sedition charge related to an event conducted at the Press Club in New
Delhi. The police had claimed to have registered the FIR taking suomotu
cognizance of media clips of the incident. Sessions court granted bail to
Geelani.
It is submitted that according to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) Report,
201433 as many as 47 sedition cases were reported in 2014 alone, across India which
did not involve violence or incitement to violence. As per the NCRB figures total of 58
persons were arrested for the same with only one conviction.

With reference to facts of the present case34 in Gurjatinder Pal Singh V. State of
Punjab35, Punjab & Haryana HC quashed the FIR filed against him under Section
124A of the IPC, where in a religious ceremony organised in memory of the martyrs
during Operation Blue Star, the petitioner gave a speech to the people present
advocating the establishment “Khalistan”. He stated that the Constitution was a
“worthless/useless” books for the Sikhs. The supporters of the petitioner then raised
aggressive slogans and naked swords were raised in the air. The High Court cited the
decision of the SC in Balwant Singh V. State of Punjab36, where it was held that the

33
National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) Report, 2014
34
Moot Proposition (Para 2)
35
(2009) 3 RCR (Cri) 224
36
(1995) 3 SCC 214 : AIR 1995 SC 1785

19
mere casual raising of slogans a couple of times without the intention to incite people
to create disorder would not constitute a threat to the Government of India.
The court have acquitted the citizens accused of the charge of sedition on the
grounds that the prosecution had failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove that
they had committed a seditious act37.
In the light of cases mentioned under 4.8, sedition law is used to threaten civilians
with legal action. The Law is misunderstood by the Police Authority, in carrying out
arrests and slapping charges, rarely have they given respect to the restriction of
‘incitement to violence or threat of public disorder’.38 In spite of the fact that there
being no imminent threat, even then it is used to curb the right to free speech and
expression.
The foundational reason adopted by the SC for validating the provision was the
retention of the sedition law in England at that time39.That law of sedition was
abolished in Britain in 2009,40 as it was found untenable in the light of the Human
Rights Act, 1998. The emphasis on free speech by the European Convention on
Human Rights (ECHR) accelerated the process of expulsion of sedition laws from
many democracies. New Zealand followed suit after noting that in the United States,
Canada and Australia, the law is practically in disuse. Therefore, it is clear that the
British legislation is no longer a good law in the legal or political sense.
1. A law like Sedition is a colonial law and has no place in a country like India. When
we construe Article 19(1)(a) and Section 124A of IPC together it is made out that
the current application of law goes way beyond its ambit.
This law creates an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right to speech and
expression. This right of freedom to speech and expression granted by Article 19(1)(a)
is not completely unchecked.Article 19(2) empowers the state to place restriction on
the fundamental right of speech and expression in the interest of:-
Sovereignty and Integrity of India ,The Security of the State, Friendly relations
with foreign states, Public order, Decency or Morality, Contempt of Court,
Defamation, Incitement to an offence.
37
Indra Das V. State of Assam ((2011) 3 SCC 380) ; State of Assam V.FasiullahHussain (2013) 4 GLT
284. ; State of Rajasthan V. RavindraSinghi (2001) 3 WLN 242
38
Sanskar Marathe V. State of Maharashtra , Cri.PIL 3-2015
39
Kedarnath V. State of Bihar , AIR 1962 SC 955
40
Coroners and Justice Act, 2009

20
In Chintaman Rao V. State of M.P.41 SC said:"The phrase 'reasonable restriction'
connotes that the limitation imposed on a person in enjoyment of the right should not
be arbitrary or of an excessive nature, beyond what is required in the interests of the
public. The word 'reasonable' implies intelligent care and deliberation, that is, the
choice of a course which reason dictates. Legislation which arbitrarily or excessively
invades the right cannot be said to contain the quality of reasonableness and unless it
strikes a proper balance between the freedom guaranteed in Article 19(1)(g) and the
social control permitted by clause (6) of Article 19, it must be held to be wanting in
that quality."

The following principles and guidelines has been laid down for considering the
constitutionality of a statutory provision upon a challenge on the alleged vice of
unreasonableness of the restriction imposed by it42:
(a) The restriction sought to be imposed on the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by
Article 19 of the Constitution must not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature so
as to go beyond the requirement of felt need of the society and object sought to
be achieved.
(b) There must be a direct and proximate nexus or a reasonable connection
between the restriction imposed and the object sought to be achieved.
(c) It is imperative that for consideration of reasonableness of restriction imposed
by a statute, the Court should examine whether the social control as envisaged
in Article 19 is being effectuated by the restriction imposed on the
Fundamental Rights.
(d) Although Article 19 guarantees all the seven freedoms to the citizen, such
guarantee does not confer any absolute or unconditional right but is subject to
reasonable restriction, which the Legislature may impose in public interest. It is
therefore necessary to examine whether such restriction is meant to protect
social welfare satisfying the need of prevailing social values.

