LEX OMNIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

3RD- 6TH NOVEMBER 2016

BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION 1996/2016

DHARMANAND POVER...CLAIMANT
V.
UNION OF INDIA......RESPONDENT

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION 1997/2016

GENTLEMANIAN SWAMY.CLAIMANT
V.
LAVEESTA KETALVAD.RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL SUMBITTED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

LEX OMNIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE FO ABBREVIATIONS..03
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES........................................................................................04

CASES.04

BOOKS05

ACTS....06

OTHER AUTHORITIES.06

STATEMENT OF JURSIDICTION............................................................................07
QUESTIONS PRESENTED08
STATEMENT OF FACTS...........................................................................................09
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS....................................................................................12
PLEADINGS................................................................................................................15
1.

Whether section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, constitutes an

unreasonable restriction on the freedom of speech and expression under Article

19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India?...........................................................................15
A. AR. 19(1)(A) CAN BE CURTAILED.....15
B. THE KNU STUDENT COUNCILS PRESIDENT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
THE ANTI- INDIA CHANTS.16
C. THE STUDENTS OF KNU HAD SEDITIOUS INTENTIONS.16
1.1.

Whether the students affiliated to the CPI-F have done criminal contempt of

court?............................................................................................................................18
1.2.

Whether the actions of these students are a blot on the national spirit of

unification?...................................................................................................................19
A. THE KASHMIR PROBLEM...19
2.

Whether the ban of production of CDs by I Love Trump Limited constitutes

an unreasonable restriction on the freedom to carry out any trade or occupation under
Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution on India?..............................................................21
PRAYER FOR RELIEF...............................................................................................23
2|P a g e

LEX OMNIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

&

And

Paragraph

AIR

All India Reporter

Anr.

Another

Art.

Article

Co.

Company

Corpn.

Corporation

CPI-F

Championist Party if India Farcist

CPC

Code of Civil Procedure

CrPC

Code of Criminal Procedure

DJP

Desh Jalao Party

Govt.

Government

HC

High Court

Honble

Honourable

Ibid

Ibidium

KNU

Kamlalal Nohru University

Ltd

Limited

No.

Number

Ors.

Others

RSS

Random Self- Helping Sods

SLP

Special Leave Petition

SC

Supreme Court

SCC

Supreme Court Cases

Sec.

Section

V.

Versus

W.P.

Writ Petition

3|P a g e

LEX OMNIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES
1. Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam, (2011) 3 SCC 377
2. Ram Nandan v. State 1959 All 101
3. Niharendu Dutt Mazumdar v. Kings Emperor, AIR 1942 FC 29
4. Kedarnath v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955
5. Tara Singh Gopi Chand v. State, 1951 Cri LJ 44
6. S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, (1989) 2 SCC 574
7. Gurjatinder Pal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 3 RCR (Cri) 224
8. Partap Singh v. UT, Chandigarh, Cri Misc No. 11926-M of 1991
9. Sabir Raza v. State, Cri App No. 1434 of 1955
10. Dr Vinayak Binayak Sen v. State of Chhattisgarh, Criminal Appeal No 20 of
2011 & Criminal Appeal No54 of 2011
11. Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab,
12. Indra Das v. State of Assam, Criminal Appeal No. 1383 of 2007
13. Queen Empress v. Jogendra Chunder Bose, ILR (1892) 19 Cal 35
14. Kamal Krishna Sircar v. Emperor, AIR 1935 Cal 636
15. P.J. Manuel v. State of Kerala, ILR (2013) 1 Ker 793
16. Alavi v. State of Kerala, 1982 KLT 205
17. Pankaj Butalia v. Central Board of Film Certification, WP (C) 675 of 2015
18. Sanskar Marathe v. State of Maharashtra, Cri PIL No. 3 of 2015
19. Mohd. Yaqub v. State of West Bengal, (2004) 4 CHN 406
20. State of Assam v. Fasiullah Hussain (2013) 4 GLT 284
21. State of Rajasthan v. Ravindra Singhi, (2001) 3 WLN 242
22. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2013) 12 SCC 73
23. Ram Manohar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 740
24. S.H. Jhabwala v. Emperor, ILR (1933) 55 All 1040

