2ND SANKHLA & ASSOCIATES NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION BY THE AMIKUS QURAIE 2023

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA AT

NEW DELHI , INDIA

State of NCT of Delhi RESPONDENT.

1
 2nd SANKHLA & ASSOCIATES NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION 2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

A. CASES

B. STATUTES

C. BOOKS AND OTHER AUTHORITIES

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

STATEMENT OF FACT

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ARGUMENT ADVANCED

PRAYER

2
 2nd SANKHLA & ASSOCIATES NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION 2023

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

A. CASES

1. Manubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, 1972 Cr LJ 388.

2. Aravindam v. State of Kerela, 1983 Cr LJ 1259.

3. Kandi Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh,1999 (1) AP LJ 405.

4. Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab, (1955) 3 SCC 214.

5. Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1997 SC 3438.

6. Satyaranjan Bakshi v. Emperor (AIR 1927 Cal 698).

7. Hanumanthaiya v. Govt of Mysore, (1948) 52 Mys HCR 265.

8. Paramanand v. Emperor, AIR 1941 AII LJ 26, 42 Cr LJ 46.

9. Ramchandra v. Emperor, 29 Cr Lj 381 (Lah).

10. Bal Gangadhar Tilak, (1897) 22 Bom 112.

11. Kidar Nath Sehgal v. Emperor, AIR 1929 Lah 817.

12. Maniben Liladhar v. Emperor, AIR 1933 Bom 65.

13. Vishambhar Dayal v. Emperor, AIR 1941 Oudh 33.

14. Raghuvir Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 Sc 149.

15. Nirinjan Das v. Emperor, AIR 1931 Lah 31.

16. Ram Nandan v. State, AIR 1959 All. 101.

17. Debi Soren v. State, AIR 1959 Pat. 254.

18. V. K. Javali v. State of Mysore, AIR 1966 Sc 1387.

19. Nazir Khan v. State of Delhi, (2003) 8 SCC 461.

3
 2nd SANKHLA & ASSOCIATES NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION 2023

20. State of Karnataka v. Dr. Praven Bhai Mohammed, (1980) 1 SCC 398.

21. Union of India through NIA v. State of Kerela & Ors, CRL.A.No. 12 of 2016.

22. Sanskar Marathe v.State of Maharastra & Anr, (2015) Cri LJ 3561.

23. Arun Jaitley v. State of U.P. 2016 (1) ADJ 76.

24. Kanhaiya Kumar v. State if NCT of Delhi. W.P.(CRL) 558/2016.

25. Kishorechandra Wangkhemcha & Anr v. Union of India W.P. (CRL.) No. 106/2021.

26. Arizona Pub. Co. v. Harris, 181 20 Ariz, 446.

27. Sabir Raza v. The State Cri App No., 1434 of 1955.

28. R.A.V. v.City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 382 (1992).

29. Queen Empress v. Jogendra Chunder Bose, ILR (1892) 19 Cal 35.

30. Queen Empress v. Bal Gangadhar Tilak, ILR (1898) 22 Bom 112.

31. Queen Empress v. Ramchandra Narayan, ILR (1898) 22 Bom 152.

32. Queen Empress v. Amba Prasad, ILR (1898) 20 All 55.

33. Niharendu Dutt Majumdar v. King Emperor, AIR 1942 FC 22.

34. King Emperor v. Sadashiv Narayan Bhalerao, (1947) LR 74 IA 89.

35. Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124.

36. Tara Singh v. State, AIR 1951 SC 441.

37. Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi, AIR 1950 SC 129 : (1950) Cri LJ 1525.

38. Ram Manohar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 740 : (1966) 1 SCR 709.

39. Om Prakash v. Emperor, 42 PLR 382.

40. Bowman v. Secular Society Ltd, 1917 AC 406.

41. S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, (1989) 2 SCC 574.

42. P. J. Manuel v. State of Kerela, ILR (2013) 1 Ker 793.

4
 2nd SANKHLA & ASSOCIATES NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION 2023

43. Alavi v. State of Kerela, 1982 KLT 205.

44. Bharat Desai v. State of Gujarat, Cri Misc App 7536 of 2008.

45. Javed Habib v. State (2007) 96 DRJ 693.

46. K. Neelamegam v. State, Cri OP (MD) No. 14086 of 2011.

47. Pankaj Bhutalia v. Central Board of Film Certification, WP (c) 675 of 2015.

48. Gurjatinder Pal Singh v. State of Punjab (2009) 3 RCR (Cri) 224.

49. :Partap Singh v. UT, Chandigarh, Cri Misc No. 11926-M of 1991.

