Moot Proposition- Constitution
Court: Supreme Court of India
Jurisdiction: Article 32 of the Constitution of India
Facts:
The State of Nirmalya recently passed the Public Order and Harmony Act, 2024.
Section 5 of the Act states:
“No person shall organize or participate in any public meeting, protest, or assembly
in a public place without prior written permission from the District Magistrate,
obtained at least 15 days in advance. The District Magistrate may reject the
application if it is deemed that the assembly may disturb public order.”
Section 8 of the Act states:
“Any news publication, including online platforms, must submit the full content of
any article related to the State Government for approval to the Department of
Information and Public Relations before publishing it.”
Two incidents occurred:
1. Arya Sharma, a college student and social activist, organized a peaceful candlelight
march to protest against environmental degradation in the city park. She did not
apply for permission, believing it was her fundamental right. The police dispersed
the march and arrested her under Section 5 of the Act.
2. The Daily Nirmalya, a local online newspaper, published an article critical of the
State Government’s handling of flood relief. They did not send the article for pre-
publication approval. The editor was fined ₹50,000 under Section 8.
Feeling aggrieved, Arya Sharma and The Daily Nirmalya jointly filed a writ petition under
Article 32 before the Supreme Court of India, claiming that the Act violates their
fundamental rights.
Issues for Argument:
1. Whether Section 5 of the Public Order and Harmony Act, 2024, violates the right to
freedom of speech and expression and the right to assemble peacefully under
Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution.
2. Whether Section 8 of the Act, requiring pre-publication approval of news content, is
unconstitutional as it amounts to prior restraint and violates Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution.
Instructions to Teams:
Petitioners will argue that both provisions are unconstitutional and violate fundamental
rights, and do not fall within the scope of reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) and
19(3).
Respondents (State of Nirmalya) will argue that both provisions are reasonable restrictions
necessary for maintaining public order and preventing misinformation.
