IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

TEAM CODE TD-4-P

IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION

IN THE HONBLE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA
IN THE MATTER OF

RAMAIYA KUMAR AND ORS.

(Petitioner)
v.

UNION OF INDIANA
(Respondent)

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABBREVIATIONS.. ... II
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES..............................................................................................III
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .............. ................................................................IX
STATEMENT OF FACTS...X
STATEMENT OF ISSUES.....XI
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ............................................................................. .....XII
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED .....................................................................................................1
CONTENTION I- SECTION 14-A OF PRESS COUNCILS ACT, 1978 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL .....1
[1.1] THE IMPUGNED AMENDMENT VIOLATES THE FREEDOM OF PRESS UNDER ART. 19
(1)( A).....1
[1.1.1] IMPUGNED AMENDMENT ACT AIMS AT RESTRICTING THE CIRCULATION OF IDEAS
ANTITHESIS TO ITS POLICES ..................................................................................................2
[1.1.2] RIGHT TO KNOW IS INCLUDED UNDER ARTICLE 19 (1) (A) OF THE CONSTITUTION .2
[1.2] THE IMPUGNED ACT IS HIGHLY EXCESSIVE AND DISCRETIONARY IN NATURE ...............3
[1.2.1] IMPUGNED AMENDMENT ACT IS EXCESSIVE IN NATURE............................................3
[1.2.2] IMPUGNED ACT IS HIGHLY DISCRETIONARY IN NATURE............................................4
CONTENTION II-SEDITION UNDER SECTION 124-A OF INDIAN PENAL CODE IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL..................................................................................................... .......5
[2.1] OFFENCE OF SEDITION IS AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA...................... ... 5
[2.2]THE DOCTRINE OF PRESUMPTION IN FAVOUR OF CONSTITUTIONALITY IS NOT APPLICABLE
....................................................................................................................................6
[2.3]SECTION 124A OF THE IPC VIOLATES ART. 19(1) (A) OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION AS
THE CHILLING EFFECT CREATED BY SEC . 124-A RESTRICTS THE EXERCISE OF ARTICLE
I9(1)(A)..............................................................................................................................6
[2.4] STRICT SCRUTINY TEST IS APPLICABLE........................................................................7
CONTENTION III- ACCUSED RAMAIYA KUMAR WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR SEDITION......8
[3.1] FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION OF RAMAIYA KUMAR IS VIOLATED BY HIS
ARREST...................................................................................................................... ........10
[3.1.1] MERE CRITICISM OF GOVERNMENT IS NOT PUNISHABLE..........................................10
[3.1.2] FREEDOM OF SPEECH OF RAMAIYA KUMAR IS NOT RESTRICTED UNDER 19 (2)....11
CONTENTION IV-LATHI CHARGE BY POLICE INFRINGED R IGHT TO PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY OF
TOMAR RASHID..................................................................................................................13
[4.1.1.]INTERPRETATION OF HIGHWAY ACT, 1959 ON THE ISSUE......................................14
[4.1.2.]ASSEMBLY BY SUPPORTERS WAS LAWFUL................................................................15
[4.2] ACTS PROHIBITED TO BE DONE BY POLICE IN CASE OF APPREHENSION OF BREACH OF THE
PEACE............................................................................................................... ..................15
PRAYER....... .......17
i

IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

ABBREVIATIONS

Paragraph

A.I.R.

All India Reporter

ALL

Allahabad

ALL ER

All England Reporter

Anr.

Another

Art.

Article

Bom.

Bombay

Co.

Company

CriLJ

Criminal Law Journal

Del.

Delhi

Edn.

Edition

Etc.

Etcetera

Guj.

Gujarat

Id.

Ibid

LLJ

Labour Law Journal

Ltd.

Limited

M.P.

Madhya Pradesh

Mad.

Madras

MANU

Manupatra

Ors.

Others

Re.

Reference

S.C.

Supreme Court

S.C.C.

Supreme Court Cases

S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reporter

UOI

Union of India

U.P.

Uttar Pradesh

U.S.

United States

V.

Versus

Vol.

Volume

W.B.

West Bengal

ii

IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

I. CONSTITUTION /STATUTES/ RULES REFERRED

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,1973.
INDIAN PENAL CODE,1860.
PRESS COUNCIL ACT,1978.
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
THE HIGHWAY ACT, 1959.
II. TABLE OF CASES
INDIAN CASES
S.NO
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.

NAME OF CASE
Ahmed v. State
All India Bank Employees Assn. v. National
Industrial Tribunal
Anand Patwardhan V. UOI
AP v. P. Laxmi Devi
Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam
Association For Democratic Reforms v. UOI
Aurunalachanm Nadar v. State of Madras
Babulal v. State of Maharashtra AIR
Badri Narain v. Chief Secy.
Bal Gangadhar Tilak v. Queen Empress
Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab
Bennett Coleman & Co. v. UOI
Bhupal v. Arif
Bishmbar Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State Of U.P.
Bobby Art International v. Om Pal Singh Hoon
Brij Bhushan & Anr. v. The State of Delhi
CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhya
Chintamanrao v. State of M.P.
Commissioner of Police v. C. Anitha
Devidas Ramachandra Tuijapurkar v. State of
Maharashtra,
Duda V. Shiv Shankar
Dwarka Prasad Lakshmi Narayan v. State Of U.P.
Emperor v. Tucker
iii

CITATIOION
AIR 1951 All 459
(1962) 3 SCR 269

P.NO.
1,10
1

AIR 1997 BOM 25

AIR 2008 SC 1604
AIR 2011 SC 957
AIR 2001 Del 126
AIR 1959 SC 300
1961 SC 884.
AIR 1941 Pat 132
(1897) 22 Bom 112
1995 3 SCC 214.
AIR 1973 SC 106
AIR 1974 SC 255
AIR 1982 SC 33
AIR 1996 SC 1846
1950CriLJ1525
(2011) 8 SCC 497
AIR 1951 SC 118
(2004) 7 SCC 467
(2015) 6 SCC 1

10
12
8,7,12
3
4
15
12
13
7,11
2
13
4
10
1,2,3
3
3,4
13
10,11

AIR 1988 SC 1208

AIR 1954 SC 224
(1882) 7 Bom 42.

12
4
15

IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.

Express Newspapers (P) Ltd. v. UOI

Express Newspapers Anr. v. UOI and Ors.
F.A. Pictures International v. CBFC
G. Jairaj v. State of Karnataka
Ghosh v. Joseph
Ghulam v. UOI
Gupta v. President
Hamdard Dawakhana v. UOI
Hardik Bharatbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat
Harichand v. Mizo Dtr. Council
Harpreet Kaur v. State of Maharashtra
Himmat Lal v. Police Commissioner.
I.R Coelho v. State of T.N
ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya
In Re, Harijai Singh
In Re, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
In Re:Arundhati Roy

41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.

Indian Express Newspapers v. UOI

Indra Das v. State of Assam
Jawali v. State of Mysore
K.A. Abbas v. UOI
Kama Krishna Sircar v. Emperor
Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar
Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar
Kishori Mohan Beral v. State of W.B.
Kuso Sah v. State Of Bihar
LIC India v. Madhubai D. Shah
Maneka Gandhi v. UOI
Maneklal Chotana v. Makwana
Manohar Damodar Patil v.Govt of Bombay
Manohar v. State of Bombay
Ministry of Information & Broadcasting Govt. of
India v. Cricket Assn Bengal
MRF Ltd v. Inspector Kerala Government
N.K. Bajpai v. UOI
NALSA v. UOI
Naraindas Indurkhya v. State of M.P..
NarainDas v. State of M.P.
Nazir Khan v. State of Delhi
Nekkeragopal v. State Of Tamil Nadu
Niharendu Dutt Majumdar v. Emperor

56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.

iv

AIR 1986 SC 872

AIR 1958 SC 578
AIR 2005 BOM 145
(1998) AIHC 3960 Kant.
AIR 1963 SC 812
AIR 1981 SC 2198
AIR 1982 SC 149
AIR 1960 SC 554
MANU/GJ/1070/2016
AIR 1967 SC 829
(1992) 2 SCC 177
AIR 1973 SC 87.
(2007) 2 SCC 1
AIR 2011 SC 3336
AIR 1997 SC 73
(1920) 22 BOMLR 368
Contempt Petition (crl.) 10
of 2010
(1985) 1 SCC 641
(2011) 3 SCC 380
AIR 1966 SC 1387
(1970) 2 SCC 780
AIR 1935 Cal 636
AIR 1962 SC 1166
AIR 1962 SC 955.
AIR 1972 SC 1749
(1974) 2 SCC 177
(1992) 2 SCC 637
(1978) 1 SCC 248
AIR 1967 SC 1373
AIR 1950 Bom 210
AIR 1950 Bom 210
AIR 1995 SC 1236