50. Mohd. Yaqub v. State of W.B, (2004) 4 CHN 406.

51. Indra Das v. State of Assam, (2011) 3 SCC 380.

52. State of Assam v. Fasiullah Hussain, (2013) 4 GLT 284.

53. State of Rajasthan v. Ravindra Singhi, (2001) 3 WLN 242.

54. Binayak Sen v. State of Chattisgarh, (2011) 266 ELT 193.

55. Asit Kumar Sen Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh, Cri App No. 86 of 2011.

56. Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar, (1986) 4 SCC 481.

57. Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P., AIR 1957 SC 620.

58. Virendra v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 896.

59. Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam, (2011) 3 SCC 377.

60. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2013) 12 SCC 73.

61. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 23 L ED 2D 430.

62. Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 1166.

63. Kamal Krishna Sircar v. Emperor, AIR 1935 Cal 636.

64. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982, SC 149.

5
 2nd SANKHLA & ASSOCIATES NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION 2023

65. Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karmachari Sangh (railway) v. Union of India & ors, (1980) INCC
221.

66. State of Kerela & Anr v. N. M. Thomas, (1976) (1) S.C.R.

67. S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, (1989) 2 SCC 574.

68. Sharjeel Imaam v. State of NCT Delhi, Crl. M. C. 1475/2020.

69. Vinod Dua v. Union of India, Crl. No. 154 of 2020

70. Debi Soren v. State, 1954 CriLJ 758

71. S. G. Vombetkere v. Union of India, (2022) & SCC 433

72. Disha A Ravi v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2019) 17 SCC 73.

73. Rajesh Sharma v. Union of India, (2013) 12 SCC 73.

74. Asif Iqbal Tanha v. State of NCT of Delhi, Crl. A. 39/2021.

75. Jayanta Kumar Ghosh v. State of Assam, (2010) 6 GLR 727.

76. Abdul Sathar v. Superintendent of Police W.P. ( c ). No. 8423 of 2016

77. Arizon Pub Co. v. Harris, 181 20 Ariz 446.

78. Kishorechandra Wangkhemche & Anr v. Union of India, W.P. (Crl). No. 106/2021.

6
2nd SANKHLA & ASSOCIATES NATIONAL VIRTUAL
MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2023

B) WEBSITES:

1. http://www.findlaw.com

2. http://www.judis.nic.in

3. http://www.manupatra.co.in/AdvancedLegalSearch.aspx

4. http://www.scconline.com

C) STATUTES

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. The Constitution of India.

3. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

D) BOOKS AND OTHER AUTHORITIES

1) B.M Gandhi’s Indian Penal Law (Kumar Askand Pandey, 5th ed, 2023)

2) D.D Basu, Commentry On the constitution of India 5576(8th ed. , 2007)

3) H.M Seervai’s, Constitutional Law Of India (4th ed, 2021)

4) I, III, IV Nelson R. A. Indian Penal Code, 10th Ed. (2008)

5) III, Sarvaria, SK, Indian Penal Code, (10th Ed. 2008)

6) JN Pandey’s, Constitutional Law of India (59th ed, 2022)

7) KD Gaur’s, (Lexis Nexis) Universal Indian Penal Code (8th ed, 2023)

7
2nd SANKHLA & ASSOCIATES NATIONAL VIRTUAL
MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2023

8) M.P Jain, Indian constitution law 235 (5th ed. 2009)

9) Narendra Kumar’s, Constitutional Law of India (2020 ed)

10) PM Bakshi’s, Constitution of India (19th ed, 2023)

11) Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, (36rd Ed. ,2020)

12) V.N. Shukla’s, Constitution of India (Mahendra Pal Singh, 14th ed, 2022)

8
2nd SANKHLA & ASSOCIATES NATIONAL VIRTUAL
MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2023

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR All India Reporter

All Allahabad High Court

Cal Calcutta High Court

Del Delhi High Court

DW Defense Witness

Ed. Edition

Guj Gujarat High Court

GMC General Medical Council

IC Indian Cases

IPC Indian Penal Code

MTF Male To Female

Ms. Miss

Mr. Mister

Mad Madras High Court

n. Foot Note no.

