TEAM CODE- NJ P 20

SHRI. NITYANAND JHA NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

WRIT PETITION BEFORE THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF

RASHTRAKUTA UNDER ARTICLE 32

IN THE MATTER OF

MR. MOHAN SINGH & ORS....................................................................... PETITIONER

Versus

UNION OF RASHTRAKUTA.......................................... RESPONDENT

UPON THE SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF

RASHTRAKUTA

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONERS

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Abbreviations………………………………………………………...……............ 3
List of Authorities………………………………………………………...…………..…... 4
List of Cases……………………………………………………………...………...…...… 5
Statement of jurisdiction………………………………………………………………….. 6
Summary of facts……………………………………………………………..…………... 7
Issues raised…………………………………………………………..…………………... 9
Summary of arguments…………………...…………………………………………….… 10
Arguments advanced……………………………………………..…………………..…… 11
12
1) WRIT PETITION MAINTAINABLE IN THE COURT……………………...
2) SECTION 124A OF THE RPC VIOLATES ARTICLE 19(1)(A)………...…. 13
14
A. Section 124A is not a reasonable restriction…………………………….…...
B. Test of Reasonable Restriction………………………………….…………... 17

C. Misuse of Section 124A………………………………………………..……. 18

20
D. Section 124A should be declared unconstitutional………………..…………
22
3) ACTS OF ACCUSED DO NOT FALL UNDER SECTION 124A OF RPC…
23
A. Essentials of Section 124A………………..…...………………………...…..
B. Mr. Mohan not liable under Section 124A………………………………….. 24
C. Freedom of press…………………………………………………………….. 25
Prayer………………………………………………………………………………...……. 27

2
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And

AIR All India Reporter

Anr. Another

Cr. LJ Criminal Law Journal

Govt. Government

Hon’ble Honorable

i.e. That is

Const. Constitution

Ltd. Limited

Ors. Others

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

Art. Article

v. Versus

3
 LIST OF AUTHORITIES

ACTS & STATUES:

1) THE INDIAN PENAL CODE,1860
2) THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1949
BOOKS REFERRED:
1) M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, (7TH ED., 2014)
2) INDIAN PENAL CODE BY PROF. S.N. MISHRA (19TH ED., 2014)
3) PANDEY, J.N., THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA (47THED.,2010)
LEGAL DATABASES:
1) Manupatra
2) SCC Online
LAW DICTIONARIES:
1) Greenberg Daniel, Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary of Words and Aiyer P.R., Advanced
Law Lexicon, (3rd ed., 2005).
2) Phrases, (4th ed.), Sweet and Maxwell, Vol.4.
WEBSITES REFERRED:
1) www.lexisnexis.com
2) www.manupatra.com
3) www.westlaw.com
4) www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in
5) www.scconline.com
6) www.ncrb.gov.in
7) www.barandbench.com
8) www.jstor.org
9) delhihighcourt.nic.in

ARTICLES REFERRED:

1) Manoj K Sinha and Anurag Deep, Law of Sedition in India and Freedom of
Expression, 227-235 (The Indian Law Institute, New Delhi, 2018).
2) Tiwari, A. R. T. (n.d.). THE CRIME OF SEDITION IN INDIA: AN ARCHAIC
COLONIAL REPRESSION– IS STRINGENCY ENSLAVING THE RIGHT TO
FREE SPEECH? ILI Review, Summer Issue 2020

4
 LIST OF CASES

S.NO NAME OF THE CASE PG. NO.

1. Arun Jaitley v. State of UP 19
2. Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam 22
3. Balwant Singh And Anr vs State Of Punjab 23
4. Bennett Coleman & Co. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. 14
5. Chintaman Rao v. The State of Madhya Pradesh 14
6. Chintamani Rao v. State of M.P. 17
7. Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India 24
8. Indra Das v. State of Assam 22
9. Kedarnath vs State of Bihar 24
10. M/s Aamoda Broadcasting Company Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. The State of 21
Andhra Pradesh & Ors
11. Pankaj Butalia vs Central Board of Film Certification 23
12. Prabha Dutt vs Union of India 24
13. Ram Nandan v. State 15
14. Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras 13
15. S. Khushboo v. Kanniamal & Anr 13
16. Sagolsem Indramani Singh And Ors. vs State Of Manipur 11
17. Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India 14
18. Santosh Singh v. Delhi Administration 16
19. SCORA v. Union of India 19
20. Shreya Singhal vs Union of India 14
21. Tara Singh Gopi Chand vs. The State 14
22. Vinod Dua vs. Union of India 25

5
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE PETITIONER HUMBLY SUBMITS THE WRIT PETITION BEFORE THE

HON’BLE SUPREME COURT UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA.1

1
Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred
by this Part is guaranteed
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of
habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the
enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 ) and ( 2 ), Parliament may by
law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers
exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause ( 2 )
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this
Constitution