1,2,3
2,3
5
9
9
15
4
7
15
10
2
9
2
4
3
13
12

AIR 1999 SC 188

AIR 2012 SC 1310
AIR 1962 SC 305
(1974) 4 SCC 788 :
(1947) 4 SCC 788.
AIR 2003 SC 4427.
(2001) CTC 423(Mad)
AIR 1942 FC 22

9
8
3,7
5
5
12
4
6,8

2,7
8,11,15
5,10
7
8,6
7
8,11,12
8
9
1
5
10
6,8
6,8
3

IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

64. O.K. Ghosh v. Joseph E.X.
65. Odyssey Comunications pvt. Ltd v. Lokvidayan
Sanghatana
66. Om Kumar v. UOI
67. Ozair Hussain v. UOI
68. P.P. Enterprises v. UOI
69. Pannalal Bringraj v. UOI
70. Papanasam Labour Union v. Madura Coats
71. Pathumma v. State Of Kerala
72. Prakash Jha Productions v. UOI
73. Printers (Mysore) Ltd. v. Asstt. CTO
74. PUCL v. UOI
75. Queen Empress v. Bal Gangadhar Tilak .
76. Queen-Emprees v. Jogendra Chunder Bose,
77. R Rajgopal v. State of Tamil Nadu
78. R.P. Ltd v. Indian Express News Papers
79. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar
80. Ram Nandan v. State
81. Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo v. Prabhakar
Kashinath Kunte.
82. Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P.
83. Ramlila Maidan Incident In Re
84. Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Proprietors of
Indian Express Newspapers Bombay Ltd.
85. Romesh Thapar v. State Of Madras
86. S Rangarajan & ors. v. P Jagjivan Ram ors.
87. S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal
88. Sabbaya v. Falauddin
89. Sabir Raza v.The State
90. Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. and Ors. v. UOI
91. Sanskar Marathe v. State of Maharashtra
92. Sarju v. State
93. Saroj Iyer v. Maharashta Mediacal Council of
Indian Medicine
94. Secretary Ministry of Information and
Broadcasting GOI v. Cricket Association Of
Bengal

AIR 1963 SC 812

(1988) 3 SCC 410

9
2

AIR 2000 SC 3689

AIR 2003 Del 103
AIR 1982 SC 1016
1957 SCR 233
AIR 1995 SC 2200
AIR 1978 SC 771
(2011) 8 SCC 372
(1994) 2 SCC 434
AIR 2004 SC 1442
ILR (1898) 22 Bom 112
(1891) 19 Cal 35 44
(1994) 6 SCC 632
AIR 1989 SC 190
AIR 1966 SC 740
AIR 1959 All 101.
(1996) 1 SCC 130

9,10
6
6
9
9
9
5
7
4
13
2
2
4
8,9
14
7

AIR 1957 SC 620

(2012) 5 SCC 1
AIR 1989 SC 190

7
9
2,4,8

AIR 1950 SC 124

(1989) 2 SCC 574
(2010) 5 SCC 600
(1928) CLJ 509 (Mad.).
Cri App No 1434 of 1955
AIR 1962 SC 305
2015 Cri LJ 3561
AIR 1956 ALL 589
AIR 2002 Bom 97

1
1,7,8
5
9
12
3,7
15
5,10
2

(1995)2 SCC 161

95.
96.
97.
98.
99.

AIR 2015 SC 1523

AIR 1954 SC 276
AIR 1931 Mad 70
AIR 1952 SC 329
AIR 1951 SC 318

11
7,9
2
7,8
9

Shreya Singhal v. UOI

Sodhi Samsher v. State of Pepsu
Srinivas v. State of Madras
State of Bihar v. Sailabala
State of Bombay v. Balsara
v

IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

100. State of Kerala v. Raneef
101. State of Madras v. V.G. Row
102. State Of U.P. v. Sajay Pratap Gupta
103. Sundram v. R.
104. Supt. Central Prison v. Ram Manohar Lohia
105. T.K. Gopal v. State of Karnataka
106. Tara Singh Gopi Chand v. State of Punjab
107. Tata Press Ltd. v. MTNL
108. The Central Board of Film Certification v.
Yadavalaya Films
109. Tiger Muthaiya v. State of Tamil Nadu
110. Vinayak Binayak Sen v. State of Chhattisgarh
111. Virendra v. The State of Punjab
US CASES
112. Abraham v. U.S.
113. Brandenburg v. Ohio
114. Cantwell v. Connecticut
115. City of L.A. & Department of Water and Power v.
Preferred Communications Inc.
116. Columbia Broadcasting System v. Democratic
National Committee.
117. De Frestar v. Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries
and Housing
118. De Jonge v. Oregon
119. Elbrandt v. Russel
120. Ex parte Jackson
121. FCC v. WNCN Listeners Guild
122. Gompers v. Buck's Stove & Range Co.
123. Grosjean v. American Press Co.
124. Hirst v. Chief Constable
125. Joseph Burstyn v. Lewis A. Wilson.
126. Lovell v. City of Griffin.
127. Lowdens v. Keaveny.
128. Lowell v. Griffin
129. Mutual Film Co. v. Industrial Commission of
Ohio
130. NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co.
131. National Broadcasting Co. v. U.S
132. Noto v.U.S.
133. Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC
134. Stromberg v. Griffs
135. Schenck v. United States
vi

(2011) 1 SCC 784

AIR 1952 SC 196 .
(2004) 8 SCC 591
(1882) 6 Mad 208
AIR 1960 SC 633
(2000) 6 SCC 168
AIR 1951 Punj. 27
AIR 1995 SC 2438
(2007) 1 LW 374 (Mad.)

8
2
2
16
7
2
1
7
3

2001 (1) CTC 1

2011 SCC Online Chh 30
[1958]1 SCR 308

1
12
3

(1919) 250 US 616

(1969) 395 US 444
128 ALR 1352 (1940)
476 US 488 (1986)

5
9
7
4

412 US 94 (1973):

(1999) 1 AC 69

(1937) 301 US 242

(1984) 384 US 11
1877 96 U.S. 727
67 L Ed 2d 521 (1981)
34 LRA (NS) 874 (1911)
1935 297 U.S. 233
(1987) 85 Cr AR 143
343 US 495 (1952)
1937 303 U.S. 444.
(1903) IR 82
(1939) 303 US 444
236 US 247 (1915):

11
8
1
4
7
3
9
3
1
6
1
3

(1982) 458 US 886

319 US 190 (1943)
(1961) 367 US 290
395 US 367 (1969).
(1931) 283 US 359
63 L Ed 470(1919)

8
3
9
1,4
6
7

IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

136. Schneider v. Irvinton
137. Terminiello v. Chicago.
138. Thornhill v. Alabama
139. Tinker v. Des Monis School Distt.
140. United States v. Robel
141. Virginia v. Black.
142. Watts v. United States.
143. Whitney v. California

(1939) 308 US 147

337 US 1 (1949):
(1940) 310 US 88
(1969) 393 US 503
(1967) 389 US 258
538 US 343 (2003)
394 US 705 (1969)
(1927) 278 US 357

5
7
2
8
8
7
7
2

2012(4) KLT 708

(1882) 9 QBD 308
86 L Ed 1031
(1900) 1 QB 752 (CA)
(1864) 17 Ir. CLR 1.
(1898) 2 QB 91
(1839) 9 C&P 456
(1983) 1 WLR 151
2006 UKHL 16.
(1909) 22 Cox. CC.1
1976 EHRR 737
(1965) 1 All ER 78

11
16
7
15
20
7
15
9
12
19
1,8
18

UK CASES
144. Advocate Manuel P.J. v. State
145. Beauty v. Gilbanks
146. Chaptinsky v. New Hampshire
147. Hickman v. Maisey
148. Humphires v. OConnor
149. Kruse v. Johnson
150. R v. Collins
151. R v. Goldsmith
152. R v. Jones
153. R. v. Aldred
154. Handyside v. United Kingdom
155. Nagy v. Weston

III.

BOOKS, DIGESTS, COMMENTARIES

ARVIND P DATAR, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (LEXIS NEXIS, NEW
DEL., 2 NDEDN. REPRINT, 2010)

D.D. BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (LEXIS NEXIS, NEW DEL.,
8TH EDN., 2008)

D.D. BASU, SHORTER CONSTITUTION

OF INDIA

(LEXIS NEXIS, N EW DEL., 14THEDN.