9
2nd SANKHLA & ASSOCIATES NATIONAL VIRTUAL
MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2023

Ori Orissa High Court

P&H Punjab and Haryana High Court

Pat Patna High Court

p. Page No.

Raj Rajasthan High Court

SC Hon’ble Supreme Court

SCC Hon’ble Supreme Court Cases

SCJ Hon’ble Supreme Court Journal

SCR Hon’ble Supreme Court Reporter

Sec. Section

v Versus

10
2nd SANKHLA & ASSOCIATES NATIONAL VIRTUAL
MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2023

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE APPELLANTS HAVE APPROACHED THE HON‟BLE HON’BLE SUPREME

COURT OF INDIA UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

LEAVE HAS BEEN GRANTED BY THIS HON”BLE COURT AND THE MATTER HAS

NOW BEEN POSTED FOR FINAL HEARING. ARTICLE 136 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READS AS HERE UNDER :

“136 : SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL BY THE HON’BLE SUPREME

HON’BLE COURT.”

(1) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING IN THIS CHAPTER, THE HON’BLE

SUPREME HON’BLE 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 HON’BLE COURT OR TRIBUNAL IN THE

TERRITORY

OFINDIA.

(2) NOTHING IN CLAUSE (1) SHALL APPLY TO ANY JUDGMENT,

DETERMINATION,

SENTENCE OR ORDER PASSED OR MADE BY ANY HON’BLE COURT OR

TRIBUNAL

CONSTITUTED BY OR UNDER ANY LAW RELATING TO THE ARMED FORCES.”

11
2nd SANKHLA & ASSOCIATES NATIONAL VIRTUAL
MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2023

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Rastan is a populous country with a federal parliamentary system of government. Its

Constitution guarantees fundamental rights, including freedom of speech, assembly,
and religion, but these rights are not absolute and are subjected to reasonable
restrictions.

2. In October 2020, students from LBSU in Zila city celebrated Pakora's victory over
Rastan in the World Cup final. They peacefully celebrated with crackers, flags, and
slogans such as "Pakora Zindabad","Rastan Murdabad" and "We want freedom".
However, limitations exist on these rights, and they shared their celebration on social
media without causing harm to anyone or property.

3. The Zila city police have charged LBSU students under Section 124A of the RPC and
Sections 15, 16, 17, 18, 38, 39, and 40 of the UAPA. They accuse the students of being
involved in a conspiracy to support the secessionist movement in "Kasheer", a disputed
territory between Rastan and Pakora. The police also claimed that the students have links
with banned organizations such as HM and JeM. Police further stated that the students
recieved funds from foreign sources to incite violence and unrest in the country.
4. The students were arrested and detained for 90 days without bail. They filed a petition
in the High Court of Zila to challenge their arrest and quashing of the FIR. They argued
that their celebration was a lawful expression of their freedom of speech and did not
promote violence or hatred towards the government. They also claimed that the charges
of sedition and UAPA were unclear, unfair, and excessive, violating their right to life
and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

5. The students' petition challenging their arrest and the charges against them was rejected
by the High Court. The court believed that their celebration and slogans were seditious
and showed discontent towards the government. It also stated that the UAPA was a
necessary law to combat terrorism and unlawful activities, and the police had evidence
suggesting the students' involvement in such activities. The court emphasized that
freedom of speech and expression is not absolute and can be limited for national
security and public order.

12
2nd SANKHLA & ASSOCIATES NATIONAL VIRTUAL
MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2023

6. In February 2021, Sharjeel Imam, a student of ZU was arrested by the Zelhi Police for
delivering inflammatory speeches against the government of Rastan, at various places
like AMU, an University in Zubai, where he allegedly called for cutting off Eastern
States of Rastan from Rastan by blocking roads and railways. He was booked under
Section 124A, 153A,153B,505,120B of RPC along with Section 13 of UAPA.

7. Sharjeel Imam filed a writ petition in the High Court of Zelhi challenging his arrest and
seeking quashing of FIR. He argued that he was exercising his fundamental right of
freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. He also
argued that his speeches were academic and political in nature and charges of sedition
and UAPA were misused by the State to suppress dissent and crimanalize the protesters.