6
 SUMMARY OF FACTS

1. "Union of Rashtrakuta" is a Federal, Democratic, Secular, Republic State with a Free

Media and Independent Judicial System. The Legal System, the Constitution, all Laws,
and International relations are identical to that of "Union of India" with common friendly
and rival nations.
2. Mohan Singh, a cricketer after his retirement joined politics and became a youth leader of
"Prajapita Party ". He was elected as M.P. of Sharwad Constituency. In his tenure, he had
made several developments towards his constituency with major importance to sports
activity and youth. He had built an International Stadium at Sharwad and constructed
indoor stadiums, swimming pools and various arenas for the youth to encourage
participation.
3. In the Assembly Elections held in the year 2020, Mr. Mohan Singh lost the elections
against Mr. Arun Sinha, who was the candidate of "Jan-Hita" Party.
4. This being the position, there was RCC Champions Trophy in the year 2021 and Team
Rashtrakuta had qualified for Finals. Team Sakistan and Team Taustralia were playing
semi-finals which were held in International Stadium, Sharwad.
5. Mr. Mohan Singh had been present to watch the match at the stadium. During the on-
going match, he being a sportsperson himself screamed "Come on boys you can beat
them, you guys are not less than anyone" cheering for the Sakistani Team. This statement
caught ears not only in the stadium, but also spread like a wild fire throughout the
country.
6. An FIR was registered against him for supporting the Rival Nation and charge was
leveled against him for the offence punishable under Sec. 124A of "Rashtrakuta Penal
Code". He was arrested by the Police and later was enlarged on bail by the Hon'ble High
Court of Dhanera.
7. Soon after his release, he preferred a petition before the Hon’ble Apex Court contending
that the Section 124A of RPC is not enacted to protect Political Party, but to prevent
citizens from revolting against their own Country and prevent the instigation for them to
move against their country. He has not done any such act to be fallen or be tried under
this section.
8. Soon after his release, Mr. Mohan Singh was called in for an interview. During the course
of the interview, he was posed with a question about the criminal case being filed against
him being politically motivated to demoralize him being a celebrated political leader from

7
 a different political party than the present government. He replied that it was indeed a
politically motivated act to suppress his voice; he had full faith in the Judicial System and
challenged the constitutionality of Sec. 124A of RPC before the Hon'ble Apex Court.
9. Post the interview, a FIR was lodged against the reporter for making an allegation against
the Government with an intention to disturb the public peace and motivate the public to
revolt against the Government. Upon his arrest, he applied for bail before the Hon'ble
High Court.
10. He also preferred a petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court challenging the validity of
Sec. 124A of RPC contending that the said section was introduced only with an intention
that in the initial days of independence, citizens should not revolt against the Government
of Rashtrakuta and the present scenario is completely different and that the section does
not hold water today.
11. Since both the cases are on the same footing after being admitted in the Hon'ble Apex
Court, Petition of Mr. Rangaraj is now tagged with the earlier petition of Mr.Mohan
Singh and are being posted for final hearing on X August 2022.

8
 ISSUES RAISED

1) WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE

SUPREME COURT OF RASHTRAKUTA
2) WHETHER SECTION 124A OF THE RASHTRAKUTIAN PENAL CODE
VIOLATES ARTICLE 19(1)(a) OF THE RASHTRAKUTIAN CONSTITUTION
3) WHETHER CHEERING FOR THE OPPOSITE TEAM FALLS WITHIN THE
AMBIT OF SECTION 124A OF RPC

9
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1) WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE

SUPREME COURT OF RASHTRAKUTA

It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the writ petition is
maintainable before the court of Rashtrakuta. A citizen can approach supreme court on
infringement of his fundamental rights under article 32 of the constitution. Mr. Mohan Singh
and Mr. Rangaraj have thus approached the hon’ble court seeking the remedy against the
unjust use of power by the authorities.

2) WHETHER SECTION 124A OF THE RASHTRAKUTIAN PENAL CODE

VIOLATES ARTICLE 19(1)(a) OF THE RASHTRAKUTIAN CONSTITUTION

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Rashtrakuta that Section 124A
of the RPC violates Article 19(1)(a) of the Rashtrakutian Constitution. The Preamble of the
Constitution of Rashtrakuta inter alia speaks of liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith
and worship. It also says that Rashtrakuta is a sovereign democratic republic. The
Fundamental right to speech and expression is enshrined in the Rashtrakutian constitution. It
is pertinent to mention here that Mr. Mohan and Mr. Rangaraj have been falsely accused of
the offence under section 124A of the RPC. The acts of Mr. Mohan Singh and Mr. Rangaraj
do not fall within the ambit of section 124A of the RPC and they are being maliciously
accused. It is the right of every citizen to approach the Supreme Court in case of infringement
of their fundamental rights.