4|P a g e

LEX OMNIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

25. Hasan Khan v. State of Bihar, AIR 1951 Pat 60

26. Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1997 SC 3483, 1997 7
SCC 431, 1997 Cr LJ 4091 SC
27. Ramji Lal Modi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1957 SC 620
28. HardikBharatbhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat &Ors. 2016 (1) RCR (Criminal)
542
29. Kanhaiya Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi
30. P.C. Sen, AIR 1970 SC 1821, 1970 CriLJ 1525, 1969 2 SCR 649
31. Q.R. v. Gray, 1900 (2) QBD 36 (40)
32. State of Assam v. V.K. Vishnoi, 1993 (23) ATC 581
33. State of Orissa v. Bijaya Mohanty, (1993) 75 CLT 820
34. Babu Rao Patel v. State (Delhi Administration), 1980 AIR 763, 1980 SCR (2)
1082
35. Joseph B Dsouza v. State of Maharashtra (1995) Cr LJ 1316 (Bom)
36. BaragurRamachandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) 3 SCC 11.
37. Das Rao Deshmukh v. Kamal Kishore Kadam, AIR 1996 SC 391
38. Superintendent, Central Prison v. Ram Manohar Lohia, AIR 1960 SE 633
39. Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2015 SC 460

BOOKS

1. BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY

2. K.D. GAUR, COMMENTARY ON INDIAN PENAL CODE
3. M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
4. P. M. BAKSHI, THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
5. P.S.A. PILLAI, CRIMINAL LAW

5|P a g e

LEX OMNIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

6. SURENDRA MALIK & SUDEEP MALIK, SUPREME COURT ON

CONTEMPT OF COURT
7. HARI SINGH GOUR, PENAL LAW OF INDIA
ACTS

1. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950

2. THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
3. THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971

OTHER AUTHORITIES

1. UNITED COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIAS RESOLUTION OF 1945

2. PT. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU, GLIMPSES OF WORLD HISTORY

3. PARTICULARS

OF

JAWAHARLAL

NEHRU

UNIVERSITYS

ORGANISATION, FUNCTION AND DUTIES

6|P a g e

LEX OMNIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

It is humbly submitted that the petition invokes the jurisdiction of Honble Supreme
Court of India under Article 1361 of Constitution of India. The present Memorandum
sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments

Article 136 of Constitution of India read as Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court (1)
Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave
to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or
made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India (2) Nothing in clause ( 1 ) shall apply to any
judgment, determination, sentence or order passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or
under any law relating to the Armed Forces.

7|P a g e

LEX OMNIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1.

Whether section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, constitutes an

unreasonable restriction on the freedom of speech and expression under Article

19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India?
1.1 Whether the students affiliated to the CPI-F have done criminal contempt of
court?
1.2 Whether the actions of these students are a blot on the national spirit of
unification?
2.

Whether the ban of production of CDs by I Love Trump Limited

constitutes an unreasonable restriction on the freedom to carry out any trade or

occupation under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution on India?

8|P a g e

LEX OMNIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. Dharmanand Pover v. Union of India (Special Leave Petition no. 1996/2016)

I. Kamlalal Nohru University is an elite educational institution located in Delhi, India,
that offers, inter alia, post-graduate courses in the liberal arts. The student politics at
KNU has traditionally been dominated by students affiliated to the Championist Party
of India Farcist, which is a left-leaning political party with communism as its core
agenda. The other significant political presence on the KNU campus is of students
affiliated to the Desh Jalao Party, a right-wing political party with a pro-Hindutva
ideology. Verbal spats between these rival political camps are common, and there
have been instances of physical violence in the past between CPI-F and DJP affiliated
students at KNU. Sanwariya Kumar, Kabmar Khalid and Kamiban Bhattacharya are
CPI-F affiliated PhD scholars at KNU. Sanwariya Kumar was elected president of the
KNU students council for the academic year 2016-2017.
2. Every year, certain students at KNU conduct a rally to condemn the occupation of
certain parts of the territory of Kashmir by the Republic of India. This rally has been
conducted every year since 1984, the year in which Taqbool Jatt, a Kashmiri leader
who wanted disintegration of Kashmir from India was hanged to death after a
prolonged trial. At the annual rally conducted on February 9, 2016, various slogans
were raised against the tyranny of the Indian state. The slogans were initially about
Azadi (an expression commonly understood to connote the struggle of
independence of the Kashmiri people against Indian rule), but the tenor of the slogans
soon changed to anti-India chants. It is alleged that slogans to the effect of death to
India, we will wage war against this tyrannical state till it crumbles and we will
avenge the murder of Taqbool were raised at the rally. Members of DJP filmed the
entire event and subsequently alerted the police. The police arrived at the KNU
campus and arrested Sanwariya Kumar, Kabmar Khalid and Kamiban Bhattacharya
on charges of sedition under section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. They were
subsequently released on conditional bail, and criminal proceedings against them are
currently pending. The CPI-F affiliated students held several rallies subsequently, and
committed themselves to defending their freedom of speech and expression.
9|P a g e