8. The High Court dismissed his petition and upheld his arrest stating that his speeches
were seditious and amounted to advocating secession of a part of Rastan. It also held
that the UAPA were applicable in his case as he was involved in unlawful activities
threatening the sovereignty and integrity of Rastan. It observed that Article 19(1)(a)
was subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

9. All the students appealed to the Supreme Court of Rastan against the High Court’s
order. Meanwhile, a group of civil society activists and NGOs led by Rastan for Human
Rights (‘RHR’) filed a public interest litigation (‘PIL’) in the Supreme Court
challenging the constitutional validity of Section 124A of RPC and various sections of
UAPA. They argued that these laws were colonial relics that violated the basic structure
of the Constitution and were incompatible with democratic values. They also argued
that these laws had been misused by successive governments to suppress dissent and
dissenting voices in Rastan. They sought a declaration that these laws were
unconstitutional and void.

10. The Supreme Court has admitted and will hear both the appeal and the PIL collectively.
. It has issued notice to the Central government, the State governments, and the police
authorities seeking their response. The Supreme Court has fixed the date for final
hearing on , July/August 2023.

13
2nd SANKHLA & ASSOCIATES NATIONAL VIRTUAL
MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2023

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether section 124A of RPC is violative of article 19(1)(a) of the constitution?

2. Whether sections 15,16,17,18,38,39 and 40 of UAPA are violative of articles

14,19,20,21 and 22 of the constitution?

3. Whether the arrest and detention of the students under section 124A of RPC and
various section of UAPA valid?

4. Whether RHR has locus standi to file a PIL challenging Section 124A of RPC and
UAPA?

14
2nd SANKHLA & ASSOCIATES NATIONAL VIRTUAL
MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2023

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Issue 1: Whether section 124A of RPC is violative of article 19(1)(a) of

the constitution?

Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with the offense of sedition. It states:

"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 established by law in India shall be punished with
imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to
three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine."
Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech and
expression to all citizens. However, this right is not absolute, and there are reasonable
restrictions that can be imposed on it in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India,
the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency, or
morality..
Its constitutionality depends on how it is applied and whether it is used in a manner consistent
with the reasonable restrictions outlined in Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution. Courts in
India play a crucial role in balancing these rights and restrictions through their interpretations
and judgments.

Issue 2: Whether sections 15,16,17,18,38,39 and 40 of UAPA are violative

of articles 14,19,20,21 and 22 of the constitution?

Article 14 (Right to Equality), Article 19 (Freedom of Speech and Expression, Assembly, etc.),
Article 20 (Protection in respect of Conviction for Offences), Article 21 (Right to Life and
Personal Liberty), Article 22 (Protection against Arrest and Detention)
Whether these provisions of the UAPA violate these constitutional articles can be a matter of
interpretation and legal argument. The Indian judiciary has the authority to review and strike
down any provisions that are found to be unconstitutional or that violate fundamental rights.
Challenges to the constitutionality of specific provisions of the UAPA are not uncommon, and
the courts play a crucial role in ensuring a balance between national security concerns and the
protection of fundamental rights. The outcome of such challenges may vary depending on the
specific facts and circumstances of each case.

15
2nd SANKHLA & ASSOCIATES NATIONAL VIRTUAL
MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2023

Issue 3: Whether the arrest and detention of the students under section
124A of RPC and various section of UAPA valid?

The validity of the arrest and detention of individuals under Section 124A of the Indian Penal
Code (IPC) and various sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) depends
on the specific facts and circumstances of each case, as well as whether the arrest and detention
comply with the relevant legal procedures and constitutional safeguards.
Section 124A of IPC (Sedition): The arrest and detention of individuals under Section 124A of
IPC may be valid if the authorities have sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the accused
engaged in activities that fall within the scope of this provision, such as attempting to bring
hatred or contempt towards the government by unlawful means. However, the courts have
imposed limitations on the application of this provision to ensure that it is not used to stifle
legitimate dissent or criticism.
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA): The UAPA contains provisions aimed at
preventing and combating unlawful activities, including those related to terrorism. Arrests and
detentions under the UAPA must comply with the legal procedures outlined in the Act and the
constitutional safeguards.