3) WHETHER THE ACTS OF MR.MOHAN SINGH AND MR. RANGARAJ FALL

WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SECTION 124A OF RPC

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Rashtrakuta that the acts of Mr.
Mohan Singh and Mr. Rangaraj do not fall within the ambit of Section 124A of the RPC.
Firstly, the statement made by Mr. Mohan Singh can be read as “Come on boys you can beat
them, you guys are not less than anyone”. It is pertinent to mention that the name of the
country “Sakistan” has nowhere been uttered by Mr. Mohan.

Secondly, even if the case to the fact that Mr. Mohan cheered for the Sakistani team was
accepted, no offence under Section 124A of the RPC can be made out. Mr. Mohan was a

10
retired cricketer and had always played for the Rashtrakutian team. Making a statement to
motivate the players is a display of sportsmanship and such statement neither evoked any
response nor any reaction from any one in public. Thus, the section would not be attracted to
the facts and circumstances of this case.

11
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1) THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE SUPREME

COURT OF RASHTRAKUTA

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Rashtrakuta that the writ
petition is maintainable before the Supreme Court of Rashtrakuta.

As per Article 32 of the Constitution of Rashtrakuta, a citizen has been provided with a right
to approach the hon’ble Supreme Court in case of any violation of his rights or in case of any
infringement or misuse.

This has come forth as a major constitutional issue making a check over the constitutional
validity of the section a crucial task. Numerous happenings have been recorded in the past as
well as in this day and age dealing with the improper application of sedition charges. This has
led to a curtail or violation of the right to freedom of speech and expression provided to
citizens via Article 124A of the Rashtrakutian Constitution.

As per the Supreme Court verdict in Romesh Thapar vs the State of Madras, 1950, it was
provided that, “nothing less than endangering the foundations of the state or threatening its
overthrow could justify curtailment of the rights to freedom of speech and expression.” Thus,
if exercise of free speech invokes a proximate and imminent tendency to violently overthrow
a government established by law, an action can be initiated under Section 124A of RPC. But
in the absence of such clarity, the law is prone to unconstitutional use. Such a brazen
violation of the Constitution warrants the invalidation of sedition law as the Constitution of
India has many provisions to preserve its security, unity, integrity, and sovereignty.

In the case of Sagolsem Indramani Singh2 it was observed by the court that even though
'public order' had been added in clause (2) of Art. 19, it could hardly be expected that mere
criticism of the Government would be punishable 'in the interest of public order." The
incitement to a breach of every law does not necessarily result in public disorder and the
connection between the impugned law and the threat to public peace must be clear and
proximate and not remote or problematic. Spreading of disaffection against a party
government cannot be said to be a ground for inferring that public order would be disturbed
unless it results in incitement to violence."

2
1955 CriLJ 184

12
The Fundamental right to speech and expression is enshrined in the Rashtrakutian
constitution. It is pertinent to mention here that Mr. Mohan and Mr. Rangaraj have been
falsely accused of the offence under section 124A of the RPC. The acts of Mr. Mohan Singh
and Mr. Rangaraj do not fall within the ambit of section 124A of the RPC and they are being
maliciously accused. It is the right of every citizen to approach the Supreme Court in case of
infringement of their fundamental rights.

It is further submitted that Mr. Mohan Singh and Mr. Rangaraj are not the only ones who
have been deprived of their rights. According to the reports of National Bureau of Crime
Records3, the number of cases filed under Section 124A has been increased by 160%,
however, the rate of conviction dropped to 3.3% in 2019 from 33% in 2016. It is evident from
these records, that the authorities are exploiting the powers provided by section 124A of the
RPC.

Further, the journalists are the ones who suffer the most by such misuse as their voices are
often curbed and suppressed. Be it the local reporters or the editors of a big media house,
everyone is slapped with sedition charges. The ones who have the resources approach the
court and are acquitted, while those who are underprivileged have to bear the consequences.

From what has been stated hereinabove, it is concluded that such practises are violative of the
fundamental rights of innumerable citizens. Mr. Mohan Singh and Mr. Rangaraj have thus
approached the hon’ble court seeking the remedy against the unjust use of power by the
authorities. Therefore, the writ petition under Article 32 of the Rashtrakutian constitution
maintainable in the court of law.

2) SECTION 124A OF THE RASHTRAKUTIAN PENAL CODE VIOLATES

ARTICLE 19(1)(a) OF THE RASHTRAKUTIAN CONSTITUTION

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Rashtrakuta that Section 124A
of the RPC violates Article 19(1)(a) of the Rashtrakutian Constitution.

