Freedom of Speech and Expression vs. Sedition: A Legal Perspective in Meluha, Cheat Sheet of Law

Download Freedom of Speech and Expression vs. Sedition: A Legal Perspective in Meluha and more Cheat Sheet Law in PDF only on Docsity! May I please this honourable court, this is counsel no 2 appearing on behalf of the respondents. Counsel seeks permission to collectively address the bench as your lordships. Much obliged your lordships The counsel seeks permission to move forward with the proceeding and shed some light on issue no. 3 and issue no. 4. Much obliged your lordships Issue 3 Issue no. 3 that the counsel is dealing is whether the criticism of government amount to an act of sedition under section 124 A of the Meluha penal code. The counsel on the behalf of the respondents most humbly submits that in a democracy like Meluha every citizen must have the right to freedom of speech and expression which is ensured by art 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of Meluha and allows citizens to criticize the government but within certain restrictions. However, the same article also elaborates that this right is subject to certain restrictions which can be imposed on the basis of certain grounds as enshrined under Article 19(2) implying that the freedom of speech and expression is not absolute. Moving forward section 124 clearly states - Under this section, for the determination of criminality the court in each case has to determine the whether the words in question have pernicious tendency and whether the person uttering those words had the intention of creating public disorder or disturbance of law and order. In the present case the speech given by the petitioners were responsible for a clear disruption of public order. Moreover, anti – Meluha slogans were later recited, the sovereignty of the Government on the country’s integral part of Kashimpur was threatened, and memes were circulated, all of which are acts liable to be punished for keeping the security, sovereignty and integrity of the State at stake. The counsel also submits that mere harsh criticism of the government does not amount to an act that undermines the security of the State or disrupts public order but the intent behind such an act can makes a person liable under 124A of MPC, if such an act leads to disaffection towards the Government established by the law. If the individual deliberately criticizes the government in a way that it excited hatred or contempt against the government established be law, then he may be booked under section 124A for sedition. Also, it is pertinent to mention that one of the most significant tests that have emerged after the Lohia Case and Kedarnath Case is the analogy of 'spark in a powder keg'. Thus, the counsel would like to conclude that in the present case also, the intent of the petitioners was to incite disaffection towards the Government which led to disruption of public order where anti- Meluha slogans and slogans to overthrow the Government were raised and hence the speech & and expression of these individuals is not at all protectable under article 19(1)(a), and charges of sedition imposed on these individuals is also completely fair, just and for the preservation of the security sovereignty and integrity of the state. Issue 4 Issue 4 deals with whether the banning of newspaper a constitutionally valid act on part on Govt of Meluha The counsel humbly submits that the banning of newspapers was a constitutionally valid act of the Government of Meluha as it is the duty of the Government to maintain public order in the society. The counsel would like to substantiate the argument in a 3-fold manner Firstly, “Freedom of Press” finds no mention anywhere in the Constitution of Meluha. Furthermore, Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution that guarantees the Freedom of Speech and Expression, does not specifically or separately provide for the liberty of the press. Also, companies and corporations are not entitled to the basic rights laid down in Article 19. Since in the present case, the two banned national dailies cannot be considered as individual citizens, they cannot claim any right under Article 19, and as such there has been no infringement on the Government’s part. Therefore, such a move of the Government is intra vires of the Constitution of Meluha. Even when the right of freedom of press has not been- explicitly- mentioned anywhere in the Constitution of Meluha, the judiciary has overtime, through various judgments, come to the conclusion that freedom of press is an implicit right which is indeed guaranteed under Article 19 (1)a of the Constitution thereby making it a fundamental right. So even if we consider it to be a fundamental right owing to the present case just as in the case of every other fundamental right provided to the citizens, the right of freedom of press is also subject to reasonable restrictions by the way of Article 19(2) of the Constitution. This essentially means that the Government has the authority to curtail the citizens’ rights if it threatens any of the points laid down under Article 19(2).