Issue 4: Whether RHR has locus standi to file a PIL challenging Section
124A of RPC and UAPA?

In India, the filing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging a law such as Section 124A
of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) or various sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act
(UAPA) would typically require the petitioner to establish a "locus standi" or standing. Locus
standi refers to the legal standing or the right to bring a case before the court. Public Interest
Litigations are a way for citizens or organizations to bring cases on behalf of the public
interest. However, whether an organization like India Human Rights has locus standi to file a
PIL challenging these laws depends on various factors:
Violation of Fundamental Rights: To have locus standi in a PIL, the petitioner typically needs
to demonstrate that there is a violation of fundamental rights or a matter of public interest at
stake. In the case of Section 124A of IPC and UAPA, if India Human Rights can show that
these laws are being used in a manner that violates the fundamental rights of individuals or
poses a threat to the larger public interest, they may have a stronger case for standing.

Acting in the Public Interest: PILs are often filed by individuals or organizations acting in the
public interest. India Human Rights would need to establish that their petition serves the
broader public interest, rather than a private or vested interest.

16
2nd SANKHLA & ASSOCIATES NATIONAL VIRTUAL
MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2023

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1: Whether section 124A of RPC is violative of article 19(1)(a) of the

constitution?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon'able Supreme Court that Section 124A of RPC is
violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the constitution. As it has been a subject of debate and litigation
in India. Critics argue that the sedition law is often misused to stifle dissent and free speech.
They claim that it is overly broad and can be used to suppress legitimate criticism of the
government.

Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech and
expression to all citizens. However, this right is not absolute, and there are reasonable
restrictions that can be imposed on it in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India,
the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency, or
morality.

In October 2020, a group of students from Lal Bahadur Shastri University (LBSU) in Zila city
celebrated the victory of the cricket team of Pakora over the cricket team of Rastan in the
World Cup Final. The student burst crackers and waved Pakora flags, and chanted slogans such
as "Pakora Zindabad", "Rastan Murdabad". The Celebration was peaceful and did not cause
any violence or damage to property.

Those students neither had created any violence nor provoked anyone from the crowd. It was
peaceful and a celebration of Joy for the cricket team of Pakora.

• In the case of 1Balwant Singh v, State of Punjab, it was stated that

"The raising a slogan only a couple of times by the two lonesome appellants, which neither
evoked any response nor any reaction from anyone in the public can neither attract the
provisions of sedition and causing enmity or hatred between class of persons... Some more
1
(1955) 3 SCC 214
AIR 1955 SC 1785

17
 2nd SANKHLA & ASSOCIATES NATIONAL VIRTUAL
MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2023

overt act was required to bring home the charge to the two appellants, who are Government
servants. The police officials exhibited lack of maturity and more of sensitivity in arresting the
appellants for raising the slogans. Raising of some lonesome slogans, a couple of times by two
individuals, without anything more, did not constitute any threat to the Government of India as
by law established not could the same give rise to feelings of enmity or hatred among different
communities or religious or other groups".

Thus, it can be understood from this above proposition laid down by the Hon'able Court that
mere chanting of slogans would not attract the essential postulates laid down for the offence
against the state.

• Mahatma Gandhi called section 124A IPC as "the prince among the political sections of
the IPC designed to supress the liberty of the Citizen".

There have been strong calls to remove the Sedition clauses, which are considered as an
antiquated legislation designed to protect colonial interests.

The Hon'able Supreme Court in a recent writ petition have stated that the Sedition statute was
from the colonial era, and have questioned the center Government whether it was still essential
after 75years of Independence . The Court stated that the statute has been abused to the point
where it is "like handing a carpenter a saw to cut a peice of wood and he uses it to cut the entire
forest".

As the law on sedition in India has been employed as a tool of harrasment to curb free speech.
This has resulted in widespread demands to repeal the provisions regarding sedition as it is
seen as an archaic law that was meant to serve the colonial interests.

• In the case of 2Arizona Pub. Co. v. Harris, states that

Sedition can be understood as "an insurrectionary movement tending towards treason, but
wanting an over act, attempts made by meetings or speeches, or by publications, to disturb the
tranquilty of the state".
3
kedar Nath singh v. State of Bihar, Judgement is a landmark judgement in which the Hon'able
Court decided on the constitutional validity of the section 124A of the IPC. It noted that any
words of disloyalty towards the Government in "Strong Terms" will not be sedition unless it
causes "public disorder by acts of violence". Hence, this judgement predicated the applicability
of sedition on the likelihood of causing violence.