41
AIR 1951 SC 11
42
Papnasam Labour Union V. Madura Coats Ltd, 1995 AIR 2200, 1995 SCC (1) 501

21
 (e) Restriction imposed on the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 19 of
the Constitution must not be arbitrary, unbridled, uncanalised and excessive
and also not unreasonably discriminatory.
In the light of above findings, it is submitted that the object of section 124A is to
punish any person for bringing the government into contempt or to excite
disaffection towards the government by ‘violent means’ and in the present there
has been an expression of an opinion by the students and peoples. The charge of
sedition section 124A of IPC is arbitrary and excessive which goes beyond the
requirement of the need of the society. A rally had been conducted every year
inside the college premises and the alleged raising of slogans did not result in any
disturbance to public order or any violence. There is no direct and proximate nexus
or a reasonable connection by charging the students for sedition and the object
sought to be achieved by this. The test of reasonableness has to be determined in an
objective manner and from the standpoint of the interest of general public43.The
charge of sedition is unreasonableness restriction and no social control can be
effectuated by imposing such restriction.
At best, the offence alleged to be committed in the present case is covered by
another law in force in India. Unlawful Activities (prevention) Act,1967,
Section2(1)(o) says that : “Unlawful Activity in relation to an individual or
association, means any action taken by such individual or association (whether by
committing an act or by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible
representation or otherwise), and (iii) which causes or is intended to cause
disaffection against India”

It is humbly submitted that the restriction imposed by Section 124A of IPC constitutes
and unreasonable restriction on the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression
(Article 19) and the same should be declared unconstitutional.

A state is an abstract and Government is one of the elements of the state, it is a limb of
the state. The word "Government" is not defined anywhere; what is stated in Section
3(23) of the General Clauses Act is simply this that "Government"44 includes both the
Central Government and the State Government. Each government has acted time and

43
Hanif Qureshi V. State of Bihar AIR 1958 SC 73
44
3(23) General Clauses Act ,1897; Section 17 IPC

22
again under the presumption that government and Nation are synonymous.
Government established by law has to be distinguished from the person for the time
being engaged in carrying on the administration45. Thus India and Government cannot
be equated.

In the alternative, the present appeal before this Hon’ble court arises out of Special
Leave to appeal from the decision of High court. Prima facie the case is not made out
due to the absence of any public disorder or imminent threat. Even the judiciary have
failed to take notice of this and has convicted the accused for the crime of sedition.

ISSUE 2

Whether Section 124A of IPC infringes the fundamental right to life and liberty
enshrined under the constitution.

It is humbly submitted that Section 124A of IPC infringes the fundamental right to
life and liberty enshrined under the constitution. A nation is governed by its
Constitution. It is the Supreme Law of our Country. Constitution declares India a
sovereign, socialistic, secular, democratic, republic, assuring its citizens of justice,
equality and liberty, and endeavors to promote fraternity among them. While looking
at the fundamental rights enumerated in the Constitution, it will be well clear that the
framers of the Constitution had done it in such a way that it acts a pillar to the national
security and integrity of the country. The fundamental rights, embodied in part III of
the Constitution provide civil rights to all the citizens of India and prevent them from
the encroachment of society and also ensure their protection.

The golden triangle provides full protection to individuals from any encroachment
upon their rights from the society and others as well. i.e. Article 14, 19 and 21. They
are inter related with each other. Freedom of speech and expression is integral part of
Article 21.

PROCEDURE ESTABLISH BY LAW VS DUE PROCESS OF LAW

“Procedure established by law” means a law duly enacted is valid even if it’s contrary
to principles of justice and equity. The strict following of the procedure established by

45
Kedarnath V. State of Bihar , AIR 1962 SC 955

23
law may raise the risk of compromise to life and personal liberty of individuals due to
unjust laws made by the law-making authorities. It is to avoid this situation, SC
stressed the importance of due process of law.

Due process of law doctrine not only checks if there is a law to deprive the life and
personal liberty of a person but also see if the law made is fair, just and not arbitrary.

Under due process, it is the legal requirement that the state must respect all of the legal
rights that are owed to a person and laws that states enact must conform to the laws of
the land like – fairness, fundamental rights, liberty etc. It also gives the judiciary to
access fundamental fairness, justice, and liberty of any legislation.

In Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India case46 SC held that – ‘Procedure established

by law’ within the meaning of Article 21 must be ‘right and just and fair’ and ‘not
arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive’ otherwise, it would be no procedure at all and the
requirement of Article 21 would not be satisfied. Thus, the ‘procedure established by
law’ has acquired the same significance in India as the ‘due process of law’ clause in
America.

In Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab47 Supreme Court asserted that the procedure
contemplated by Art.21 is that it must be “right, just and fair” and not arbitrary,
fanciful or oppressive. A procedure not fulfilling these attributes is no procedure at all
in the eyes of Art.21.

It is submitted that according to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) Report,
201448 as many as 47 sedition cases were reported in 2014 alone, across India which
did not involve violence or incitement to violence. As per the NCRB figures total of 58
persons were arrested for the same with only one conviction.

The Golden Triangle

 Article 14 – Equality before the law, the state shall not deny any person
equality before the law or equal protection of law within the territorial
46
AIR 1978 SC 597:(1978) 1 SCC 248
47
(1994) 3 SCC 569
48
National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) Report, 2014

24
 limits of India or prohibition on the grounds of race, caste, religion, sex or
place of birth.
 Article 19 – Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech and
expression. All citizen shall have the right
o To freedom of speech and expression
o To assemble peacefully and without arms
o To form associations or unions
o To move freely throughout the territory of India
o To reside and settle in any part of the territory of India, and
o To practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade
or business.
 Article 21 – Protection of life and personal liberty, no person shall be
deprived of his personal liberty except according to the procedures
established by law

These rights are regarded as the basic principles for the smooth running of life for the
citizens of our country. The golden triangle provides full protection to individuals from
any encroachment upon their rights from the society and others as well. Article 14, it
provides for equality before law and equal protection of the law. It means that no
person is deprived of his equality among other citizens of our country. The provision
also gains importance because the enactment of such a provision leads to the
abolishing of certain inhuman customary practices of our country. The provisions of
this article also envisage certain legal rights like protection of law which purely means
that the law should be the same for every person with some necessary exceptions.

Article 19 provides certain absolute rights such as freedom of speech and expression,
freedom of movement, freedom of forming associations and unions, etc. This Article
brings about important changes in the society as it provides various rights to the people
so that there is harmony among the people of our country.

On the other hand Article, 21 provides for protection of life and personal liberty. This
provision of the Constitution is one of the most implemented as well as widely
interpreted areas in the field of law enforcement. The Article covers the most sensitive
area, i.e. protection and securing the life and liberty of a person. Perhaps this may be

25
the most violated provision of our Constitution as well. Various courts in our country
have interpreted the constitutional validity of Article 21 in a common man’s life.

Dr. B R Ambedkar once said “Unlike a drop of water which loses its identity when
it joins the ocean, man does not lose his being in the society in which he lives.
Man's life is independent. He is born not for the development of the society alone,
but for the development of his self”. Hence if we want development of society we
have to provide some freedom and protection to the common citizen and these three
article are the most basic among the other Fundamental right so these are known
as golden triangle in the Indian constitution.

Right to Social Security and Protection of Family

Right to life covers within its ambit the right to social security and protection of
family.

K. Ramaswamy J.,in Calcutta Electricity Supply Corporation (India) Ltd. v. Subhash

Chandra Bose49, held that right to social and economic justice is a fundamental right
under Art.21.The learned judge explained that the right to life and dignity of a person
and status without means were cosmetic rights. Socio-economic right were, therefore
basic aspiration for meaning the right to life and that right to social security and
protection of family were an integral part of the right to life.

In N.H.R.C. v. State of Arunachal Pradesh50 , the Supreme Court said that the state is
bound to protect the life and liberty of every human being , be he a citizen or
otherwise, and it cannot permit anybody or group of person to threaten other person or
group of persons. No State Government worth the name can tolerate such threats by
one group of person to another group of persons; it is the duty bound to protect the
threatened group from such assaults and if it fails to do so, it will fail to perform its
Constitution as well as to statutory obligations.

It is humbly submitted that ones a person charged under S.124A of IPC his social life
completely destruct. The view of society to see accused family is completely changes.
Life of accused family become miserable in case of misuse of S.124A of IPC.

49
AIR (1992)573: (1991) SCR Supl.(2) 267
50
AIR (1996)1234:(1996) SCC(1) 742

26
 PRAYER

Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the
petitioner most respectfully pleads and requests this Hon’ble court to declare:

1- That the Section 124A of IPC infringes the fundamental right of freedom of
speech and expression enshrined under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution.
2- That the Section 124A of IPC infringes the fundamental right to life and
liberty enshrined under the constitution.

And pass any other order it may deem fit, in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good
Conscience.

27