The Preamble of the Constitution of Rashtrakuta inter alia speaks of liberty of thought,
expression, belief, faith and worship. It also says that Rashtrakuta is a sovereign democratic
republic. It cannot be over emphasized that when it comes to democracy, liberty of thought

3
National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) Report, 2019

13
and expression is a cardinal value that is of paramount significance under our constitutional
scheme.

A. SECTION 124A IS NOT A REASONABLE RESTRICTION

Article 19 (1) (a) and Article 19 (2) of the Rashtrkutian Constitution can be read as follows

19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech etc

(1) All citizens shall have the right

(a) to freedom of speech and expression;

(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;

(c) to form associations or unions;

(d) to move freely throughout the territory of India;

(e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and

(f) omitted

(g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or

business

(2) Nothing in sub clause (a) of clause ( 1 ) shall affect the operation of any
existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law
imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the
said sub clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the
security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order,
decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or
incitement to an offence.

In the early case of Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras4, this Court stated that freedom of
speech lay at the foundation of all democratic organizations.

Equally, in S. Khushboo v. Kanniamal & Anr5, this Court stated, that the importance of
freedom of speech and expression though not absolute was necessary as we need to tolerate

4
[1950] S.C.R. 594 at 602
5
(2010) 5 SCC 600

14
unpopular views. This right requires the free flow of opinions and ideas essential to sustain
the collective life of the citizenry. While an informed citizenry is a pre-condition for
meaningful governance, the culture of open dialogue is generally of great societal
importance.

Freedom of speech and expression of opinion is of paramount importance under a democratic

constitution which envisages changes in the composition of legislatures and governments and
must be preserved.6 The freedom of speech and of the press is the Ark of the Covenant of
Democracy because public criticism is essential to the working of its institutions.7

Article 19(2) is an exception of the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression. There are
three concepts which are fundamental in understanding the reach of this most basic of human
rights. The first is discussion, the second is advocacy, and the third is incitement. Mere
discussion or even advocacy of a particular cause howsoever unpopular is at the heart
of Article 19(1)(a). It is only when such discussion or advocacy reaches the level of
incitement that Article 19(2) kicks in.8 It is at this stage that a law may be made curtailing the
speech or expression that leads inexorably to or tends to cause public disorder or tends to
cause or tends to affect the sovereignty & integrity of India, the security of the State etc. In
Chintaman Rao v. The State of Madhya Pradesh9, this Court said:

"The phrase "reasonable restriction" connotes that the limitation imposed on a

person in enjoyment of the right should not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature,
beyond what is required in the interests of the public. The word "reasonable"
implies intelligent care and deliberation, that is, the choice of a course which
reason dictates.”

It is pertinent to mention that firstly Section 124A infringes the fundamental right to free
speech and expression and is not saved by any of the eight subjects covered in Article 19(2).

It has been held in Tara Singh Gopi Chand vs. The State10 that Article 19(2) gives
reasonable restrictions to the fundamental right of free speech, the restriction has to be
constitutional and not excessive. The justices argued S. 124A did not pass this test.

6
Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. &Ors. v. Union of India, [1962] 3 S.C.R. 842 at 866
7
Bennett Coleman & Co. &Ors. v. Union of India &Ors., [1973] 2 S.C.R. 757 at 829
8
Shreya Singhal vs Union of India (2013) 12 S.C.C. 73
9
[1950] S.C.R. 759
10
AIR 1951 Punj 27 (Z6)]

15
Again in Shreya Singhal Case, Section 66A of the act was declared unconstitutional as it
violates Article 19 (1)(a) and it is not protected by Article 19 (2). Cases where Article
19(1)(a) is violated, Romesh Thappar's judgment would apply on all fours.

Although it has been held in Kedarnath that clause (2) of Article 19 clearly saves the section
from the vice of unconstitutionality as it has been categorised to be falling in the phrase “in
the interest of public order”, however, it is pertinent to note that the phrase “in the interest of
public order” has a very wide connotation. The observation made in the case of Ram Nandan
v. State11 need to be brought in light. It was observed-

“Even though Article 19(2) of the Constitution does not use the words "for
maintenance of the p ublic order" and uses the words "in the interest of e public
order", the restriction must have some nexus with public, disorder. Unless it could
be stated that the mildest expression of disloyalty had within it the tendency to
bring about either immediately or in the near future disorder, Section 124-A must
be held to go far beyond the limits of restraint permitted by the
Constitution……………In view of the fact that it is not considered that a tendency to
disorder, much less a calculated tendency, inheres in all utterances creating a
disaffection against the Government and in view of the fact that even the mildest
form of disaffection could be caught by Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code, it
would appear that the restrictions which that Section imposes are far too wide and
cannot be justified as being solely "in the interest of public order"