2
181 20 Ariz, 446
3
AIR 1962 SC 955

18
2nd SANKHLA & ASSOCIATES NATIONAL VIRTUAL
MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2023

ISSUE 2: Whether Sections 15, 16, 17, 18, 38, 39 & 40 of UAPA are
violative of Articles 14, 19, 20, 21 & 22 of the constitution?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that Sections 15,16,17,18,38,39 &
40 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) are violative of Articles 14,19,20,21, &
22. The Indian judiciary has the authority to review and strike down any provisions that are
found to be unconstitutional or that violate fundamental rights. Challenges to the
constitutionality of specific provisions of the UAPA are not uncommon, and the courts play a
crucial role in ensuring a balance between national security concerns and the protection of
fundamental rights. The outcome of such challenges may vary depending on the specific facts
and circumstances of each case..

There are various controversial provisions in the Act which has potential to violate individual
autonomy and give room for abuse of power by the State, for example, it gives humongous
powers to police regarding arrest, search and investigation; it has no provisions to provide
anticipatory bail to the accused; it places stringent restrictions on bail; it allows intercepted
communications to be used as evidence against the accused; it violates the established rule of
presumption of innocence until proven guilty; it increases the period of detention upto 180
days as well as makes all offences listed under it cognizable. These provisions are also
repugnant to established principles of criminal law administration. Some of these controversial
provisions will be discussed in detail in the latter.

This has been a rampant abuse by the ruling dispensation to target those who go against the
ideology of the ruling party.

In January 2018, several social activists who took part in Bhima Koregaon event were
arrested under UAPA over their alleged links to maoists. Some of the eminent human rights
activists are Varavara Rao, Sudha Bharadwaj, Arun Ferreira, Gautam \ Navalakha, Vernon
Gonsalves and Anand Teltumde. Despite deteriorating condition of health of some of them in
jail, they were denied bail as well as proper medical treatment (Bhaduri, 2020). As a result, one
person among the people arrested in the same case, Father StanSwamy, eventually lost his life
at the age of 84 waiting for bail for nine months. This case from the outset showed us the
dearth of humanity when the tribal rights activist who was also suffering from Parkinson’s
disease was denied access to sipper and straw in jail by the authorities (Samervel, 2020). He
contracted Covid 19 in jail but again denied bail and eventually succumbed to death. Another
human right activist, Akhil Gogoi, who is associated with a peasant’s organisation was arrested
under UAPA for protesting against the Citizenship Amendment Act. He was arrested as a
preventive measure on suspicion of him being a member of CPI (maoist) group (Bharadwaj,

19
2nd SANKHLA & ASSOCIATES NATIONAL VIRTUAL
MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2023

2019). After spending 19 months in jail, he finally acquitted of all charges by Special NIA
court on July 2021. The judge observed that there was nothing to show that Mr. Gogoi had
indulged into any terrorist act. This act not only used as a weapon to target human rights
activists but also students who gather courage to speak on the discriminatory policies of the
Government. In recent times, some students who participated in the protest against the
Citizenship Amendment Act were arrested despite the police not having adequate evidence.
Safoora Zargar from Jamia Milia Islamia University, who was arrested for hatching conspiracy
for riots in north east Delhi in January 2020. She was pregnant when she was arrested but had
been denied bail on several occasion and languished in jail before she finally granted bail
(Pasha, 2020).

Another student activists who were arrested are Natasha Narwal, Meera Haider and Umar
Khalid for riots in north east Delhi. In a recent order of Delhi High Court while granting bail to
three students in connection with Delhi riot observed that no prima facie case has made out
against them under UAPA apart from the fact that they all engaged themselves in anti- CAA
protest. The Court also expressed concern stating that “it appears that in its anxiety to suppress
dissent, State has blurred the line between the constitutionally guaranteed right to protest and
terrorist activity. If Such blurring gains traction, democracy would be in peril”. The UAPA has
also been invoked against journalists on large scale who dare to do justice with their profession
and raise their voices against the violations of human rights by the ruling elite. The UAPA is
slapped on their faces to silence them , perhaps, one of the reasons behind India’s such low
rank (142 out of 180 countries) in World Press Freedom Index 2020.