LEX OMNIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

II. On hearing about this matter, Dharmanand Pover, a public-spirited advocate,

agreed to represent the students of KNU. He filed a writ petition before the High
Court of Delhi under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, arguing that:
(i) the crime of sedition within the meaning of Section 124A constituted an
unreasonable restriction on the right to freedom of speech and expression set out in
Article 19 of the Constitution of India; and
(ii) Article 19 protects the freedom of the individual to disagree with state policy and
dissent against actions of the state.
III. The High Court disagreed with Mr. Povers submissions and upheld the
constitutionality of Section 124A, holding it to be a reasonable restriction on the right
to freedom of speech and expression set out in Article 19. The single judge bench of
the High Court observed:
The thoughts reflected in the slogans raised by some of the students of KNU who
organized and participated in that programme cannot be claimed to be protected as
fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. I consider this as a kind of
infection from which such students are suffering which needs to be controlled/cured
before it becomes an epidemic. Whenever some infection is spread in a limb, effort is
made to cure the same by giving antibiotics orally and if that does not work, by
following second line of treatment. Sometimes it may require surgical intervention
also. However, if the infection results in infecting the limb to the extent that it
becomes gangrene, amputation is the only treatment.
IV. However, the High Court of Delhi granted Dharmanand Pover leave to appeal to
the Supreme Court. Hence, the present appeal.
B. Gentlemanian Swamy v. Laveesta Ketalvad (Special Leave Petition no.
1997/2016)
V. Gentlemanian Swamy is a Member of Parliament with a strong pro-Hindutva
ideology. He enjoys mass support from various categories of people, particularly
members of the Random Self-Helping Sods. Gentlemanian routinely writes critically
10|P a g e

LEX OMNIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

about various fellow politicians and members of minority communities, and has in the
past filed various cases questioning transactions involving other politicians.
VI. To promote his ideology of Hinduism, Gentlemanian also runs a flourishing CD
business through his wholly-owned company, I Love Trump Limited, which
specialises in producing and distributing provocative songs and videos concerning
minority communities with explicit threats of mass murder and sexual violence. His
CDs are very popular in North India, and his songs and videos are routinely played at
meetings of the RSS.
VII. Laveesta Ketalvad is an advocate specialising in representing victims of
communal violence, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a ban on the production and sale of CDs by I
Love Trump Limited. She argued that the CDs were provocative and sought to create
discord between communities, leading to escalated tension and the outbreak of
communal riots, and the production and distribution of CDs constituted the crime of
promoting enmity between communities within the meaning of section 153A of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860. Gentlemanian argued that the right to carry on any trade or
occupation under Article 19 of the Constitution of India protected his right to produce
and distribute CDs. The High Court of Delhi ruled in favour of Laveesta, and held
that the ban on production and distribution of CDs was a reasonable restriction on
Gentlemanians right to carry on any trade or occupation. The single judge bench of
the High Court observed:
The respondent is well-known to the world as a mischief monger. A bare perusal of
the literature distributed by him reveals his evil intentions to heighten animosity and
distrust between communities. He advocates for the killing of all non-Hindus if they
do not accept their Hindu ancestry. Such a man must not be allowed to air his
venomous thoughts to the gullible youth of this great nation. Accordingly, we find that
an outright ban on the production and distribution of CDs by I Love Trump Limited is
a reasonable restriction on the respondents right to carry out any trade or
occupation.

11|P a g e

LEX OMNIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

1.