REPRINT, 2015)

H.M. SEERVAI, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (UNIVERSALS LAW PUBLISHING, NEW DELHI,

4THEDN., VOL. 1, 2014)

H.M. SEERVAI, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (UNIVERSALS LAW PUBLISHING, NEW DELHI,

4THEDN., VOL. 3, 2014)

J AGDISH SWARUP, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (THOMSON REUTERS, NEW DELHI, 3RD EDN.,
VOL. 1, 2013)

J USTICE BHAGBATI PROSAD BANERJEE

AND

BHASKAR PROSAD BANERJEE, J UDICIAL

CONTROL OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION (WADHWA AND CO. NAGPUR, ED. 2001)

vii

IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

M.P. J AIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (LEXIS NEXIS , NEW DELHI, 7TH EDN., 2015)

P M BAKSHI, PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (ASHOKA LAW HOUSE, N EW DELHI,3RDEDN.,

2012)

T.K. TOPE, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

EDN.,

OF INDIA

(EASTERN BOOK C O., NEW DELHI, 3 RD

2010)

V.N. SHUKLA, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (EASTERN BOOK CO., NEW DELHI, 12TH
2013)

RATANLAL & DHIRAJLALS, THE INDIA PENAL C ODE, 34TH EDITION 2014.

KI VIBHUTES PSA P ILLAIS CRIMINAL LAW, 12TH EDITION.

DR. HARI S INGH GOURS INDIAN PENAL CODE, 14TH EDITION.

V. DICTIONARIES

BRYAN A. GARNER, BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY (9th edn., 2009)

P.R. AIYAR, THE LAW LEXICON (2nd edn., 1997)
WEBSTERS NEW ENCYCLOPEDIC DICTIONARY (1993)

VI.

ONLINE AUTHORITES

scconline.com

manupatra.com

westlawindia.com

heinonline.com

lexisnexis.com

bloomsburycollection.com

viii

EDN.,

IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner has approached this Honble Supreme Court for writ petition under Art. 32 for
Contention 1,3 and 4 and Criminal Appeal under Article 134-A for Contention 2,of the Constitution
of Indiana.
Article 32 of Indian Constitution Says: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
Article 134 Of Indian Constitution Says:134. Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in regard to criminal matters
(1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, final order or sentence in a
criminal proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court has on appeal
reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to death; or has withdrawn
for trial before itself any case from any court subordinate to its authority and has in such trial
convicted the accused person and sentenced him to death; or
(c) certifies under Article 134A that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court: Provided
that an appeal under sub clause (c) shall lie subject to such provisions as may be made in that
behalf under clause ( 1 ) of Article 145 and to such conditions as the High Court may establish or
require
(2) Parliament may by law confer on the Supreme Court any further powers to entertain and hear
appeals from any judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court in the
territory of India subject to such conditions and limitations as may be specified in such law
All the Laws of Indiana are pari materia to the Laws of India.

ix

IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Indiana is a federal republic country situated in south-east Asia New Delporto is the capital as well
as an education hub of the country. The city has some of the best colleges & universities of the
nation. One such university is Great Northern University (GNU). GNU has a very active culture of
student politics.
2. The Great Northern University Students Union (GNUSU) is the largest Student Union of GNU. The
GNUSU is a branch of the AISU (All Indiana Students Union), a left inclined organization in 2015
the Indiana Peoples Party (IPP) came to power which subscribes to right wing ideologies. After
coming to power, the government embarked on an economic reform mission which looked to
liberalize the economy to bring more foreign investments. These ideas did not go well with the
GNUSU and as a result country wide protests were held by them.
3. On June 8, 2016 a countrywide strike was called by the parent body of GNUSU in Utkal, another
Union Territory in Indiana. The protestors were lathi charged by the police and some of them were
seriously injured. The protestors were just sitting peacefully on the road and that they were not
given any warning by the police before the lathi charge. One of the injured students, Tomar Rashid
filed a writ petition against the Union government claiming that his right to peaceful assembly was
infringed by the state and claimed adequate compensation for his injuries.
4. The GNUSU led the protest in capital city and its president Ramaiya Kumar became the face of the
movement. On 16th of June, 2016 a rally was organized in Delporto by GNUSU to show solidarity
to the injured students
5. Some of the incidents of the rally were recorded by various news agencies. Although the rally ended
peacefully, some videos began to circulate in social media about the speeches given by Ramaiya
Kumar. This video became viral and soon the government arrested Ramaiya Kumar late at night
and slapped him with the charges of sedition.
6. The session court held Ramaiya guilty and. He filed an appeal in the High Court of Delporto which
was rejected and hence the present appeal in this court came.
7. As the monsoon session began, the government by virtue of its majority made an amendment to the
Press Councils Act, 1978. Section 14A was incorporated into the Act, whose constitutionality is
challenged in the present petition
8. The Constitution, Press Councils Act & other laws of Indiana are pari materia with the Constitution,
Press Councils Act & other laws of India.

IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. WHETHER SECTION 14-A OF PRESS COUNCILS ACT, 1978 IS CONSTITUTIONAL ?

2. WHETHER SEDITION UNDER SECTION 124-A

OF

I NDIAN PENAL CODE

IS

CONSTITUTIONAL ?
3. WHETHER ACCUSED RAMAIYA KUMAR WILL BE LIABLE FOR SEDITION?
4. WHETHER LATHI CHARGE DONE BY POLICE INFRINGED RIGHT TO PEACEFUL
ASSEMBLY OF TOMAR RASHID UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(B) OF CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA?

xi

IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

[1.]SECTION 14-A OF PRESS COUNCILS ACT, 1978 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL :- Section 14-A Of

Press Councils Act, 1978 is unconstitutional as it violates the freedom of press under Art. 19 (1)(a)
(1.1), Impugned Amendment Act aims at restricting the circulation of ideas antithesis to its
polices(1.1.1), takes away right to know (1.1.2) and is highly Arbitrary and discretionary in nature
(1.2)
[2.]SEDITION UNDER S ECTION 124-A OF INDIAN PENAL CODE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL :It is contended before the Honble Supreme Court that Section 124-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860
in unconstitutional because it is against the Constitution of India (2.1) and The doctrine of
presumption in favour of constitutionality is not applicable to pre-constitutional legislations(2.2).
Moreover, Section 124A of the I PC violates Art. 19(1) (a) of the Indian Constitution as the chilling
effect created by sec. 124A restricts the exercise of Article I9(1)(a) (2.3) and it fails in Strict
Scrutiny test. (2.4)
[3.] ACCUSED RAMAIYA KUMAR WILL NOT B E LIABLE FOR SEDITION
It is submitted that the statement made by Ramaiya Kumar will not come within the ambit of Section
124A of Indian Penal Code, as the statement made by him, was only an expression of opinion on a
debatable academic issue, and in no way intended to incite violence. Also the statement of Ramaiya
Kumar will come within the ambit of Explanation 2&3, which says that, comment on Govt. action
and policies will not be punishable under Section 124A.
[4] LATHI CHARGE DONE BY POLICE INFRINGED RIGHT TO PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY OF TOMAR
RASHID.:-It violates freedom of assembly under 19(1)(b) because Assembly on Highway in this
case lawful (4.1), Highway act allows the same (4.1.1), and Assembly by supporters was lawful
(4.1.2) and lathi charge was prohibited to be done by Police in case of apprehension of breach of
the peace. (4.2)

xii

IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
[1.]SECTION 14-A OF PRESS COUNCILS ACT, 1978 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL :- Section 14A Of Press Councils Act, 1978 (herein after referred as PCA) is unconstitutional as it violates
the freedom of press under Art. 19 (1)(a) (1.1), Impugned Amendment Act aims at restricting
the circulation of ideas antithesis to its polices(1.1.1), takes away right to know (1.1.2) and is
highly Arbitrary and discretionary in nature (1.2)
[1.1] THE IMPUGNED A MENDMENT VIOLATES THE FREEDOM OF PRESS UNDER ART. 19
(1)( A):-It must be recognized that freedom of speech and expression is one of the most valuable
rights guaranteed to a citizen by the Constitution and should be jealously guarded by the Court.1
There can be no doubt that freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of propagation,
Publication2 of ideas, and that freedom is ensured by the freedom of circulation3, which in this
contemporary world is done by the Press. Every person has got right to express his views and
publish the same through the medium of Press.4 .It is now firmly established by a series of
decisions of Supreme Court and is a rule written into the Constitution that Freedom of the
press is comprehended within the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under
Art. 19(1 )(a).5
Impugned Amendment takes away freedom of press :- It is humbly submitted before this
Honble Court that the Section 14A , which was inserted through an amendment in the Press
Councils Act, 1978, violates the freedom of press under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution,
because it puts unreasonable burden on the circulation of information by press. It was held that
If a law were to single out the press for laying down prohibitive burdens on it that would
restrict the circulation, penalise its freedom of choice as to personnel, prevent newspapers from
being started and compel the press to Government aid, this would violate Art. 19(1)(a) and