It was further observed-

“Further, the expression used in Article 19(2) is in the interests of public order' and
not 'in the interests of the government. The two need not necessarily be always
identical. They might be different. There might even be instances of a conflict
between the two, A history of the origin and development of the law of sedition
shows that the impugned law might have been in the interests of public order at one
time, when the country was under foreign rule. It has, however, ceased to be so after
the emergence of the country as our Independent Sovereign Nation”

11
AIR 1959 All 101, 1959 CriLJ 1

16
It was further observed in the case of Sagolsem Indramani that even though 'public order' had
been added in clause (2) of Art. 19, it could hardly be expected that mere criticism of the
Government would be punishable in the interest of public order." The incitement to a breach
of every law does not necessarily result in public disorder and the connection between the
impugned law and the threat to public peace must be clear and proximate and not remote or
problematic. Spreading of disaffection against a party government cannot be said to be a
ground for inferring that public order would be disturbed unless it results in incitement to
violence.

It is quite clear that the position related to the ground of public order as a reasonable
restriction to the freedom of speech and expression is highly ambiguous in the present
scenario. It is therefore submitted that it can be concluded that the eight subject matters
of Article 19(2) are conspicuous by their absence pertaining to Section 124A of the RPC
which only speaks of reasonable restrictions in the interests of the general public.
B. TEST OF REASONABLE RESTRICTION

The court in Shreya Singhal case had laid down the test that has to be formulated in cases
challenging them constitutional validity of a section. It was said that we have to ask ourselves
the question: Does a particular act lead to the disturbance of the current life of the community
or does it merely affect an individual leaving the tranquility of society undisturbed?

It was held in the case of Santosh Singh v. Delhi Administration12 that the test of
reasonableness of restriction has to be considered in each case in the light of the nature of the
right infringed, the purpose of the restriction, the extent and nature of mischief required to be
suppressed and the prevailing social order and conditions at the time. There can be no
abstract standard of reasonableness and our Constitution provides reasonably precise general
guidance in that matter.

Indian jurisprudence makes it clear that citizen’s right to free expression and the state’s
power to restrict it cannot be seen on equal footing. Free expression is a rule and restrictions
on it are an exception. The exception cannot be either equal to or more than the rule. Such
restrictions should pass the ‘test of reasonableness’ as enunciated in several judgments of the
Supreme Court spread over decades.

12
(1973 AIR 1091, 1973 SCR (3) 533)

17
The phrase reasonable restrictions connotes that the limitation imposed upon a person in the
enjoyment of a right should not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature. A legislation arbitrarily
invading the right of a person cannot be regarded as reasonable. A restriction to be valid must
have a direct and proximate nexus with the object which the legislation seeks to achieve and
the restriction must not be in excess of that object i.e., a balance between the freedoms
guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(a) to (g) and the social control permitted by clauses (2) to (6) of
Art. 19. The Court is called upon to ascertain the reasonableness of the restriction and not of
the law which permits the restriction. A law may be reasonable, but the restriction imposed
by it on the exercise of freedom may not be reasonable.It is the courts and not the Legislature
which has to judge finally whether a restriction is reasonable or not.13

A restriction otherwise in the interests of public order does not cease to be so merely because
it serves other interests also. A good act does not become bad because of some other good
effect produced by it. Thus, it is submitted that it can be concluded that Section 124A of the
RPC cannot be deemed to be a reasonable restriction under Article 19 (2).
C. MISUSE OF SECTION 124A

It is humbly submitted that the constitutional validity of Section 124A of the RPC has been
challenged before. While it did hold that the offence was constitutional in the
landmark Kedar Nath Singh judgment, it clarified the scope of the offence so that it would fit
within the parameters of Article 19(2) of the Constitution, which sets out the reasonable
restrictions on freedom of speech.

The judges clarified that for speech to become seditious, it needed to incite “public disorder
by acts of violence”. They reiterated this several times, making it clear that without a
connection to some form of violent public disorder, the offence of sedition would not be
attracted.

It is submitted that even though the guidelines have been laid in Kedar Nath, the law of
sedition is being used as a political tool to prosecute persons critical of the government and
its policies. This violates their fundamental right to free speech and expression and life.

It is humbly submitted that in 2014, 67 Kashmiri students in Meerut, UP, were arrested for
sedition after Pakistan defeated India in the Asia Cup. The case was subsequently dropped

13
Chintamani Rao v. State of M.P. AIR 1951 SC 118

18
after a legal opinion was sought. In 2017, following another Pakistan cricket win over India,
49 people were booked for sedition across UP, Madhya Pradesh, Kerala and Karnataka for
alleged celebrations, 29 of whom were arrested. These cases were also dropped over the next
few months.14

All these were matters of sporting preference (for whatever reason), not a question of
territorial sovereignty, or a justification of Pakistan's attacks on India. One is free to criticise
those who express this preference, but cannot be termed as sedition or an UAPA offence, or
any criminal offence for that matter.

