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!

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

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-
7. Prayer 11** INDEX OF AUTHORITIES BOOKS REFERRED

• Indian Constitutional Law, MP Jain, Lexis Nexis

-Indian Constitutional Law, DK Basu

• Indian Penal Code, Ratan Lal WEBSITES REFERRED - www.manupatra.com - www.indiankanoon.com - www.wikipedia.com CASES CITIED - Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar AIR 1962 SC 955 - State of Madras vs V.G Row AIR 1952 SC 196

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The petitioner submits to the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Art.32 of the Indivan Constitution.

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.

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?

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.

ARUGMENTS ADVANCED

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? - I submit before the honourable court The law of Sedition in Indiva has assumed controversial importance especially because of constitutional provision of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed as a fundamental right under Article 19(1) of the constitution. One can approach the Supreme court if a fundamental right of a citizen of Indiva has been affected in this particular case, we observe that the fundamental right guaranteed to the petitioner under article 19(1)(a) and 19(2) is been infringed upon Section 124A of IPC which states an offence against the state and this particular section talks about sedition. Art. 19(1) under Part III of the constitution is enshrined as a fundamental right, the petitioner has been booked under the charge of IPC, section 124A which talks about sedition, which is contradictory in nature because the constitution under Part III states Art.19(1), guarantees every citizen the legal right to freely express his/her opinions. 2.Whether the people enjoy unfettered right to freedom of speech and expression?

• I submit before the honourable court The freedom is guaranteed under Art.19(1) each of these right is liable to be controlled, curtailed and regulated to some extent, by laws made by the parliament of state legislature, accordingly clause 2-6 of Art.19 laid down the ground and purpose which a legislature can impose “reasonable restrictions”. Limitation imposed by Art19(2) to 19(6) on the freedoms guaranteed by the Art.19(1)(a) -(g) served a twofold purpose, i.e on one hand they specify that these freedoms are not absolute and are subject to regulation on the other hand, the put limitation on the power of the legislature to restrict these freedom, a legislature cannot restrict these freedoms, beyond the requirements of Art.19(2). The court has not decided on the exact definition of “reasonable” each case is to be judged by its own merits. As the supreme has observed in the State of Madras vs/ V.G Row , “It is important in this context to bear in mind that the test of reasonableness whenever prescribed

should be applied to each individual statue impugned and no abstract standard or general pattern of feasibleness can be laid down as applicable to all cases. 3.Whether someone who advocates the use of violence to overthrow the government entitled to protection under Art. (19) (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?

• I submit before the honourable court that Section 124A, I.P.C, punishes any person who by words, spoken or written, attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites disaffection towards the government established by law. In pre-independence era, this section has been interpreted very broadly, and exciting or attempting to incite bad feelings towards the government was held punishable whether or not it resulted in public disorder. Obviously, the section in such a broad form could not be sustained under Art.19(2). In Kedar Nath vs. State of Bihar , the Supreme Court Upheld Section 124A by interpreting it respectively-as rendering penal only such activities as would be intended, or have a tendency to create disorder. In Kedar Nath case , the court took the position that when a provision of law is capable to interpretation, one of which makes it constitutional and the other unconstitutional, the interpretation makes it constitutional should be preferred. Accordingly, the court ruled that a mere criticism of government action, however strongly worded, would be consistent with the fundamental right of speech and expression. Only the words having the pernicious tendency to create disturbance of law and order would be penal in the interest of public order. The gist of the offence, the supreme court said “Is incitement to disorder or tendency or likelihood of public disorder or reasonable apprehension thereof” for determination of criminality, the court in each case has to determine whether the words in question have “the pernicious tendency and the uttered has the “intention of public disorder or disturbance of law and order” then only the penal law would take note of the utterance. 4. Whether section 124A of IPC infringes the fundamental rights to life and liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the constitution? - We submit before the honourable court, that it is stated that under Art13 a key fundamental right which gives teeth to all the following fundamental rights, the effect of Art.13 is that the fundamental rights cannot be infringed by the government either by enacting a law or through administrative action. Art13(1) declares that all pre-constitution laws shall be void to the extent of their inconsistency with the fundamental right. Art. 13(1) deals with the pre-

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.

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