The most recent and glaring example is a case of journalist from Kerela, Siddique Kappan,
who was arrested by the UP Police when he was heading to Hathras to cover the rape and
murder case of a Dalit woman. He has not even given permission to visit his ailing mother on
her deathbed yet. Another journalist from Kashmir, Gowhar Gilani, was booked under the Act
for his social media posts (Ganai, 2020).These are just few examples to demonstrate the
weaponisation of UAPA to dismantle the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the
Indian Constitution.

Ina recent case of4 Asif Iqbal Tanha v. State of NCT of Delhi Court observed that the more
stringent the penal law, the more strictly it must be construed and held that “terrorist activity”
cannot be interpreted broadly to include ordinary penal laws within its ambit. The court
endeavoured to defined this term stating that “The extent and reach of terrorist activity must
travel beyond the effect of an ordinary crime and must not rise merely by causing disturbance
of law and order; and must be such that it travels
beyond the capacity of the ordinary law enforcement agencies to deal with it under the ordinary
penal law”.

4
Crl. A. 39/2021

20
2nd SANKHLA & ASSOCIATES NATIONAL VIRTUAL
MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2023

In the case of 5Jayanta Kumar Ghosh v. State of Assam, the court examined the meaning of
“prima facia true”. It held that the test is ti determine whether the accusations are “inherently
improbable or wholly unbelievable” which can be determined by examining the evidence
collected during investigation. The factors such as the possibility of absconding, tampering of
evidences and intimidating witness by the accused which are given consideration under the
CRPC are being overlooked by the court in cases under UAPA.

In the case of 6Abdul Sathar v. Superintendent of police, the kerela High Court observed that
the considering factor for granting bail is not the number of days that the accused has spent in
jail but the magnitude of offence and effect of awarding bail on the public. However, in most
cases, the judged are likely to decline bail application in order to not get accused of being
lenient with people who are indulged in terrorist activities.

ISSUE 3: Whether the arrest and detention of the students under Section 124A
of RPC and various sections of UAPA valid?

It is humbly submitted to the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the arrest and detention of the
students under Section 124A of RPC and various sections of UAPA were not valid on
following grounds- (A) The students were only exercising their fundamental right to freedom
of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, (B) These sections are
vague and arbitrary in nature, (C) Only prima facie evidence is not enough to prove the
allegations made on the students under Section 124A of RPC and UAPA.

(A) The students were only exercising their fundamental right to

freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution.
It is humbly submitted to the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the students were only exercising
their fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression without any intention to inc any
kind of violence. The celebration was peaceful and did not cause any violence or damage to
property. Further, Sharjeel Imam’s speeches were purely academic and political in nature
without incitement of violence or hatred.

5
(2010) 6 GLR 727
6
W.P. (C) . No. 8423 of 2016

21
2nd SANKHLA & ASSOCIATES NATIONAL VIRTUAL
MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2023

It is humbly submitted that in the case of “Balwant Singh v State of Punjab” the Hon’ble Court
held that mere raising of slogans by the students which neither evoked any response or reaction
from the public cannot be said to be aimed at inciting or attempting to incite any violence or
hatred towards the government established hence not attracting the provisions of Section 124A
of RPC.
It is humbly submitted that the speeches given by Sharjeel Imam were only academic and
political in nature and mere criticism of the government should not attract Section 124A of
RPC as it is against the democratic values of Rastan where people have right to put forward
their opinions against the government in the light of improvement.

(B) These sections are vague and arbitrary on nature.

It is humbly submitted that these sections are vague and arbitrary in nature giving a wider
scope for the misuse of these provisions by the ruling party to target those people who are
against their ideology in order to suppress dissent and crimanalize the protesters.

It is humbly submitted that students of LBSU and Sharjeel Imam did not show any conduct
which falls in the ambit of the provisions of UAPA. They merely expressed their view and
opinions. Further, the UAPA indirectly curtailed the right to dissent and is against Article 14,
19 and 21of the Constitution. Right to reputation and dignity is one of the intrinsic part of
Article 21 and people who are charged under UAPA are deprived of this as the basic law
“innocent until proven guilty” is not considered and also the burden of proof lies on the
accused instead of the public prosecutor.