It should be noted that eighteen individuals had been accused of sedition in cases related to
the COVID-19 pandemic, 133 during the farm laws protests, 104 in relation with India-
Pakistan cricket matches, and a whopping 3,862 for protesting against the CAA and National
Register of Citizens (NRC), which has emerged as the single biggest cause for sedition cases
filed since 2010.

To further explicate recent instances, on October 2019, an FIR was lodged on the order of the
subordinate court against 49 celebrities in India, including celebrities, writers and social
workers of immense repute such as Mani Ratnam, ShyamBenegal, RamchandraGuhaetc, for
writing to the Prime Minister against the mob-lynching incidents that were being observed
frequently throughout the nation.15 The reasons mentioned sedition as the primary offence
committed by them. This was completely disregardful of the Supreme Court stance that
sedition charges could only be framed when there is presence of specific intention to
overthrow the government violently.16 As there is no evidence found to provide basis for
sedition against those 49 celebrities, a closure report post investigation was filed. 17 This
meant that all the complaints were false, and were an unnecessary effort to pester those
celebrities, suffocating their right to speak. Similarly section 124A was imposed on Arun
Jaitley in 2016 when he was Union Minister in the central government. He wrote a very

14
S.L.A. (1958). Does Section 124-A, I.P.C. contravene Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution? Journal of the
Indian Law Institute, 1(1), 185–189.
15
Scroll Staff, “Bihar: FIR filed against 49 writers and filmmakers who appealed to PM Modi to stop mob
lynchings”, Oct. 4, 2019, available at :https://scroll.in/latest/939416/bihar-fir-filed-against-49-writers-
andfilmmakers-who-appealed-to-pm-modi-to-stop-mob-lynchings (last visited on June 18,2020).
16
Dipak Mishra, “Bihar lawyer behind FIR against 49 celebrities for Modi letter had targeted Bachchan, Lalu”,
The Print, October 5,2019, available at: https://theprint.in/india/bihar-lawyer-behind-fir-against-49-
celebritiesfor-modi-letter-had-targeted-bachchan-lalu/301494/ (last visited on June 5,2020).
17
DebashishKarmakar, “Sedition case against celebrities for writing to PM found false”, The Times Of India,
October 10,2019, available at: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/sedition-case-against-celebrities-
forwriting-to-pm-found-false-muzaffarpur-police/articleshow/71509933.cms (last visited on June 5,2020).

19
strong criticism of the Supreme Court pronouncement on NJAC,18 where Arun Jaitley
referred to the judgement as “tyranny of the unelected.” However, it was quashed by the High
Court of Allahabad.19

Even innocent persons are roped. Such persons are not told clearly on which side of the line
they fall; and it would be open to the authorities to be as arbitrary and whimsical as they like
in booking such persons under the said Section. In fact, a large number of innocent persons
have been booked and many instances have been given in the form of a note to the Court. The
enforcement of the said Section would really be aninsidious form of censorship which
impairs a core value contained in Article 19(1)(a). In addition, the said Section has a chilling
effect on the Freedom of Speech and Expression.

It is evident from all these instances how the executives are reluctant to accept the true
definition and scope of the term sedition. This provision of law dates back to 1898, and pre-
dates the Constitution itself, and is being misused. The continuous misuse of the section is a
clear infringement of the fundamental rights granted in the Constitution.

D. SECTION 124A SHOULD BE DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Article 13 of the Indian Constitution can be read as follows-

13. (1) All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of
this Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, shall,
to the extent of such inconsistency, be void.
(2) The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by
this Part and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the
contravention, be void.
(3) In this article, unless the context otherwise requires,—
(a) “law” includes any Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification,
custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law;
(b) “laws in force” includes laws passed or made by a Legislature or other
competent authority in the territory of India before the commencement of this
Constitution and not previously repealed, notwithstanding that any such law or any
part thereof may not be then in operation either at all or in particular areas.

18
SCORA v. Union of India ,2015 SCC OnLine SC 1322
19
Arun Jaitley v. State of UP, 2015 SCC Online All 6013

20
(4) Nothing in this article shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution made under
article 368

Thus, a law can be declared unconstitutional according to Article 13 of the constitution when
it breaches the Fundamental Rights provided under Part-III of the Constitution. Section 124A
of the RPC clearly violates the Fundamental Right to Speech and Expression provided under
Article 19(1)(a) and is not saved by Article 19(2) of the Rashtrakutian Constitution.

A democratic state will see changes in political ideologies and ruling parties. Sedition laws
may have been necessary during foreign rule. However, they are inappropriate by the nature
of the change which came about at independence.

