Moot memorial on sedition and freedom of speech and expression., Assignments of Constitutional Law

Download Moot memorial on sedition and freedom of speech and expression. and more Assignments Constitutional Law in PDF only on Docsity! Team code- VLC 28R VIVEKANANDA LAW COLLEGE, PUPTUR INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION: 2021 BEEORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ARYAVARTA {PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION) IN THE MATTER OF : Sheila Vyjayanthimala Humanity International Association Harinaksh Mehta... Petitioners Union of India Respondent  Team code- VLC 28R VIVEKA D JOLLEGE, PUTT: INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2021 BEFORE THE HON’ BLE SUPREME COURT OF ARYAVARTA (PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION) IN THE MATTER OF : Sheila Vyjayanthimala Humanity International Association Harinaksh Mehta Petitioners Union of India oo. ccecec csc cec cesses sce ses ses seecesees Respondent @ Scanned with OKEN Scanner  » 1 4 CASE LAWS ws te ee 6. Lalai Singh Yadav V. State Of Uttar Pradesh AIR 202 1977 SCR (1) 616 7. Maneka Gandhi V. Union Of India AIR 597 1978 SCR(2) 621 8. 9. Om Prakash V. Emperor AIR 1956 All 241, 1956 CriLJ 452 10. RomeshThappar V. The State Of Madras AIR 124 1950 SCR 594 DYNAMIC LINKS 1. https://indiankanoon.org 2. https://www.lawoctopus.com INDEX OF Al THORITLES SEATURES CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 KS Dr, J N Pandey, Constitutional Law Of India, 55" Edition, 2018 Prot. S. N. Mishra, Indian Penal Code, 20" Edition, 2016 A. K. Gopalan V. State Of Madras, AIR 27 1950 Asit Kumar Sen Gupta V. State of Chattisgarh Cr Appeal No, 86 Of 2011 Indra Mani Singh V. State Of Manipur AIR 1955 CriLJ 184 Kedarnath Singh V. State Of Bihar AIR 955 1962 SCR Supl (2) 769 Kishori Mohan V, State Of West Bengal AIR 1972 SC1749, (1972) 3SCC 845, 1973 (5) UJ 98 SC Narottamdas V. State Of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1667 1964 SCR (7) 820 @ Scanned with OKEN Scanner  STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION The petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court under Art. 32 of the Aryavarta Constitution, The respondents have appeared to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Aryavarta in response to the petitions filed by the petitioners. @ Scanned with OKEN Scanner  STATEMENTS OF FACTS Ina developing country like Aryavarta, where freedom of speech & expression is guaranteed as fundamental right, There have been various instances, where freedom of speech & expression has come under the scanner in Aryavarta. Sheila Vyajayantimala, an actor- Politician of largest opposition party was booked in a case u/s 124A of APC filed by Shamshir Singh Shekhawat for her comment on social media where she made a comment about Tabaristan (neighbouring country of Aryavarta) which lead to controversy. Humanity International Association, an NGO conducted a campaign called “Cry for Devawrata’s People” (state of Aryavarta) where they talked about human Tights violations by Aryavarta’s Army. During the debate Aryavartan People’s Party ( tuling party) heavily criticized, debate got heated and Anti-Aryavarta slogans, In another instance, Justice for Students Union (JSU) protested against the death sentence of HameedAkhtar, who was convicted for the terror attack on Parliament of Aryavarta but the permission was refused by University to protest in the campus. In the event Anti-Aryavarta slogans and slogans to overthrow the government were raised. The President of JSU, Harinaksh Mehta was charged under Sedition, pov? BaP Indue course, All AryavartaStudent Organization (AISO) in association with APP filed a complaint against Humanity International Association and Harinaksh Mehta (President Of JSU) ws 124A of APC. Sheila Vyjayantimala, Humanity International Association, Harinaksh Mehta filed a Public Interest Litigation(PIL) challenging the validity of sec 124A of APC as being violative of Art 19(1)(a) and Art 21. @ Scanned with OKEN Scanner  ARGUM ADVANCED ISSUE NO. 1 Whether secl24A of APC encroach on the fundamental right of freedom of speech & expression enshrined under Art 19(1)(a) of the Constitution? It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble SC that sec]24A! of APC, which deals with seditiondoesn’t infringe the fundamental right of speech & expression enshrined under Art 191 (a) of Constitution of Aryavarta. InRomeshThappar V. The State Of Madras’, Patanjali Shastri J, rightfully held that Art 19(1 (a) of the Constitution is the basis and essence of the Constitution and democracy. This view was also supported by Bhagawati J. In Maneka Gandhi V. Union Of India® by laying the significance of freedom of speech & expression.But Art 19(2) says about the reasonable restrictions,which canbe imposed on the nght provided by Art 19(1)(a). Sec 124A is indirectly one of such restriction. In the landmark case of Kedarnath Singh V. State Of Bihar’, sedition law held to be constitutional & court observed it to be the only tool available to the government to safeguard itself, The restriction when it is unreasonable doesn’t effect the right and when it is reasonable, it only restrains the exercise of right. Such a restraint on the exercise of right, when reasonable, may be partial or total. | sedition : Whoever, 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 estab-lished by law shall be punished with 104 [im-prisonment for life], to which fine may be added, or with impris-onment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine. - 2.RomeshThappar V. The State Of Madras AIR 124 1950 SCR 594 3.Maneka Gandhi V. Union Of India AIR 597 1978 SCR 4 @ Scanned with OKEN Scanner  In this particular case, the government has acted within its authority while imposing charges of sedition to restrict excessive use of right to freedom of speech and expression by Sheila Vyjayantimala, HIA & JSU which has resulted in incitement of enmity against established