SECTION

124A

OF

THE

IPC,

1860

IS

REASONABLE

RESTRICTION ON ARTICLE 19(1)(a)

Article 19 1(a) provides the right of freedom of speech and expression in Indian
Constitution in any form, be it writing, commercial advertisement, publishing, public
speaking, etc. , article 19(2) shall be taken into consideration which comes to the
rescue for section 124A of the Indian Penal Code,1860. It clearly states that nothing in
A.19(1)(a) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the state from
making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions in the exercise
of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interest of sovereignty and integrity
of India, the security of state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order,
decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an
offence.
The KNU student unions president shall be held responsible for such deeds as
whenever the annual rally is initiated at first, the president is informed about such
rally. When he gives his consent, then only then the rally takes place. He is also liable
for such treacherous act as the other students of KNU are. The person who talks about
the Indian Constitution so much, has himself failed to fulfil the duties as a citizen
under Article 51(A).
Right to disapprobation towards the government established by law in India is the
right given by Indian law, but to have disloyalty towards the nation and raising anti
India slogans such as "Death to India" is violative of Section 124A as well as
misusing of right conferred under article 19 (1)(a) of the constitution.
The claimant shall also be charged for criminal contempt defined in section 2(c),
under Contempt of courts Acts, 1971 as they have openly threatened to the judicial
system for killing of Taqbool Jatt is the case of disobedience of the judicial orders.
The students have proved to be a blot on the national spirit of unification by speaking
in favour of dividing the nation, death to India and separating kashmir from Republic
of India. Through the RTI, many central universities have revealed its objectives and
12|P a g e

LEX OMNIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

one of them is the Nehruvian objective like national integration and scientific
approach to the problems of society through self questioning. It is to be noted that
atrocities done by Indian state on Kashmiris is matter of concern, but the issue of
Kashmiri pundits shall also be included. The demand for justice truly seems selective
here. The weapon of anxiety should be injected into these young people so that India
shall not be divided into different countries. Indians do not want a second Pakistan.
2. THE BAN OF PRODUCTION OF CDS BY I LOVE TRUMP LIMITED
CONSTITUTES A REASONABLE RESTRICTION ON THE FREEDOM TO
CARRY OUT ANY TRADE OR OCCUPATION UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(g)
OF THE CONSTITUTION ON INDIA.
Under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Indian Constitution it states about to practise any
profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. It is rescued by Art.19 (6)
which states that nothing in Article 19 (6) shall affect the operation of any existing
law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the state from making any law imposing, in the
interest of general public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred
by the said sub-clause, and, in particular nothing in the said sub-clause shall affect the
operation of any existing law in so far as it relates to, or prevent the State from
making any law relating to, the professional or technical qualifications necessary
for practising any profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or business, or the
carrying on by the State, or by a corporation owned or controlled by the State, of any
trade, business, industry or service, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of
citizens or otherwise. The claimant shall truly be convicted under Section 153A of
Indian Penal Code which defines promoting enmity between different groups on
grounds of religion, caste, place of birth, race, residence, language, etc. and doing acts
prejudicial to maintenance of harmony. I Love Trump ltd. produces CDs which are
specialised in spreading provocative songs and videos targeting minority communities
with explicit threats of mass murder and sexual violence. The defence taken by the
claimant under Art. 19(1)(g) shall be scrapped as it is not in the interest of general
public as well as it disturbs the sovereignty and integrity of the country. The claimant
very much sticks to the Constitution which talks about secularism, socialism,
sovereignty, etc. but does not follow all these. If he is stick to the law bible, he should
not promote negative ideas for other religions. The claimant has the right to propagate
13|P a g e

LEX OMNIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

his religion under Article 25 of Constitution, but they are intra vires to Article 26 of
Constitution which state its restrictions and protects religious denominations.

14|P a g e

LEX OMNIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

PLEADINGS

1. S. 124A OF THE IPC, 1860 IS A REASONABLE RESTRICTION ON AR.

19(1)(a)
(1) It is submitted that S. 124A of the IPC, 1860 which talks about sedition is a
reasonable restriction on Ar. 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution which is about right
to freedom of speech and expression on the basis of the restrictions followed after Ar.
19(1).
A.