Brij Bhushan & Anr. v. The State of Delhi, 1950 Cri LJ 1525; S Rangarajan and Ors. v. P Jagjivan Ram and
Ors. (1989) 2 SCC 574; Handyside v. United Kingdom, 1976 EHRR 737.
2
Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124; Life Insurance Corpn. of India v. Madhubai D. Shah,
(1992) 2 SCC 637; Ex parte Jackson, (1877) 96 U.S. 727; Lovell v. City of Griffin, (1937) 303 U.S. 444
3
All-India Bank Employees' Assn. v. National Industrial Tribunal, (1962) 3 SCR 269; Tiger Muthaiya v. State
of Tamil Nadu, 2001 (1) CTC; Srinivas v. State of Madras, AIR 1931 Mad 70; Odyssey Communications Pvt.
Ltd. v. Lokvidayan Sanghatana, (1988) 3 SCC 410
4
Tiger Muthaiya v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2001 (1) CTC 1.
5
Express Newspapers (P) Ltd. v. UOI, (1986) 1 SCC 133; I.R Coelho v. State of T.N., (2007) 2 SCC 1 Reliance
Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Proprietors of Indian Express Newspapers Bombay (P) Ltd., (1988) 4 SCC 592; Saroj Iyer
v. Maharashta Mediacal Council of Indian Medicine; AIR 2002 Bom 97; Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd. and
Anr. v. The UOI (UOI) and Ors., AIR 1958 SC 578; Brij Bhushan & Anr. v. The State of Delhi, 1950 Cri LJ 1525;
Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. and Ors. v. UOI.

IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

would fall outside the protection afforded by Art. 19(2).6 Freedom, again, means freedom
not only from previous restraints, but also from fear of subsequent punishment, except, on
constitutionally permissible grounds."7
It would not be legitimate to subject the press to laws which take away or abridge the freedom
of speech and expression or adopt measures calculated and intended to curtail circulation8 and
thereby narrow the scope of dissemination of information or fetter its freedom to choose its
means of exercising the right or would undermine its independence.9 A law which lays upon
the Press excessive and prohibitive burdens which would restrict the circulation of a newspaper
would not be saved by Article 19(2) if the Constitution.10
[1.1.1] IMPUGNED AMENDMENT ACT AIMS AT RESTRICTING THE CIRCULATION OF IDEAS
ANTITHESIS TO ITS POLICES

:- It is humbly submitted before this Honble Court that it is not

right on the part of the Respondent to enact an Amendment Act which aims at restricting the
flow of ideas and information not in favour of its policies. Critical appraisal is the corner-stone
of democracy and power of the press as a medium of expression lies in its ability to contribute
to the appraisal.11 Prohibiting the publication of ones own views or the views of
correspondents about the burning topics of the day is a serious encroachment on the valuable
right of freedom of speech12 . The purpose of the press is to advance the public interest by
publishing facts and opinions without which a democratic electorate cannot make responsible
judgements.13
[1.1.2] RIGHT

TO KNOW IS INCLUDED

UNDER ARTICLE 19 (1) (A) OF

THE

CONSTITUTION :- It is humbly submitted before this Honble court that the main aim of the
Impugned Amendment Act is to prevent the broadcast of the News of Incidents like Ramaiya
Kumar which are not in favour of its policies .Broadcasting through electronic media is covered
under Article 19(1)(a).14 Thus the main effect of the said Amendment would be that The Press
6

Bennett Coleman & Co. v. UOI, (1972) 2 SCC 788; R Rajgopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 SCC 632.
Indian Express Newspapers v. UOI, (1985) 1 SCC 641; Thornhill v. Alabama, (1940) 310 US 88; Whitney v.
California, (1927) 278 US 357.
8
H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India 721 (4th edn., 2014).
9
Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. and Ors. v. UOI, AIR 1962 SC 305; Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd. and Anr. v. The
UOI (UOI) and Ors., AIR 1958 SC 578.
10
Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. and Ors. v. UOI, AIR 1962 SC 305.
11
The Central Board of Film Certification v. Yadavalaya Films, (2007) 1 LW 374 (Mad.).
12
Brij Bhushan & Anr. v. The State of Delhi, 1950 Cri LJ 1525; Virendra v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1986 SC
872; Grosjean v. American Press Co., (1935) 297 U.S. 233.
13
In Re Harijai Singh, AIR 1997 SC 73.
14
Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Govt. of India v. Cricket Assn, Bengal, AIR 1995 SC 1236; National
Broadcasting Co. v. U.S., 319 US 190 (1943); Joseph Burstyn v. Lewis A. Wilson, 343 US 495 (1952); Mutual
Film Co. v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, 236 US 247 (1915); Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 US 367
(1969); Columbia Broadcasting System v. Democratic National Committee, 412 US 94 (1973); FCC v. WNCN
7

IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

will not give coverage some of the aspects of current life, hence would take away the Right to
Know of the general masses. Freedom of speech includes right to acquire information and
disseminate it15. The right to know relating to public affairs has been held up as a basic right
under the Constitution of India.16 The right to receive information may be deduced as a
counterpart of the right to impart information, which is an ingredient of the freedom of
expression guaranteed by Art. 19(1)(a)17. People at large have a right to know18 in order to be
able to take part in a participatory development of the industrial life and democracy19. Without
adequate expression, a person cannot form an informed opinion.20
Hence we can say that all the citizen has got the Right To know, subject to constitutional
provisions and any encroachment upon this right will infringe the Right to Freedom Of Speech
and Expression under Art. 19(1)(a).
[1.2] THE IMPUGNED A CT IS HIGHLY E XCESSIVE AND DISCRETIONARY IN NATURE :[1.2.1] IMPUGNED AMENDMENT ACT IS EXCESSIVE IN NATURE :- In R v. Goldsmith21 Lord
Diplock said: ...proportionality prohibits the use of a steam hammer to crack a nut if a
nutcracker would do".

22

Hence we always have to see that if the restriction being used is in

proportionality with the problem caused.23Whether the restriction infringes the rights
excessively or not is for the Court to decide24 .A legislation arbitrarily or excessively
invading the right cannot be characterised as reasonable25. A restriction should strike a proper
balance between the freedom guaranteed by any of the clauses and social control, so that the
freedom is limited only to the extent necessary to protect the society. 26 This introduces the

Listeners Guild, 67 L Ed 2d 521 (1981); City of Los Angeles & Department of Water and Power v. Preferred
Communications, Inc., 476 US 488 (1986).
15
Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, G.O.I. v. Cricket Association of Bengal, (1995) 2 SCC
161.
16
R.P. Ltd V. Indian Express News Papers ,AIR 1989 SC 190; Indian Express Newspapers V. UOI, (1985) 1
SCC 641,
17
Hamdard Dawakhana v. UOI, (1960) 2 SCR 671; Association Of Democratic Reforms v. UOI, AIR 2001 Del
126 [This right is expressly guaranteed by Art. 19(2) of the International Covenant, 1966 and Art. 10(1) of the
European Convention, 1953: vide SCW 66,68].
18
R.P. Ltd v. Indian Express News Papers, AIR 1989 SC 190; Gupta v. President, AIR 1982 SC 149.
19
Nekkeragopal v. State Of Tamil Nadu, (2001) CTC 423(Mad); Association For Democratic Reforms v. UOI
AIR 2001 Del 126; PUCL v. UOI, AIR 2004 SC 1442.
20
ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya, AIR 2011 SC 3336; CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhya (2011) 8 SCC 497.; Red Lion
Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 23 L. Ed. 2d 371.
21
(1983) 1 WLR 151.
22
See also De Frestar v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Housing, (1999) 1 AC 69.
23
State of Madras v. V.G. Row, AIR 1952 SC 196.
24
Om Kumar v. UOI, AIR 2000 SC 3689; Papanasam Labour Union v. Madura Coats Ltd., AIR 1995 SC 2200;
Chintamanrao v. State of M.P., AIR 1951 SC 118; Pathumma v. State Of Kerala, AIR 1978 SC 771.
25
O.K. Ghosh v. Joseph E.X., AIR 1963 SC 812; NALSA v. UOI, AIR 1962 SC 305; Sodhi Samsher v. State of
Pepsu, AIR 1954 SC 276.
26
G. Jairaj v. State of Karnataka, (1998) AIHC 3960 Kant; Pannalal Bringraj v. UOI, 1957 SCR 233.

IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

principle of proportionality27. Reasonable restriction which the State could impose on the
fundamental rights should not be arbitrary or of excessive nature beyond what is required in
the interests of public.28 But in the present case the Amendment Act passed is neither is
proportional nor is serving the purpose under Art.19(2) of the Constitution. The Amendment
act does not consider the social conditions of present and encroaches upon the Freedom of
speech and expression, by levying excessive burden on the circulation of press.
[1.2.2] IMPUGNED ACT

IS

HIGHLY DISCRETIONARY

IN

NATURE:- The impugned act is

highly arbitrary and discretionary in nature. The Act adds a clause saying Where, on receipt
of a complaint that a newspaper or news agency has offended against the sovereignty or
integrity of the nation or national . tried to manipulate public opinion against the sovereignty
& integrity of the nation or against the elected government29. As soon as the Act puts
restriction on criticism of government it goes out of the umbrella of 19(2). Mere criticism of
government and its policies30 and expressing views against a particular party31 are not
punishable and does not comes within ambit of 19(2). It is thus highly arbitrary in nature.
Again whether the restriction infringes the rights excessively or not is for the Court to
decide32, but in the present case the Impugned Act gives unlimited right to Press Council, which
is in itself a Government body to decide the excessiveness. It was held that Another type of
excessiveness takes place where the Legislature confers unfettered power upon the Executive
to impose restriction upon the exercise of the fundamental right without offering a guide or
standard for canalising such power33 For a restriction to be reasonable it must offer a standard
or policy for the guidance of the administrative authority for the exercise of its subjective
power.34 But in the present case none of the above conditions are fulfilled and hence the Act
is passed only of subjugate specific views which the government thinks is against its policies .
Hence it is pleaded before the Honble court to declare the said act as Arbitrary.

27

MRF Ltd. v. Inspector, Kerala Government, AIR 1999 SC 188; Aurunalachanm Nadar v. State of Madras, AIR
1959 SC 300.
28
Bishmbar Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State Of U.P., AIR 1982 SC 33; Chintamanrao v. State of M.P., AIR 1951
SC 118.
29
Moot problem 14.
30
Jawali v. State of Mysore, AIR 1966 SC 1387.
31
Ahmed v. State, AIR 1951 All 459; Sarju v. State, AIR 1956 All 589.
32
Om Kumar v. UOI, AIR 2000 SC 3689.
33
Dwarka Prasad Lakshmi Narayan v. State Of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 224; P.P. Enterprises v. UOI, AIR 1982 SC
1016.
34
Harichand v. Mizo Dtr. Council, AIR 1967 SC 829; Maneklal Chotana v. Makwana, AIR 1967 SC 1373.
Himmatlaw v. Police Commissioner, AIR 1975 SC 87.

IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

[2.]SEDITION UNDER S ECTION 124-A OF INDIAN PENAL CODE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL :It is contended before the Honble Supreme Court that Section 124-A of Indian Penal Code,
1860 in unconstitutional because it is against the constitution of India (2.1) and The doctrine
of presumption in favour of constitutionality is not applicable to pre-constitutional
legislations(2.2). Moreover, Section 124A of the IPC violates Art. 19(1) (a) of the Indian
Constitution as the chilling effect created by sec. 124A restricts the exercise of Article I9(1)(a)
(2.3) and it fails Strict Scrutiny test. (2.4)
[2.1] OFFENCE OF SEDITION IS AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA :It is argued that the Constitution has a noble and grand vision as contained in the Preamble35and
it has been said that, The Preamble to the Constitution is the lodestar and guides those who
find themselves in a grey area while dealing with its provisions36. The Preamble of the
Constitution serves two purposes (1) it indicates the source from which the Constitution
derives its authority viz., the people of India; (2) it states the objects which the Constitution
seeks to establish and promote37. Moreover, in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala38 it was
held that the Preamble to the Constitution is

39

an integral part of the basic structure of the

Constitution40.One of the main objects of preamble is Liberty41 which it provides to the

citizens of country. So the main ideal of Constitution is to grant Freedom or Liberty, which can
be further substantiated by Article 19 of Indian Constitution, which provides a comprehensive
list of freedoms provided to Individuals. But on the other hand the Offence of Sedition under
124-A takes away the freedom or is aimed at curtailing the freedom.
Constituent Assembly Debates condemn the very existence of sedition as a crime in a
democratic society:- Further it is Evident from Constitutional Assembly Debates that it was
never intention of Constitutional makers , to use sedition as a tool for curtailing freedom. The
drafting committee members like K.M. Munshi42 and Mahboob Ali Bahadur43 and many others
were against this law. Deletion of the word sedition from the draft of Art. 19(2) portray the
intention of the Constituent Assembly. During the Debates the framers of the Constitution
specifically relied on the advocacy of replacement of one Government as the only bulwark

35

State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh , AIR 1952 SC 252

Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Water Front Workers , AIR 1995 SC 3527 (3535)
37
Golak Nath v. State of Punjab , AIR 1967 SC 1643
38
AIR 1973 SC 1461
39
Kuldip Nayar v. UOI , AIR 2006 SC 3127
40
M. Nagaraj v. UOI , AIR 2007 SC 71
41
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461
42
Statement of K.M. Munshi, CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY DEBATES, Vol. VII, 34 (December 01, 1948).
43
Statement of Mahboob Ali, CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY DEBATES, Vol. VII, 28 (December 01, 1948).
36

IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

against democracy and hence the exclusion of sedition. The Constitution must be interpreted
to give effect to the intention of the Constituent Assembly.44
So by virtue of Constitution being a grund norm45 , the validity of all the laws are checked with
respect to the Constitution and Section 124-A, being a subsidiary law, is going against the
constitution and is liable to be struck down.
[2.2]THE

DOCTRINE OF PRESUMPTION IN FAVOUR OF CONSTITUTIONALITY IS NOT

APPLICABLE TO PRE - CONSTITUTIONAL LEGISLATIONS

India Penal Code is a pre-

constitutional legislation as it came into force on January 1, 1862.46 The Supreme Court has
observed that a pre-constitutional legislation has no barrier at the time of its enactment, and
various limitations have now been brought in by the Constitution, therefore doctrine of
presumption in favour of constitutionality does not apply to it.47 Reiterating the same position,
a nine-judge Bench had observed that this doctrine is not of infinite application and has
recognized limitations. This doctrine is not applicable to Sec. 124A and the court is therefore
not free to stretch or pervert the language of the enactment in the interests of any legal or
constitutional theory.48
[2.3]SECTION 124A OF THE I PC VIOLATES ART. 19(1) (A) OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION
AS THE CHILLING EFFECT CREATED BY SEC . 124A RESTRICTS THE EXERCISE OF ARTICLE

I9(1)( A):- It is submitted that an unconstitutional abridgment can be caused not only by
prohibition but also by inhibiting the exercise of fundamental rights49 which can have a
deterrent effect or chilling effect, which the Court should declare unconstitutional.50 The vague
definition of sedition under sec. 124A and the wide ancillary powers of detention deter the
legitimate exercise of freedom of speech and expression. The chilling effect inhibits the
legitimate exercise of fundamental rights. The mere threat of sanction can deter the exercise
almost as potently as the actual application of the sanctions.51

44

Lt. Col. Khajoor Singh v. The UOI and Anr., AIR 1961 SC 532; R. M. D. Chamarbaugwalla v. The UOI,
(1957) 1 SCR 930.
45
Pradip Kumar Maity v. Chinmoy Kumar Bhunia, (2013) 11 SCC 122; Saiyad Mohammad Bakar El-Edroos v.
Abdulhabib Hasan Arab, (1998) 4 SCC 343; K.P Sudhakaran v. State of Kerala, (2006) 5 SCC 386.
46
K.D. GAUR, TEXTBOOK ON THE INDIAN PENAL CODE cxxiv (4lh ed., Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd.
2009).
47
New Delhi Municipal Committee v. Suite of Punjab, AIR 1997 SC 2847.
48
In Re, The Central Provinces and Berar Act No. XIV of 1938, (1939) F.C.R. 18 at 37; Diamond Sugar Mills
Ltd. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (1961) 3 SCR 242; Gulabbhai v. UOI, (1967) I SCR 602.
49
Durga Das Basu, Commentary On The Constitution Of India 2417 (8th cd., Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa
2007).
50
Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301 (1965).
51
Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296,311 (1940); Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518(1972).

IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

Also offence of sedition is used as Tool for curbing the Free Speech of Dissenting Voices :It is humbly submitted before this Honble court that the by disguise of this section the
government is supressing the voices of the people not in conformity to its policies. In an
English case of R v. Collins52 it was observed by the House of Lords that Seditious
intention is an essence of the offence. Hence we can say that to be prosecuted for the crime
of Sedition a person must have some intention to overthrow the government by violent
means53. But this is not the practice in relation to this section as can be deduced by a series of
cases. In all these cases the offence of sedition was slapped on the dissenting voices against
the government. None of these cases have in support any argument which can affirm that any
of the accused had any seditious intention to overthrow the Government by any violent means.
But in all these cases the tool of Sedition was just used to put a gag in the mouth of any
dissenting voice against the government. In Balwant Singh Case54, Arundhati Roy case55,
Binayak Sen Case56, Aseem Trivedi Case57 this tool was used to supress the voices and the
misuse crossed limits when in Hardik Patel Case58 The Gujarat government booked a Patel
leader under sedition for sending messages containing offensive language against the Prime
Minister, the State Chief Minister and Amit Shah, the President of BJP.
[2.4] STRICT SCRUTINY TEST IS APPLICABLE The Supreme Court in Subhash Chandra case59
has laid down varies categories of cases when strict scrutiny test can be applied. One of the
categories laid down was where the general presumption as regards the constitutionality of the
statute or action cannot be invoked.60 Therefore, the Petitioner submits that this test will be
applicable in the instant' case, since the law in question is a provision of pre-constitutional
legislation, where presumption in favour of constitutionality does not apply. To pass this test,
the State has to prove, among other things,
(a) that the law was enacted for a compelling reason
(b) that there is a minimal interference with the rights in question,
(c) that it was made in the absence of any alternative, and
(d) that it is proportionate.
52

(1839) 9 C&P 456.

Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955; Indra Das v. State of Assam, (2011) 3 SCC 380; Arup
Bhuyan v. State of Assam, AIR 2011 SC 957.
54
Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab, 1995 3 SCC 214.
55
In Re: Arundhati Roy, Contempt Petition (Crl.) 10 of 2010.
56
Vinayak Binayak Sen v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2011 SCC Online Chh 30.
57
Sanskar Marathe v. State of Maharashtra, 2015 Cri LJ 3561.
58
Hardik Bharatbhai Patel V. State of Gujarat , MANU/GJ/1070/2016
59
Subhash Chandra v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, (2009) 11 SCALE 276.
60
Id.
53

IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

The petitioner submits that the Section 124 -A of IPC fails to satisfy the second and third
conditions of this test. Firstly, it is required that there should be minimum interference with the
rights, but Section 124-A encroaches excessively on the freedoms granted in 19(1)(a).
Secondly there are alternatives to the Section 124-A. Again even if the section is declared
unconstitutional, the main objective parts of section 124-A will be saved by Section 5, of the
Seditious Meetings Act, 1911 and Section 2(o) & Section 13 the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967, which aims at curtailing offences against state. Hence the Petitioner
submits that Sec. 124A does not pass the test, thus Unconstitutional.
The above examples demonstrate that Article 19(1)(a) continues to be held hostage by Section
124-A. and the tool of sedition is continuously used by the government to silence the dissenting
voices Thus it is humbly submitted before this Honble Court to declare this section
Unconstitutional in the lights of recent facts, social conditions of society so that it is not
misused.
[3.] ACCUSED RAMAIYA KUMAR WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR SEDITION :- By looking into
the very facts of the case, it can be clearly deduced that, Ramaiya Kumar have been held liable
for sedition, for his speech in rally, in which he claimed that Mashkir deserved to be
independent and that they will seek independence at any cost.
In the case of Advocate Manuel P.J. v. State61, it was said by the Honble Court that, if there is
any offence that is committed under Chapter IV of the IPC, it has to be examined within the
letter and spirit of the Constitution and not as previously done under the imperial rule. So as
per the constitution of India, it guarantees freedom of speech and expression62. If any act is
against any law, but is within the ambit of freedom provided by the constitution, then it will be
just and fair.
In Indra Das v. State of Assam63 and Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam64, the Supreme Court
unambiguously stated that only speech that amounts to Incitement to imminent lawless action
can be criminalized. In Shreya Singhal v. UOI65, the famous 66A of Information Act, 2000
judgment, the Supreme Court drew a clear distinction between advocacy and incitement,
stating that only the latter could be punished. And as Ramaiya Kumar only expressed his view
on an academic issue, that will only come under advocacy and not under incitement. Also,
advocating revolution or advocating even violent overthrow of the State, does not amount to
61

2012 (4) KLT 708.

Constitution of India, Art 19 (1) (a).
63
(2011) 3 SCC 380.
64
AIR 2011 SC 957.
65
AIR 2015 SC 1523.
62

IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

sedition, unless there is incitement to violence, and more importantly, the incitement is to
imminent violence.66. And as per the facts of the case, there is no imminent violence, and also
the assembly was ended peacefully.
Tara Singh Gopi Chand v. The State of Punjab 67 in which Mr. Chief Justice Westen, in order
to examine the validity of section 124-A adopted the interpretation given to it by Mr. Justice
Strachey in the Tilak68 case. According to Mr. Justice Strachey, the offence consisted in
exciting or attempting to excite in others certain bad feelings towards the government
irrespective of the consequences that may or may not follow.
In the case of Nazir Khan v. State of Delhi69, it was said that-The very tendency of sedition is
to incite the people to insurrection and rebellion, but as we can clearly assert that, by presenting
view on a debatable academic issue, Ramaiya Kumar nowhere tried to incite people to
insurrection and rebellion. In the case of Niharendu Dutt Majumdar

70

, it was said that, the

wordings on the basis of which a person is charged for the offence of sedition, should lead to
incitement to violence, mere against words used are not enough. So by looking into the facts,
it is very clear that, rally in which Ramaiya Kumar delivered speech concluded peacefully, thus
not leading any incitement of violence, and thus will not be liable with the charge of sedition.
So by the facts it is very clear, that the meaning of the sentence said by Ramaiya Kumar in his
speech was not to incite violence, and thus will not be liable for the charge of Sedition.
Explanation 2&3 of Section 124AAlso it is very important to note that, Explanation 2 & 3 of Section 124A of Indian Penal Code,
specifically points out that, any Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the
Government, or any administrative or other action of the Government, without exiciting or
attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this
section. Disapprobation used in Explanation 2&3 simply means disapproval71. So if we will
relate the facts of the case with the Explanation 2&3, It is only the disapprobation of the
Kanahiya Kumar, with the new policies that the Government is bringing, and not in any way,
is raising any incitement against the State. And as it has been stated in the case of Jogendra
Chunder Bose72, that disapproval could be there against any step or policy, and that would in
no way amount to sedition.
66

Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1987 SC 1080.

AIR 1951 Punj 27.
68
Queen Empress v. Bal Gangadhar Tilak, ILR (1898) 22 Bom 112.
69
AIR 2003 SC 4427.
70
(1942) FCR 38.
71
Jogendra Chunder Bose, (1891) 19 Cal 35, 44; Bal Gangadhar Tilak, (1897) 22 Bom 112, 137.
72
Ibid 6.
67

IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

[3.1] FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION
ARREST

OF

RAMAIYA KUMAR IS VIOLATED BY HIS

:-It is humbly submitted before this Honble court that the arrest of Ramaiya Kumar

and slapping of Sedition charges on him is violative of his Right to speech and expression.
Ramaiya Kumar, like any other person has the right to free speech and expression and this right
covers in its ambit all types of beliefs and expressions expressible subject to the provisions of
Constitution. The public discussion with people's participation is a basic feature and a rational
process of democracy which distinguishes it from all other forms of Government.73.The Right
also includes the views which are unpalatable to the Government.74 An environment in which
human rights are respected is nurtured by a vibrant flow information and avenues for a critical
assessment of governance75. In Bobby Art International v. Om Pal Singh Hoon,76 the Supreme
Court said that in democracy, it is not necessary that everyone should sing the same song,
different views are allowed to be expressed by proponents and opponents not because they are
correct or valid but because there is freedom in this country for expressing even different views
on any issue77.
[3.1.1] MERE CRITICISM OF GOVERNMENT IS NOT PUNISHABLE:Ramaiya Kumar in his speeches has criticised many of the views of the government and hence
when his views became popular was slapped with the charges of sedition. But it is humbly
submitted before this court that mere criticism of government policies 78 and expressing views
against a particular party79 are not punishable and does not comes within ambit of 19(2). In
short, freedom of expression means freedom not only for the thought we cherish, but also for
the thought that we hate.80 Discussion and advocacy are core of freedom of speech and
expression81 and even if they cause annoyance, inconvenience or grossly offend, 82 etc., they
cannot be curbed by law.83 Free criticism is the foundation of free Government,84for, it is only

73

Maneka Gandhi v. UOI, (1978) 1 SCC 248; Naraindas Indurkhya v. State of M.P., (1974) 4 SCC 788; Abramson
v. United States, 250 US 616; Whitneys v. California, 21A US 357 (1927).
74
Anand Patwardhan v. UOI, AIR 1997 BOM 25; F.A. Pictures International v. CBFC, AIR 2005 Bom 145.
75
F.A. Pictures International v. CBFC, AIR 2005 Bom 145.
76
AIR 1996 SC 1846.
77
Narain Das v. State of M.P., (1947) 4 SCC 788.
78
Jawali v. State of Mysore, AIR 1966 SC 1387.
79
Ahmed v. State, AIR 1951 All 459; Sarju v. State, AIR 1956 All 589.
80
Narain Das v. State of M.P., (1947) 4 SCC 788.
81
Abraham v. United States, 250 US 616.
82
Devidas Ramachandra Tuijapurkar v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 6 SCC 1.
83
Prakash Jha Productions v. UOI, (2011) 8 SCC 372.
84
Schneider v. Irvinton, (1939) 308 US 147.