(C) Only prima facie evidence is not enough to prove the allegations
made on the students under Section 124A of RPC and UAPA.
It is humbly submitted that the police conducted the arrest on the basis of few allegations and
the students were remanded judicial custody for 90 days without bail which is again a violation
of Article 21 of the Constitution.

It is humbly submitted that the police only had prima facie evidence i.e. evidence received at
the first sight which cannot be said to be completely true and is also not enough in the case
where charges are grievous. We need ex facie evidences in such case to conclude the trial.

ISSUE 4: Whether RHR has locus standi to file a PIL challenging Section
124A of RPC and UAPA?

22
2nd SANKHLA & ASSOCIATES NATIONAL VIRTUAL
MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2023

It is humble submitted before the hon'albe supreme court that RHR had locus standi to file a
PIL challenging section 124(A) of RPC and UAPA .

Where the concept of locus standi is a Latin phrase that means " the proper place to stand" . It
is a legal concept that refers to the right of an individual or group to bring a law suit in court. In
other words, locas standi refers to who has the right or ability ( locus ) to bring an issue before
the court for resolution. The traditional rule is that a person whose constitutional or legal right
is infringed can apply for relief under Article 226 of the Indian constitution. But the supreme
court has now considerably liberalized the above rule of locus standi.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) implies litigation for the protection of public interests.PIL helps
to maintain the rule of law and fosters the balance between the law and Justice. The prime and
important function of public interest litigation is to provide access to justice to every
marginalised section of society. PIL monitors important institutions like protective homes,
mental asylums, and prisons.As the law on sedition in India has been employed as a tool of
harrasment to curb free speech. This has resulted in widespread demands to repeal the
provisions regarding sedition as it is seen as an archaic law that was meant to serve the colonial
interests.

Sedition can be understood as "an insurrectionary movement tending towards treason, but
wanting an over act, attempts made by meetings or speeches, or by publications, to disturb the
tranquilty of the state".
The case of 7SP Gupta vs UOI, also known as the Judges Transfer case, was a landmark
judgment by the Supreme Court of India in 1981. Here is a summary of the case facts:

The case originated from a writ petition filed by S.P. Gupta, a lawyer and activist, challenging
the transfer of judges by the executive branch of the government without consulting the Chief
Justice of India (CJI). Gupta argued that the executive's power to transfer judges without
consultation violated the independence of the judiciary and was against the principles of
separation of powers.

The hon'albe Allahabad High Court dismissed Gupta's petition, stating that the executive had
the authority to transfer judges without consulting the CJI.

The hon'albe Supreme court in a 4-3 majority decision, ruled in favor of Gupta. The court held
that the executive's power to transfer judges without consulting the CJI was unconstitutional
and violated the principle of independence of the judiciary. Three judges dissented, arguing
that the power to transfer judges should rest with the executive and not solely with the CJI.
They believed that judicial primacy in transfers could lead to favoritism and hinder
administrative efficiency. The judgment significantly strengthened judicial independence in
7
AIR 1982, SC 149

23
2nd SANKHLA & ASSOCIATES NATIONAL VIRTUAL
MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2023

India and established the principle that the judiciary should have a say in matters of judges'
transfers.

Overall, the SP Gupta vs UOI case highlighted the importance of maintaining the
independence of the judiciary and ensuring a system of checks and balances between the
executive and judiciary branches of government.

24
2nd SANKHLA & ASSOCIATES NATIONAL VIRTUAL
MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2023

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in light of the facts presented, questions raised, arguments advanced and
authority cited, the counsels for the Petitioner most humbly and respectfully pray before this
Hon’ble court, that it may be pleased to adjudge and declare that,

1. A Section 124A of RPC is violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

2. The arrest and detention of the students under Section 124A of RPC and various
sections of UAPA is invalid and they should be compensated appropriately for the
infringement of their fundamental rights .
3. ection 124A of RPC and UAPA are misused to suppress dissent and are violative of
the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution and hence should be declared
unconstitutional and void..
The Hon’ble court being satisfied may also make any such order as it may deem fit in the
light of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

And for this act of kindness the Petitioners shall as duty bund ever humbly pray. Respectfully
submitted,

Sd/-

____________________
Counsel for the Petitioner

25