S Khushboo v. Kaniammal judgment, observed that “the law should not be used in a manner
that has chilling effects on the ‘freedom of speech and expression’”

It is crucially important to note that sedition was one of the grounds in the earlier version of
the article.20 Thereafter, significant deliberation was done in relation to the restrictions that
could be imposed to curb freedom of speech and expression. Sedition was removed as a
ground to Draft Constitution of India.

It was argued by the members of the constituent assembly that the Freedom of Speech and
Expression, which includes the freedom of press, will become virtually ineffective if sedition
is mentioned as a ground for restriction of Freedom of Speech and Expression under Article
19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Further, many incidents were there where mere criticism of
government, or holding an ill-will against the government were termed as Sedition. In a
democracy, such terms are unwelcomed as criticism of government forms the foundation of a
democratic setup of State. It was further mentioned that if there is a law, then the hands of the
judiciary would be tied enough to be restricted and to adjudicate according to that law which
curbs such freedom. Such a setup was therefore found unsuitable for a political structure as
that of India. Even the legislature agreed that the power to restrict such a crucial right as that
of Freedom of Speech and Expression should rest with judiciary, not with legislature, to
ensure the rule of law.

The bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, L Nageswara Rao, and S Ravindra Bhat
expressed a prima facie view in M/s Aamoda Broadcasting Company Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v.

20
Draft Constitution of India, art. 13(2)

21
The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors (2021)21 that the FIRs are an attempt to "muzzle media
freedom”. “It is time we define the limits of sedition. There is a need to define the scope of
offences under Section 124A (sedition) under the Indian Penal Code, especially in the context
of media freedom,” the bench observed. “...we are of the view that the ambit and parameters
of the provisions of Sections 124A, 153A and 505 of the Indian Penal Code would require
interpretation, particularly in the context of the right of the electronic and print media to
communicate news, information and the rights, even those that may be critical of the
prevailing regime in any part of the nation," the bench further observed in the order.

A bench of the Supreme Court while considering the constitutional validity of Section 124A
put the section under abeyance. The Supreme Court asked the central government and states
to refrain from taking any action under the section. The Union of India agreed with the
opinion expressed by the court that the rigors of Section 124A of IPC is not in tune with the
current social milieu, and was intended for a time when this country was under the colonial
regime. In light of the same, the Union of India is reconsidering the above provision of law.22
Thus the legislature as well as the judiciary is aware the injustice being caused by the misuse
of Section 124A of the RPC.

It has been well said that the Freedom of thought and speech is the matrix, the indispensable
condition of nearly every other form of freedom and that the domain of liberty must include
the liberty of mind as well liberty of action.23

It is hoped that the Supreme Court of Rashtrakuta will interpret the constitution in a way
favourable to a democratic parliamentary system and hold Section 124A of the RPC as
constitutionally invalid.

Since sedition law does not function in developed countries like the UK, US, Canada,
Australia, and New Zealand, it is high time Rashtrakuta abolishes it as well.

3) ACTS OF MR.MOHAN SINGH AND MR.RANGARAJ DO NOT FALL

WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SECTION 124A OF RPC

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Rashtrakuta that the acts of Mr.
Mohan Singh and Mr. Rangaraj do not fall within the ambit of Section 124A of the RPC.

21
(W.P. (Cr.) No. 217/2021)
22
2022 SCC Online SC 609
23
Palko v. Connecticut (SUPREME COURT OF US) 302 US 319, (1937) Per Cardozo, J.

22
 A. ESSENTIALS OF SECTION 124A

Section 124A is defined in the RPC as

“124A. 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
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.

Explanation 1.—The expression “disaffection” includes disloyalty and all feelings of

enmity.

Explanation 2.—Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the

Government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without exciting
or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence
under this section.

Explanation 3.—Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other

action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or
disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.”

The five specific heads of Sedition may be enumerated according to the object of the
accused:
1. To excite disaffection against the King, Government or Constitution, or Parliament or the
administration of justice.
2. To promote, by unlawful means, any alteration in church or States.
3. To incite a disturbance of the peace.
4. To raise discontent among the king's subjects.
5. To excite class hatred.24
Thus the essentials of Section 124A may be:
1) There should be words, Signs, Visible representation or otherwise,
2) Brings or attempt to bring into hatred or contempt,
3) Excite disaffection, towards the Government established by law

24
Stephen, commentaries on the Law of England, vol IV

23
It is pertinent to mention that to be prosecuted for the crime of sedition a person must have
some intention to overthrow the Government by violent means.25
Further, the section has taken care to indicate clearly that strong words under lawful means
used to express disapprobation of the measures of the Government with the view to their
improvement or alteration would not come within the ambit of this section.

B. THE ACT OF MR.MOHAN SINGH DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT
OF SECTION 124A OF RPC

It is humbly submitted that this case is a made up affair and not based on facts. Firstly, the
statement made by Mr. Mohan Singh can be read as “Come on boys you can beat them, you
guys are not less than anyone”. It is pertinent to mention that the name of the country
“Sakistan” has nowhere been uttered by Mr. Mohan.