10

IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

through free debate and free exchange of ideas85 that the Government remains responsive to
the will of the people and peaceful change is effected.86
The State cannot prevent open discussion and open expression, however hateful to its
policies.87 Everyone has a fundamental right to form his own opinion on any issue of general
concern . Dissent is quintessence of democracy 88
Hence in the lights of above authorities and cases we can say that a person is free to criticise
the government and its policies and will be protected under the umbrella of Art. 19(1)(a). Hence
the arrest of Ramaiya Kumar and charges against him are not sound in law.
[3.1.2] FREEDOM OF SPEECH OF RAMAIYA KUMAR IS

NOT

RESTRICTED UNDER 19 (2):-

It is humbly submitted before this Honble court that in the present case the Speech of Ramaiya
Kumar does not comes within the ambit of these restrictions. Moreover, the Restriction
imposed by the impugned Amendment Act does not fall in any of grounds under Art. 19 (2).
Speech of Ramaiya Kumar does not fall in any grounds mentioned under Art 19(2): - The
restrictive clauses in 19(2-6) are exhaustive and must be construed strictly.89 Freedom of
speech can only be restricted on the grounds mentioned in 19 (2). 90 It cannot like the freedom
to carry business, be curtailed in the interests of general public91. The courts are always there
to strike down curtailment of I freedom of the press by unconstitutional means.92
Sovereignty, integrity and Security of state is not threatened by the said speech: -. In order
to check the above grounds, the Clear and Present Danger Test evolved by the U.S. Supreme
Court in Schenck v. United States93 is followed which says The question in every case is
whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a
clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that the legislature has
85

S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, (2010) 5 SCC 600; Whitney California, 274 US 357 (1927)
Terminillio v. Chicago, (1949) 337 US 1; Stromberg v. Griffs, (1931) 283 US 359.
87
Arvind P Datar, Commentary On The Constitution Of India 582 (2nd edn., 2010).
88
S Rangarajan and Ors. v. P Jagjivan Ram and Ors., (1989) 2 SCC 574; Ozair Hussain v. UOI, AIR 2003 Del
103.
89
Supt. v. Ram Manohar, AIR 1960 SC 633; Kedar Nath v. State of Bihar; Sodhi Samsher v. State of Pepsu, AIR
1954 SC 276.
90
Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. and Ors. v. UOI, AIR 1962 SC 305; Tata Press Ltd. v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.,
(1995) 5 SCC 139; Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf), Lai Kuan v. UOI, AIR 1960 SC 554; Odyssey Communications
(P) Ltd. v. Lokvidayan Sanghatana, 1988 Supp (1) SCR 486; S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, (1989) 2 SCC
574; Printers (Mysore) Ltd. v. Asstt. CTO, (1994) 2 SCC 434; K.A. Abbas v. UOI, (1970) 2 SCC 780.
91
Shreya Singhal v. UOI , AIR 2015 SC 1523; Chaptinsky v. New Hampshire, 86 L Ed 1031 ;Kameshwar Prasad
v. State \of\ Bihar,AIR 1962 SC 1166; AIR 1962 SC 305; Supt., Central Prison v. Ram Manohar Lohia, AIR 1960
SC 633; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 128 ALR 1352 (1940); Devidas Ramachandra Tuljapurkar v. State{of\
Maharashtra, (2015) 6 SCC 1.
92
Kruse v. Johnson, (1898) 2 QB 91; Indian Express Newspapers v. UOI, (1985) 1 SCC 641; State of Madras v.
V.G. Row, AIR 1952 SC 196.
93
63 L. Ed. 470 (1919).
86

11

IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. This test is followed in India.94
The Supreme Court in some other cases has used the expression "tendency" to create immediate
public disorder.95 The 'clear and present danger test is whether the words used are used in such
circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will
bring about substantive evils that the legislature has the right to prevent.96 The anticipated
danger should not be remote, conjectural or far-fetched.97 It should have proximate and direct
nexus with the expression. The expression of thought should be intrinsically dangerous to the
public interests. It should be inseparably locked up with the action contemplated like the
equivalent of a "spark in a powder keg".98
Emotionally charged rhetoric by itself is not sufficient to hold that speeches are likely to incite
lawless action unless the language is followed by acts of violence.99Even the advocacy of
revolution of the toiling masses, has been held not to be prejudicial to the security of the State,
where it was not suggested that the toiling masses should effect the revolution by resorting to
arms.100
Public Order is not threatened by the said acts :- It is humbly Submitted that the acts of
Press and Ramaiya Kumar does not create a public disorder Mere apprehension of disturbance
is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression.101 Public order is an expression
of wide connotations and includes public safety or interest and signifies that the State of
tranquillity prevailing among the members of a political society. 102 Mere Support of a banned
organisation cannot incriminate a person unless he is proved to have resorted to acts of violence
or incited people to imminent violence or does an act intended to create disorder or disturbance
of public peace by resort to imminent violence103 Law and Order comprehends disorders of

94

S Rangarajan and Ors. v. P Jagjivan Ram and Ors., (1989) 2 SCC 574; State of Bihar v. Shailabala Devi, AIR
1952 SC 329; Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P., AIR 1957 SC 620; Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962
SC 955; Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo v. Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte, (1996) 1 SCC 130.
95
Schenck v. United States, 249 US 47 (1919); Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 US 1 (1949); Brandenburg v. Ohio.
395 US 444 (1969); Virginia v. Black, 538 US 343 (2003); Abrahm v. United States, 63 L. Ed. 1173 (1919);
Gompers v. Buck's Stove & Range Co., 34 LRA (NS) 874 (1911); Virginia v. Black, 538 US 343 (2003); Watts
v. United States, 22 L. Ed. 2d 664: 394 US 705 (1969).
96
Duda v. Shiv Shankar, AIR 1988 SC 1208; R.P. Ltd. v. Indian Express, AIR 1989 SC 190; AP v. P. Laxmi
Devi, AIR 2008 SC 1604.
97
N.K. Bajpai v. UOI, AIR 2012 SC 1310; Kama Krishna Sircar v. Emperor, AIR 1935 Cal 636.
98
Manohar Damodar Patil v. Government of Bombay, AIR 1950 Bom 210; Niharendu Dutt Majumdar v.
Emperor, AIR 1942 FC 22; Handyside v. United Kingdom, 1976 EHRR 737.
99
State of Bihar v. Sailabala, AIR 1952 SC 329; NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., (1982) 458 US 886.
100
Manohar v. State of Bombay, AIR 1950 Bom 210; Badri Narain v. Chief Secy., AIR 1941 Pat 132.
101
Tinker v. Des Monis School Dist., (1969) 393 US 503.
102
Ram Manohar v. State Of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 740; Kishori Mohan Beral v. State of W.B., AIR 1972 SC 1749.
103
Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam, AIR 2011 SC 957; Indra Das v. State of Assam, (2011) 3 SCC 380; State of
Kerla v. Raneef, (2011) 1 SCC 784; Kedar Nath v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955; Elbrandt v. Russel, (1984)
384 US 11; United States v. Robel, (1967) 389 US 258.