AR. 19(1)(A) CAN BE CURTAILED

(2) In Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India2, the court held that, mere discussion or
even advocacy of a particular cause howsoever unpopular is at the heart of Article
19(1)(a). It is only when such discussion or advocacy reaches the level of incitement
that Article 19(2) kicks in. It is at this stage that a law may be made curtailing the
speech or expression that leads inexorably to or tends to cause public disorder or tends
to cause or tends to affect the sovereignty & integrity of India, the security of the
State, friendly relations with foreign States, etc. In Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of
Andhra Pradesh3, the court said that the offence of sedition is doing of certain acts
which would bring the Government established by law in India into hatred or
contempt, or create disaffection against it. Certain acts include- words, either spoken
or written, or by signs, or by visible representation4.
(3) Ar. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India says, all the citizens of India shall have
the right to freedom of speech and expression. Under the clause (2) of the same
Article it is also mentioned that the state can impose reasonable restrictions in the
interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India which includes- the security of the
State, friendly relations with Foreign States, public order, decency or morality. The
claimant claims his right regarding freedom of speech and expression guaranteed in
Part-III under Article 19(1)(a) of Constitution of India. He also has to be reminded

Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1

Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1997 SC 3483, 1997 7 SCC 431, 1997 Cr LJ
4091 SC
4
Indian Penal Code, 1860 S. 124A
3

15|P a g e

LEX OMNIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

that under Part-IV under Article 51A of Constitution of India fundamental duties of
every citizen have been specified along with the fact that rights and duties are two
sides of the same coin.
B.

THE KNU STUDENT COUNCILS PRESIDENT IS RESPONSIBLE

FOR THE ANTI- INDIA CHANTS

(4) As President of KNU Students Union, Sanwariya Kumar was expected to be

responsible and accountable for any anti-national events organised in the university
campus. The union president is expected to:
-

Have ensured that the rally be limited to the issue on which the rally was
called.

Have taken part in the anti- India sloaganing.

Take cognizance of the anti- India rants and shouldve immediately reported
the incident to police.

Sanwariya Kumar has failed to execute his duties and as a member representative of
the students to the university, he is responsible for the anti- India rants.
C.

THE STUDENTS OF KNU HAD SEDITIOUS INTENTIONS

(5) Right to Dissent is an essential part of any healthy democracy and any
government trying to curb that right is a blot on democracy. But raising slogans that
have tendency to create a war like situation and talk about Kashmirs disintegration
from India is not dissent but sedition. In Ramji Lal Modi v. State of Uttar Pradesh5,
the SC said merely the tendency or likelihood of violence as a consequence of
speech could be termed seditious. It was further opined that the use of the words in
the interest of before public order in Article 19(2) implied a wide ambit of
protection and would even include acts with the mere tendency to cause violence. It is
good to express concerns but it should be done cautiously keeping in mind the
integrity of this great nation.
(6) The left ideology is from a long time inclined towards the two nation theory. In
1945, the United Communist Party of India passed a resolution in favor of the Muslim
leagues demand for Pakistan and the two nation theory. The resolution further stated

Ramji Lal Modi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1957 SC 620

16|P a g e

LEX OMNIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

that India is not mere two nations- India is multiple nations and has no business being
united.6 These students are affiliated to the Championist Party of India- Farcist (CPIF) which is a left-leaning political party whose ideology is communism. It is natural
for anybody associated with such ideology to have similar views and prospective like
the one of their parent organisation.
(7) Had any such thing happened in Russia- the place where the communism
originates from, would Lenin have allowed a seminar in Moscow University by
Russian students glorifying capitalism in the free market? Of for that matter would the
largest country following communism, i.e. China have allowed its students in Bejing
University to protest and argue for Taiwans independent identity? Such slogans by
students show that these students are anti-national elements in mask of communism
who want to incite people for waging war against the country they belong to.
(8) Slogans such as Death to India and We will wage war against this tyrannical
state till it crumbles only show the desperation of this students to get into limelight
by shouting anti-India slogans. In Hardik Bharatbhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat &
Ors7., the court held that a speech or a statement, in which the speaker exhorts the
persons, who are listening to him, to resort to violence, prima facie, could be said to
be intended to excite disaffection towards the established Government and amounts to
an offence under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code. To put it in other words, to
advise a person to persuade to violence as a means of attaining a particular goal or
seeking revenge is not less objectionable then advising that person to commit violence
himself for that purpose. In either case, the advice is to pursue a course of action, it is
calculated to disturb the tranquility of the State. It is a recommendation to oppose the
established Government by force. In Kanhaiya Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi8
which is a sub judice case, Justice Pratibha Rani said The thoughts reflected in the
slogans raised by some of the students of JNU who organized and participated in that
programme cannot be claimed to be protected as fundamental right to freedom of
speech and expression. I consider this as a kind of infection from which such students
are suffering which needs to be controlled/cured before it becomes an epidemic.