Government, Therefore it was necessary to restrain such speech at that particular time GUIDELINES REGARDING REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS The following are some of the principles which the C of India has affirmed in Narottamdas V, State Of Madhya Pradesh* ascertaining the reasonableness of restrictions on the right. The phrase “reasonable restriction” implies that the limitation imposed upon a person in the enjoyment of right shouldn’t be arbitrary or of an excessive in nature. The court should not see only substantive but also procedural provisions of a statute while enforcing the restrictions on the individual freedom. The reasonableness of restrictions has to be determined on the basis of general public & not from the point of view of Persons upon whom the restrictions are imposed, The court is called upon to ascertain the reasonableness of the restrictions and not of the individual’s enjoyment of right. On the basis of guidelines of the Narottamdas case, the counsel on the behalf of respondent humbly concludes before the Hon‘ble bench that sec 124A. clearly falls within the ambit of a reasonable restriction on the grounds of restrictions in the interests of security, sovereignty & integrity of State, disruption of public order and incitement of an offence as pronounced under Art19 (2) of the Constitution & doesn’t infringes any of the fundamental rights,especially the right to freedom of speech & expression. As it was held by the SC, sec124A is constitutional in all aspects & sedition has been ruled as a crime to prevent the subversion of the government by inciting contempt or hatred towards it which can rock the very stability of society. @ Scanned with OKEN Scanner  Whether the people enjoy an unfettered right to freedom of speech & expression? It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that though the constitution provides the fundamental right of freedom of speech & expression to all its citizens, such right is not unfettered, and thus the petitioners in this case cannot claim their right of speech & expression has been infringed by imposing restrictions on it RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION IS NOT ABSOLUTE. Freedom of speech is considered as basic freedom by the law thinkers. It is one of the most essential clement for a healthy, open minded democracy. Under the Constitution of Aryavarta, freedom of speech and expression has been guaranteed under Art 19(1)(a). Although there is freedom of speech & expression, Law and Order & Security of the State cannot be compromised. In A.K Gopalan V. State Of Madras®, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that * Man as a rational being desires to do many things, but in a 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”. Thus we can say that freedom of speech and expression subject to reasonable restrictions under Art 19(2). GROUNDS OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION SUBJECT TO REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS Freedom of speech & expression includes — freedom of press, freedom commercial speech, right to broadcast, right to information, right to criticize, right to expression beyond national boundaries, right to be silent. But, Art 19(2) of Constitution provides reasonable restrictions & above rights are not absolute one. 6.A.KGopalan V. State Of Madras1950 AIR 27, 1950 | Page | 11 @ Scanned with OKEN Scanner  ISSUE.NO. 04 Whether see 124A infringes the fundamental right (o life and liberty enshrined under the Art 21 of the Constitution? Itis most humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Bench that sec, 124A not at all related to Art 21 in any way thusdoes not infringes fundamental Right to Life & Liberty Words can be double edged swords, They can be used to incite violence against state or citizens, In order to prevent itself & citizen, state makes sedition as an offence . The sedition is a crime against society nearly allied to that of treason. Thus it can be said that sedition is prescribed by law or person charged with sedition is being deprived of liberty according to the due procedure established by law as emphasized in Art 21 In Lalai Singh Yadav V. State Of Uttar Pradesh’, the SC upheld ordered security as a constitutional value, ensuring that where free speech & public order seem to clash, the latter is given precedence. From Lalai Singh Yadav’s case, it is very clear that whenever the conflict araise between the matter of freedom of speech and expression and public order, the public order is givenmore significance. When it comes to person’s right & public order, the latter is given priority. Liberty is the first principle of Freedom of speech and expression. Thus Freedom of Speech & Expression and Right to Life and Personal Liberty are interlinked. The counsel humbly submits that in the present case where Sheila Vyjayantimala, Humanity International Association & Justice for Students Union deliberately used their freedom of speech inorder to undermine the security of state, such speech cannot be considered as criticism and thus it is sedition and are not entitled for protection under Art 19(1)(a). Moreover, charges of sedition on the petitioner are proportional with gravity of offence and since they liberties has been restricted by the procedure of law, they cannot move to the court for violation of their fundamental right to fr of speech and expression ensured under Art 21. 12.Lalei Singh Yadav V. State OF Uttar P Page | 14 @ Scanned with OKEN Scanner  RAYE! Wherefore, in the light of the issues raised, and arguments advanced & authorities cited, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Supreme Court i. Dismiss the writ petition. Nw In the alternative declare and adjudge a) ‘That the respondent have not violated the fundamental rights. b) That the sec 124A of APC doesn’t violate Art 19(1)(a), i freedom of speech and expression, and Art 21 i.e right to life and personal liberty. Page | 15 @ Scanned with OKEN Scanner