12

IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

less gravity than those effecting public order just as public order comprehends disorders of
less gravity then those effecting Security of State104 Hence an activity which affects law and
order may not necessarily affect public order105. Hence it can be concluded that acts of
Ramaiya Kumar and press can lead to law and order but not public disorder, thus not restricted.
[4] LATHI

CHARGE DONE BY POLICE INFRINGED

RIGHT

TO PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY OF

TOMAR RASHID.:-It violates freedom of assembly under 19(1)(b) because Assembly on

Highway in this case lawful (4.1), Highway act allows the same (4.1.1), and Assembly by
supporters was lawful (4.1.2) and lathi charge was prohibited to be done by Police in case of
apprehension of breach of the peace.(4.2)
As per the facts of the case, it has been stated that strike was held on National Highway, and
for same, protestors were lathi charged by the police without any warning and as a result Tomar
Rashid, one of the protestor got injured and had to be admitted in hospital. This is the clear
violation of his Fundamental Right to peaceful assembly as provided in Article 19(1) (b), which
says that, All citizens shall have the right to assemble peacefully and without arms and as it has
nowhere mentioned in the facts of the case that, protestors were doing strike with arms, so the
main debatable concern is that, whether the assembly was lawful or not. This can be proved by
analyzing 4 law points regarding same.
[4.1.] ASSEMBLY ON HIGHWAY IN THIS CASE LAWFUL. With regard to this matter before the
Honble Supreme Court, it is contended that assembly on Highway was totally lawful. This can
be proved with the help of relevant cases on the same issue.
In the case of Hickman v. Maisey106 , Nagy v. Weston107and Hirst v. Chief Constable108, it was
said that a person or Group of Person can temporary stop on Highway, but he has no right to
occupy a highway to erect some permanent structure which causes obstruction to the tariff. So
it is clearly mentioned here that one can stop on Highway for a temporary period, which is
incidental to the purpose of his passage, and in regard to the present matter, the protesters were
allegedly on Highway for a temporary period, against the policy of Indiana Peoples Party (IPP)
and as they did not erected any permanent structure, which would cause any obstruction to the

104

Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 740; Ramlila Maidan Incident, In Re, (2012) 5 SCC 1;
Commissioner of Police v. C. Anitha, (2004) 7 SCC 467; T.K. Gopal v. State of Karnataka, (2000) 6 SCC 168;
Harpreet Kaur v. State of Maharashtra, (1992) 2 SCC 177; Kuso Sah v. State of Bihar, (1974) 2 SCC 177; State
of U.P. v. Sajay Pratap Gupta, (2004) 8 SCC 591.
105
Bhupal v. Arif, AIR 1974 SC 255.
106
(1900) 1 QB 752 (CA).
107
(1965) 1 All ER 78.
108
(1987) 85 Cr AR 143.

13

IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

passer by, so there act will be lawful and Police is liable for infringing there right to peaceful
assembly.
Also in the similar case of Lowdens v. Keaveny109 , in which A band which marched through
Belfast playing Party airs, with a result that a crowd of several hundred collected, by which the
road was blocked with obvious reasons, it was held by the Honble court that, they were not
liable for causing a material obstruction.
So it can be clearly compared that, if the assembly of several hundred is not a material
obstruction, then how can be the assembly of few supporters would amount to material
obstruction, so that the police did lathi charge on them. Also the problem caused to the public
or deemed to be caused, cannot be differentiated only on the basis of purpose. So from the
above cases, it is clear that, the supporters were lawfully exercising their right of peaceful
assembly.
[4.1.1.]I NTERPRETATION OF HIGHWAY ACT, 1959 ON THE ISSUE . Section 8B of Highway
Act, 1959 provides for anything mischief done on National Highway. It saysSection 8B-Punishment for mischief by injury to national highway. Whoever commits
mischief by doing any act which renders or which he knows to be likely to render any national
highway referred to in sub-section (1) of section 8A impassable or less safe for travelling or
conveying property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to five years, or with a fine, or with both. So it will only amount to mischief only
in two conditionsA. Any act which makes it impassable. So if will analyze the facts of the case, taking into
concern first condition, to render any act on a Highway to mischief, then in nowhere in the
facts of the case it is stated that, Strike made the Highway impassable. It was only alleged
by the Police, that it was blocked, with no substantial proof. So if it was not blocked, then
there can be many possibilities of strike on Highway. They may be sitting in a row giving
way to passer-by, or may be sitting on the side of Highway, not blocking Highway at all. So
as the protestors are not making Highway impassable, they are not violating First condition
for mischief mentioned in Section 8B of Highway Act.
B. Any act which makes it less safe for travelling or conveying property. As it has already been
mentioned, that in the facts of the case, it is nowhere mentioned that protestors were on
strike along with arms, or anything that would affect the safety of passerby, and also it is
important to note that, facts of the case specifically points out that, the object of the strike

109

(1903) IR 82.

14

IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

was to express Solidarity, and also the strike ended peacefully. Mention of these two phrases
in the facts clearly indicates that, from beginning till end, the purpose was only to assemble
peacefully and to express solidarity, and that was only done. And thus the protestors did not
violated condition 2, mentioned in section 8B of Highway Act. Thus by looking into the two
conditions of Section 8B of Highway Act, it can be clearly said that, strike done on Highway,
will not come within the ambit of Section 8B of Highway Act.
[4.1.2.] ASSEMBLY BY SUPPORTERS WAS LAWFUL . According to Section 129(1) of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 authorities the Magistrate or the Police to disperse assembly-if it is
likely to cause a disturbance of the peace. So it is very clear that, a lawful assembly becomes
unlawful, if it is likely to cause a disturbance of the peace. And as per the facts of the case,
assembly by the supporters of AISU was for expressing solidarity and also it ended peacefully,
thus in no way caused disturbance of peace. Also in the case of Beauty v. Gilbanks110, and
Emperor v. Tucker111, it was said that a lawful meeting may be dispersed if it is likely to excite
such opposition as may endanger the public peace. So as per the facts of the case, as the
assembly was peacefully conducted on Highway, where only the protestors were there, then it,
in no way would lead to disturbance of public peace. Also it was only due to the action of Lathi
charge by police that lead to the nationwide violent protest, and in no way supporters were
liable, to cause disturbance of public peace.
In one of the cases112, it was observed that to interfere with the private rights of individuals on
anything short of strongest necessity113 would make-not the law of the land but the law of the
mob supreme.114In the case of Babulal v. State of Maharashtra115, the action cannot be taken
unless danger to public order is imminent. But in the present case, there was no imminent
danger to public and thus the assembly was lawful, and not became unlawful.
[4.2] .ACTS PROHIBITED TO BE DONE BY POLICE IN CASE OF APPREHENSION OF BREACH
OF THE PEACE .

A study of the Supreme Court decisions116 and the mass of previous decisions

which have been reviewed therein will lead to the propositions as to what the Police cannot do
under colour of maintenance of the peace. In this case it was said that- The Police have no
power, nor duty to suppress the lawful exercise of a legal right simply because obstruction on
the part of wrongdoers might lead to breach of the peace. As in this case, supporters were
110

(1882) 9 QBD 308.

(1882) 7 Bom 42.
112
Humphires v. OConnor,(1864) 17 Ir. CLR 1.
113
Robertson, Freedom, The Individual and the Law 85 (1989).
114
Humphires v. OConnor, (1864) 17 Ir. CLR 1.
115
AIR 1961 SC 884.
116
Sundram v. R. (1882) 6 Mad 208, approved by the Supreme Court in Ghulam v. UOI, AIR 1981 SC 2198.
111

15

IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

peacefully protesting, but the police went against them and lathi charged, only because there
was an apprehension of breach of peace. The reason is quite patent, namely, that it is the duty
of the administrative and Police authorities to maintain the law by upholding legal rights and
not by suppressing them.117 So as per the facts of the case, it is very clear that, the assembly
was peaceful, and by act of police of lathi charge is in a way suppressing the legal rights of the
supporters to assemble peacefully. In Falauddins case118, The Hindus of a certain place, applied
for leave to take procession along the streets and the Magistrate issued an order under Section
144, Criminal Procedure Court, forbidding the Hindus to conduct that procession, holding that
the likelihood of rioting and bloodshed was too great to allow them to exercise their lawful
rights. The High court held that this was- A confession of impotence on the Part of the
authorities.
The same scenario is in this case also, in which there was no outbreak of violence on the part
of supporters, even then also, Police did lathi charge, as according to them, there was
apprehension of violence, so the act done by the police was not valid.
Hence it is contended to the Honble Court that by above mentioned legal grounds given in
various cases, it is very clear that the act done by Police was unlawful, and infringed the
Fundamental Right of Tomar Rashid to assemble peacefully.

117
118

Himmat Lal v. Police Commr., AIR 1973 SC 87.

Sabbaya v. Falauddin, (1928) CLJ 509 (Mad.).

16

IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY 4TH NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION

PRAYER
Wherefore, in the light of the facts stated, issues raised, argument advanced and authorities
citied, it is most humbly prayed by the Petitioners and Appellant in this matter that the Honble
Supreme Court of Indiana, be pleased to: 1. Declare section 14-A of Press Council Act as Unconstitutional.
2. Declare Section 124-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 as unconstitutional.
3. Acquit Ramaiya Kumar from act of Sedition under Section 124-A of Indian Penal Code,
1860.
4. Declare the act of lathi charge by Police unlawful as it is in violation with Article 19(1)
(b) of the Constitution.

and/or

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

For this act of kindness, the Appellant shall forever humbly pray.

Place: New Delporto

Respectfully Submitted by,

Date: .

Counsels for the Petitioners &

Appellant

17