United Communist Party of Indias Resolution of 1945

Hardik Bharatbhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. 2016 (1) RCR (Criminal) 542
8
Kanhaiya Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi
7

17|P a g e

LEX OMNIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

1.1

THE STUDENTS AFFILIATED TO THE CPI-F HAVE DONE

CRIMINAL CONTEMPT OF COURT

(9) Criminal contempt means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written,
or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of
any other act whatsoever which- scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends
to lower the authority of, any court9. In P.C. Sens10 case the court held that Courts
seek to punish acts or conduct calculated to interfere with justice.
(10) Slogan such as we will avenge the murder of Taqbool is purely a case of
disobedience and opposition of courts order. In Q.R. v. Gray11, the court said Any
act done or writing published which is calculated to bring a court or a Judge into
contempt, or to lower his authority, or to interfere with the judgement or interfere with
lawful process of the court, it is a contempt of court. Taqbool Jatt who was a traitor
and an enemy of the state who fought for his own agenda in separation of Kashmir
from India was hanged following the judgement against him by the apex court of the
country. In a case similar to this, a terrorist named Maqbool Bhat who also founded
the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front was hanged on 11th February, 1984 for
instigating violence in the valley and waging war against the Indian state.
(11) When the apex court of the country gives its judgement, its done with great
precision keeping in mind all the aspects of law and carefully combing all the facts
and situations, it is then it arrives on a conclusion and passes a judgement. Students of
KNU going against such an exhaustive procedure only shows the malicious intention
of the students in disrupting peace in the university campus and the country. Any
willful disobedience to the orders of the court to do or abstain from doing any act or
breach of any undertaking given to the court is prima-facie civil contempt[12][13][14]
(12) Students question the judgement of the court in Taqbools case, the irony is that
the same students have gone to the laps of the law to seek justice. This is the beauty of
democracy, this is the power of democracy of our country.

The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971 S.2(b) & S.2(c)

In Re: P.C. Sen, AIR 1970 SC 1821, 1970 CriLJ 1525, 1969 2 SCR 649
11
Q.R. v. Gray, 1900 (2) QBD 36 (40)
12
Vidya Sagar v. IIIrd Additional District Judge, Dehradun, 1991 All CJ 586
13
State of Assam v. V.K. Vishnoi, 1993 (23) ATC 581
14
State of Orissa v. Bijaya Mohanty, (1993) 75 CLT 820
10

18|P a g e

LEX OMNIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

1.2

THE ACTIONS OF THESE STUDENTS ARE A BLOT ON THE

NATIONAL SPIRIT OF UNIFICATION

(13) It has to be kept in mind by all concerned that they are enjoying this freedom
only because our borders are guarded by our armed and paramilitary forces. Our
forces are protecting our frontiers in the most difficult terrain in the world i.e. Siachen
Glacier or Rann of Kutch. Raising anti-national slogans have the effect of threatening
national integrity. Suffice it to note that such persons enjoy the freedom to raise such
slogans in the comfort of University Campus but without realising that they are in this
safe environment because our forces are there at the battle field situated at the highest
altitude of the world where even the oxygen is so scarce that those who are shouting
anti-national slogans holding posters of Taqbool Jatt close to their chest honouring
his martyrdom, may not be even able to withstand those conditions for an hour even.
The kind of slogans raised may have demoralizing effect on the family of those
martyrs who returned home in coffin draped in tricolour. Students raising anti- India
slogans of azadi, death to India, we will wage war against this tyrannical state
till it crumbles and we will avenge the murder of Taqbool are the biggest enemies
of the country. Hilary Clinton in one of her speeches said that Pakistan is breeding
snakes to bite India, I say We are breeding snakes to bite us. These people are the
biggest threat we face today. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru speaking on traitors once said
Civilisations, like empires fall, not so much because of the strength of the enemies as
through the weakness and decay within15. India is a living example of unity in
diversity. Freedom of expression enjoyed by every citizen can be subjected to
reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of our Constitution. The feelings or the
protest reflected in the slogans needs introspection by the student community whose
videos are available on record raising pro-Taqbool and anti-India slogans.
A.