Secondly, even if the case to the fact that Mr. Mohan cheered for the Sakistani team was
accepted, no offence under Section 124A of the RPC can be made out.

A plain reading of the section would show that its application would be attracted only when
the accused brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt or excites or attempts to excite
disaffection towards the Government established by law in India, by words either written or
spoken or visible signs or representations etc.26 It cannot be said that the statements were
made with an intention to incite people to create disorder or that the statement in fact created
any law and order problem.

The casual cheering for the teams cannot be said to be aimed at the exciting or attempt to
excite hatred or disaffection towards the government established by law in India. Section
124A of the RPC would in the facts and circumstances of the case have no application
whatsoever.

The substratum of the offence of sedition under Section 124A of the IPC is the intention with
which the language is used and, in judging the intention, the utterances or the speech made
should be looked at holistically and fairly without giving undue weight to isolated passages.27

25
Indra Das v. State of Assam, (2011) 3 S.C.C. 380; Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam, A.I.R. 2011 S.C. 957.
26
Balwant Singh And Anr vs State Of Punjab 1995 (1) SCR 411
27
Pankaj Butaliavs Central Board of Film Certification WP(C) 675/2015

24
It is humbly submitted that Mr. Mohan was a retired cricketer and had always played for the
Rashtrakutian team. Making a statement to motivate the players is a display of sportsmanship
and such statement neither evoked any response nor any reaction from any one in public.
Thus, the section would not be attracted to the facts and circumstances of this case.

C. FREEDOM OF PRESS

Article 19 (1) (a) of the constitution also provides the right to Freedom of press. This right
further provides the right to express and propagate one’s opinions and ideas. The right to
conduct interviews is also included in the Freedom of press. This right has been recognised
time and again by the courts of Rashtrakuta.

In Prabha Dutt vs Union of India28, the press was seeking to interview prisoners in jail. The
Court held that the press can conduct interviews if the prisoners give their consent.

Venkataramiah J. of the Supreme Court of India in Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay)

(P) Ltd. v. Union of India29 has stated:

“In today’s free world, freedom of the press is the heart of social and political
intercourse. The press has now assumed the role of the public educator making formal
and non-formal education possible on a large scale, particularly in the developing
world, where television and other kinds of modern communication are not still
available for all sections of society. The purpose of the press is to advance the public
interest by publishing facts and opinions without which a democratic electorate
(Government) cannot make responsible judgments. Newspapers being purveyors of
news and views having a bearing on public administration very often carry material
which would not be palatable to Governments and other authorities.”

It is pertinent to mention that Mr. Rangaraj had merely posed a question “Sir, don’t you think
that the Criminal Case filed against you was politically motivated only to demoralize you,
since you are a celebrated political leader from a different political party from that of the
present Government?”

It is humbly submitted that the Hon’ble court had observed the scope of Section 124A of the
RPC in the landmark judgment of Kedarnath vs State of Bihar30, wherein it had been held

28
1982 AIR, 6 1982 SCR (1)1184
29
1986 AIR 515, 1985 SCR (2) 287

25
that Section 124A would not be attracted in the cases where the person has made a very
strong speech or uses very rigorous words in a writing directed to a very strong criticism of
measures of Government or acts of public officials. Statements made in this regard will be
outside the scope of this section.

The statements made by Mr.Rangaraj as mentioned hereinabove, if read in light of principles

emanating from the decision in Kedar Nath Singh and against the backdrop of the
circumstances when they were made, can at best be termed as expression of disapprobation of
actions of the government. They were not made with an intent to incite people or showed
tendency to disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to violence.

It was observed by the Supreme court in the case of Vinod Dua vs. Union of India31that
every Journalist will be entitled to protection in terms of Kedar Nath Singh, as every
prosecution under Sections 124A and 505 of the IPC must be in strict conformity with the
scope and ambit of said Sections as explained in, and completely in tune with the law laid
down in Kedar Nath Singh.

30
1962 AIR 955, 1962 SCR Supl.(2) 769
31
(CRL.) NO.154 OF 2020

26
 PRAYER

Wherefore, in the lights of facts sated, issues raised, authorities cited & arguments
advanced. It is most humbly prayed & implored before this Hon’ble Court, that it may
be graciously pleased to adjudge & declare:-

• Section 124A of the RPC as constitutionally invalid.

• Quash the FIR against Mr. Mohan Singh and Mr.Rangaraj

& Pass any other Order, Direction or Relief that it may deem fit in the Best Interest of
Justice, Fairness, Equity, & Good Conscience.

And for this Act of Kindness, the Petitioners shall duty bound forever pray.

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

TC-

27