Intra moot court memorial sedition criminal law, Study Guides, Projects, Research of Criminal Law

Download Intra moot court memorial sedition criminal law and more Study Guides, Projects, Research Criminal Law in PDF only on Docsity! Team Code – BEFORE THE HONOURABLE COURT OF INDIVA Writ Petition NO. XX Of 2016 IN THE MATTER OF Kamla Mehta All India Student Organisation …………. PETITIONER Raju Kumar VS Union of Indiva ………. RESPONDENT FOR THE KIND OF ATTENTION OF THE HONRABLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT pg. 1 Memorandum for Petiton Team Code – TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Index of Authorities 3 2. Statement of Jurisdiction 4 3. Statement of Facts 5 4. Statement of Issues 6 5. Summary of Pleading 7 6. Arguments Advanced 8-10 7. Prayer 11 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES BOOKS REFERRED - Indian Constitutional Law, MP Jain, Lexis Nexis pg. 2 Memorandum for Petiton Team Code – STATEMENT OF FACTS 1.Indivais is a developing country where the freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed as a fundamental right under the Constitution of Indivais. 2. Mr Pappu Yadav filed a criminal case under section 124 A of the IPC against Kamla Mehta, who is a member of the Indiva National Party. 3. The opposition party filed a complaint against Mr. Mehta for a comment on social media. 4. Mr. Mehta the aggrieved party made a challenge against these summons, by challenging the constitutional validity of section 124 A of the IPC. 5. An NGO called Lamnesty International conducted a campaign for the victims of Vienna war who suffered and called upon the victims to talk about their human rights being violated, during the debate the Indiva Peoples Party was heavily criticized for its inaction. The debate got heated and ended with Anti Slogans. 6.Democratic student’s union held protest for the Faizal Khan being convicted and attacked the parliament of Indiva, a complaint was filed against the Raju Kumar, who is the president of the DSU and charged him with sedition. After investigation it was found that it was done by some group of outsiders wearing mask. 7.All India Student Organisation, associated with Indiva Peoples Party was responsible for filing the complaint against Lamnesty International and Raju Kumar under section section 124A of the IPC. 8.Kamla Mehta, Lamnesty International and Raju Kumar filed PIL challenging the validity of section 124A as being violative of Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21. pg. 5 Memorandum for Petiton Team Code – Summary of Issues for Adjudication ISSUE 1. Whether Section 124A of IPC infringes the fundamental rights of freedom of speech and expression enshrined under article 19(1)(a) of the constitution? ISSUE 2. Whether the people enjoy unfettered right of freedom of speech and expression? ISSUE 3. Whether someone who advocates the use of violence to overthrow the government entitled to protection under Article 19(1)(a) and does a harsh criticism of the government amount to an act that undermines the security of the state or a disruption of public order to make a case under Section 124A? ISSUE 4. Whether section 124A of IPC infringes the fundamental rights to life and liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the constitution? pg. 6 Memorandum for Petiton Team Code – SUMMARY OF PLEADING 1.Whether Section 124A of IPC infringes the fundamental rights of freedom of speech and expression enshrined under article 19(1)(a) of the constitution? - It is humbly submitted that Art19(1)(a) give the citizens of Indiva the Fundamental right of free speech and expression, Section 124A states whosoever by words either spoken or written or by science or by visible representation or otherwise brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt or excites or attempt to excite disaffection towards the government by law as committed the said crime. 2. Whether the people enjoy unfettered right of freedom of speech and expression? - It is humbly submitted before the court that Art.19(2) states reasonable restrictions to the fundamental right of free speech and expression enshrined under Art.19(1)(a) which states that no restriction can be placed on the right to freedom of speech and expression on any ground other than those specified in Art.19(2), also the burden to justify the restriction imposed is on the authoritative body. 3. Whether someone who advocates the use of violence to overthrow the government entitled to protection under Article 19(1)(a) and does a harsh criticism of the government amount to an act that undermines the security of the state or a disruption of public order to make a case under Section 124A? - It is humbly submitted before the court that the Supreme court ruled in the case of Kedar Nath vs State of Bihar that a mere criticism of Government action however strongly worded would be consistent with the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression, enshrined under Art19(1)(a) only the words having pernicious tendency or intended to create disturbance of law and order would be penalised in the interest of public order. For the determination of criminality, the court in each case has to determine whether the words in the question have “The pernicious tendency” and the uttered has the “Intention of creating public disorder or disturbance of law and order”. Then only the penal law would take it. 4.Whether section 124A of IPC infringes the fundamental rights to life and liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the constitution? -It is submitted before the court that Art.21 gives us the fundamental right of Right to life and liberty. Art13(1) declares that all pre-constitutional shall be void to their inconsistency with the fundamental rights, that said Section 124A breaches the fundamental right given to the citizen of Indiva, under the Art.19(1)(a) of the constitution. pg. 7 Memorandum for Petiton Team Code – constitution laws; if any such law is inconsistent with a fundamental right, it becomes void the date on which the constitution of Indiva came into force. The Section 124A of IPC States that whosoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the government established by the law shall be punished to which fine might be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine might be added. Art 19(1)(a) Provides us with the Fundamental Right of Freedom of speech and expression. We infer that the freedom of speech and expression that has been provided to the citizen of Indiva is incomplete as the concerned penal section of 124A makes any utterance or expression against the stae as a criminal offence, curtailing the democratic freedom to criticize the working of the government a fundamental institution to any democracy. pg. 10 Memorandum for Petiton Team Code – PRAYER 1.In the light of the argument advanced and authorities citied and the question presented, we humbly pray before the Hon’ble court to acquit the petitioners in the present case under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code. 2.Any such other order in the interest of justice may be passed. - Petitioner pg. 11 Memorandum for Petiton