THE KASHMIR PROBLEM

(14) Yes, it is good to raise concerns about the present state of affairs in Jammu and
Kashmir and only through a constructive dialogue things can be sorted out and peace
be restored in the valley but raising slogans of disintegration of Kashmir from India is
not the solution to the problem. The claimant belongs to an intellectual class pursuing
Ph.d. from KNU, which is considered as hub of intellectuals. He may have any

15

Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru, Glimpses of world history, Ch- 58: Another look at Aisa and Europe

19|P a g e

LEX OMNIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

political affiliation or ideology. He has every right to pursue that but it can be only
within the framework of our Constitution. Instead of bragging about these problems,
he should rather find a solution to the problem.
(15) The students concerning much about Kashmir very well remember Article 370
which marks its presence in the Indian constitution stating the Temporary provisions
with respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir but at the same time forget that the
Constitution by which Kashmir is governed also states that The State of Jammu and
Kashmir is and shall be an integral part of the Union of India16 and this Section can
be amended by no bill17.
(16) Under the RTI many universities have revealed their particulars, organisation
functions and duties. One such objective on which a prestigious central university is
based is Nehruvian objective like national integration and scientific approach to the
problems of society through self questioning 18.
(17) It is very interesting to see the students question the atrocities on Kashmiris by
the Indian state, it indeed is a very thought provoking issue. But what about the
Kashmiri Pundits of the valley who were thrown away from their houses by the
present incumbents? Why was no voice raised against those atrocities? Why the
demand for justice here is selective? Such demand for selective justice makes the
council suspicious about the agenda of these students.
(18) The political scenario of the valley is stable and elections are being successfully
held year after year. The students are not aware of the fact that India is a very liberal
country and not a aggressive one like its neighbor, Pakistan. If such rebellious acts
continue to pursue then its not very far that all the Indian states will slowly
disintegrate themselves from this nation. And to ensure that doesnt happen to the
worlds largest democracy, the court today must make the students of KNU affiliated
to CPI- F an example so that another Kashmir doesnt repeat. Fear should be drilled
inside these minds before they speak against the country and divide people on the
theory of selective justice.

16

The Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, S. 3

The Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, S. 147(b)
18
Particulars of Jawaharlal Nehru Universitys organisation, function and duties, S. 4(1)(b)(i) 1
17

20|P a g e

LEX OMNIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

2.

THE BAN OF PRODUCTION OF CDS BY I LOVE TRUMP LIMITED

CONSTITUTES A REASONABLE RESTRICTION ON THE FREEDOM TO

CARRY OUT ANY TRADE OR OCCUPATION UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(g)
OF THE CONSTITUTION ON INDIA.
(19) Yes, the Indian Constitution provides the right to practice any profession, or to
carry on any occupation, trade or business19 but also at the same time restricts it scope
by stating that if it isnt in the interest of the general public the state has reasonable
grounds to restrict that act20. In Babu Rao Patel v. State (Delhi Administration)21, it
was held that it is not necessary to prove or establish intention to promote enmity and
so on. It is sufficient if it is shown that the language of the writing is of a nature
calculated to promote feelings of enmity or hatred, for a person must be presumed to
intend the natural consequences of his act. The court further added that the matter, for
falling within the scope of the section, must be read as a whole22. One cannot rely on
stray or isolated passages for proving the charge, nor can a sentence be taken from
different places for the purpose of inferential reasoning
(20) The Supreme Court have justified the restrictions on free speech imposed by
article 19(2) on utilitarian grounds: some restrictions on freedom may be necessary so
that others may also enjoy their liberties. As noted by Justice Sastri in A.K. Gopalans
case Man, as a rational being, desires to do many things, but in civil society his
desires have to be controlled, regulated and reconciled with the exercise of similar
desires by other individuals Liberty has, therefore, to be limited in order to be
effectively possessed. Gentlemanian Swamy though has freedom of conscience and
free profession, practice and propagation of religion23 but it is subject to certain
prohibitions such as public order and morality. In Baragur Ramachandrappa v. State
of Karnataka24, The Supreme Court put the right to freedom of expression under some
restrictions that may have to be subjected to reasonable subordination to social
interests, needs and necessities to preserve the very core of democratic life
19

The Constitution of India, Article 19(1)(g)

The Constitution of India, Article 19(6)
21
Babu Rao Patel v. State (Delhi Administration), 1980 AIR 763, 1980 SCR (2) 1082
22
On this point, also see, Joseph B Dsouza v. State of Maharashtra (1995) Cr LJ 1316 (Bom), Where
the high court held that the article complained of should be read as a whole.
23
The Constitution of India, Article 25
24
Baragur Ramachandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) 3 SCC 11
20

21|P a g e

LEX OMNIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

preservation of public order and rule of law. Mr. Swamys CDs clearly violate and
hurt the religious sentiments of the minority communities. Further, the CDs also
carried a tendency to cause disharmony and hatred between different community
groups. In Das Rao Deshmukh v. Kamal Kishore Kadam25, the Supreme Court held
that distributing disturbing and provoking content amongst the people was likely to
cause disharmony and hatred between the Hindus and minorities such as Muslims,
thereby offending the secular structure of India.
Also in, Superintendent, Central Prison v. Ram Manohar Lohia26, the Supreme Court
of India held that public order is necessary for citizens to peacefully pursue their
normal avocation of life.
(21) The Constitution of India also states that there is freedom to manage religious
affairs including- right to establish and maintain institutions for religious and
charitable purposes, right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion, right to own
and acquire movable and immovable property and right to administer such property in
accordance with law but all of these rights are subject to public order, morality and
health27. In Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. State of Tamil Nadu28, it was laid that the
object and purpose of enacting Ar. 26 is to protect the rights conferred therein on a
religious denomination or a section thereof. However, the rights conferred under Ar.
26 are subject to public order, morality and health and not subject to any other
provision of Part III of the Constitution as the limitation has been prescribed by the
law makers by virtue of A. 25 of the Constitution.
(22) Gentlemanian Swamy is an elected representative to the parliament of India and
ergo has taken an oath pledging loyalty to the Constitution of India which says We
the people of India- having solemnized resolved to constitute India into a sovereign
socialist secular democratic republic29. Being secular is not about ranting negative
about other religions but is about coexisting with people of all religions peacefully,
respecting each others sentiments. This hate monger is not just communal but it is
being anti- India as well because he has not adhered to the constitution and its
preamble.

25

Das Rao Deshmukh v. Kamal Kishore Kadam, AIR 1996 SC 391

Superintendent, Central Prison v. Ram Manohar Lohia, AIR 1960 SE 633
27
The Constitution of India, Article 26
28
Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2015 SC 460
29
The Constitution of India, Preamble
26

22|P a g e

LEX OMNIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2016

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

In the light of the authorities cited, indictments issued and the arguments, it is most
respectfully prayed before this Honble Court that it may adjudge and declare that:
1. S. 124A of the IPC, 1860 is a reasonable restriction on Article 19(1)(a) of the
Indian Constitution.
2. Sanwariya Kumar and others are liable under S. 124A of IPC, 1860 and maximum
punishment be given to these culprits.
3. The bail of Sanwariya Kumar and others be cancelled and they be prosecuted in
fast track courts.
4. An order be passed where anything- be it rallies, demonstrations or any mode of
expression against the integrity of state would not be permitted to held and strict
actions be taken against those who violate these terms.
5.

S. 153A of the IPC, 1860 is reasonable restriction on Article 19(1)(g) of the

Indian Constitution.

6. Gentlemanian Swamy should be held guilty under S. 154A of the IPC, 1860 and
should be immediately suspended from the temple of democracy, i.e. the
Parliament.
7. I Love Trump Limited should be shut down and similar companies should be
identified and banned.

And pass any order that this Honble court may deem fit in the interest of equity,
justice and good conscience.
And for this act of kindness, the counsel for the respondents shall duty bound forever
pray.

Sd/(Counsel for Respondents)

23|P a g e