FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION – 2018

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DILI

ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION

W. P (CRI.MIISC) ON________OF 2018

IN THE MATTER OF

MR. KRISHNA KUMAR ……………………………………………...PETITIONER

STATE OF NCT DILI …………………………………………….…... RESPONDENT

UPON THE SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND

COMPANION JUSTICE OF

THE HIGH COURT OF DILI

UNDER THE SECTION 482 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE

I
 CNLU FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. TABLE OF CONTENT………………………………………………………………......II
2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ..........................................................................................III-IV
3. LIST OF ABBREVIATION.............................................................................................V
4. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ...............................................................................VI
5. STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................ VII
6. STATEMENT OF ISSUES ............................................................................................VIII
7. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS .....................................................................................IX
8. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED .........................................................................................1-5
9. PRAYER............................................................................................................................6

1. WHETHER THE PETITION FOR QUASHING OF F.I.R IS MAINTAINABLE IN THE

COURT OF LAW. ................................................................................................................................... 1
2. WHETHER THE SPEECH DELIVERED BY KRISHNA KUMAR WAS SEDITIOUS .............. 2
3. WHETHER THERE WERE ANY GROUNDS OF DEFAMATION UNDER SECTION 499 OF
INDIAN PENAL CODE 499 ................................................................................................................... 4
3.1 WHETHER THE STATEMENT FALLS UNDER THE THIRD EXCEPTION OF
S. 499 OF IPC .................................................................................................................. 4
3.2 WHETHER THE PRESENT CASE FALLS UNDER THE AMBIT OF THE
CONSTITUENTS OF DEFAMATION ........................................................................... 4
3.3 WHETHER THE STATEMENT FALLS UNDER THE NINTH EXCEPTION OF
S. 499 OF IPC .................................................................................................................. 5
3.4 WHETHER THE STATEMENT FALLS UNDER THE TENTH EXCEPTION OF
S. 499 OF IPC .................................................................................................................. 5

II
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 CNLU FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2018

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

The Constitution of India, 1950

STATUTES

• Section 124 A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

• Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

TABLES OF CASES

1. Bhajan Lan vs State of Haryana & Ors, SC/0115/1992

2. Subramanian Swami vs Union of Indian & Ors. SC / 0621/2016
3. Gurjatinder Pal Singh vs State of Punjab, PH/2036/2009
4. S. Khusboo vs Kanniammal and Ors, SC /0310/2010
5. Sube Singh & Ors vs State of Haryana & Ors, PH/2804/2013
6. BS Joshi vs State of Haryana, Appeal (crl.) 383 of 2003
7. Shreya Singhal vs Union of India
8. RP Kapur vs State of Punjab 1960 AIR 862
9. CBI vs Ravi Shankar Srivastava, Criminal Appeal 1080-1085 of 2009

10. Kartar Singh vs State of Punjab, 1956/AIR/541/1956/SCR/476

11. Arun Jaitley vs State of Uttar Pradesh, UP 1897/2015
12. Pepsi Foods Ltd & Ors vs Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors, SC/1090/1998
13. Nazir Khan & Ors vs State of Delhi, SC/0622/2003
14. Balwant Singh & Ors vs State of Punjab, SC/0344/1995
15. Karuppusamy v A Natarajan & Ors 1974 CriJ 33
16. Abdul Kadir v Taib Begum, AIR 1957 Mad. 339
17. Kedar Nath v State of Bihar 1962 AIR 955
18. Asim Trivedi vs State of Maharashtra Cri –PIL 3 -2015
19. Vinayak Sen v State of Chhattisgarh, CG/0001/2011

III
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 CNLU FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2018

BOOKS REFERRRED

• Commentaries on Constitution of India, Vol 2 by D. D Basu

• Criminal Law, 9th Edition, by P.S.A. Pillai
• The Code of Criminal Procedure, 20th Edition, By Ratanlal and Dhirajlal
• Indian Penal Code by Prof S.N. Mishra

IV
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
CNLU FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2018

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And

A.I.R. ALL INDIA REPORTER

ANO. ANOTHER

ARB ARBRITRATION

CAL. CALCUTTA

DEL. DELHI

DR. DOCTOR

HON’BLE HONORABLE

KAR. KARNATAKA

ORS. OTHERS

S.C. SUPREME COURT

S.C.C SUPREME COURT CASES

v VERSUS

VOL. VOLUME

V
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 CNLU FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2018

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The petitioner humbly submits to the Jurisdiction of the Hon’ble High Court of Dili, to seek the
quashing of the FIR filed against the Petitioner on the charges of sedition and defamation, as stated in
the Section 124A and Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, respectively.

The counsel on behalf of the petitioner pleads not guilty of sedition and his speech is protected under
the Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India and is within the boundaries of the restrictions imposed as
stated in Article 19 (2) of the constitution of India. The petitioner has not violated any grounds and
have been falsely charged with sedition under Section 124 A of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The counsel pleads not guilty for defamation as stated in Section 499, Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The present memorandum sets forth the facts, contentious and arguments in the present case.

VI
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 CNLU FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2018

STATEMENT OF FACTS

BACKGROUND

Chanakya being a democratic nation, which was under Butish Raj previously, has accepted a
Constitution which has secularism and socialism embedded in it and thus it promotes Equality,
Fraternity, Unity and Integrity amongst the people. The Constitution grants fundamental rights to the
people and all the laws are derived from the Constitution itself.

BEEF BAN: There are mainly two religions, i.e., Sanatans and Mahmuds, with Sanatans in the majority.
Both the religions have their own customs and practices and a practice by the Mahmuds is that of beef
consumption which is prohibited by the Sanatans. The state of Uttam Pradesh has passed a law on beef
ban, i.e., Consumption of Beef (Prohibition) Act which has resulted in a great hue and cry in the nation.
Even after receiving many criticisms, the Parliament has passed a bill on beef ban in the Lok Sabha
which has yet to be passed by the Rajya Sabha.

KRISHNA KUMAR: Krishna Kumar is the President of the Students’ Union of Justice National
University, which is a centrally funded university. and, an aspiring leader of Chanakya with an
influencing personality and had links with prime faces of the opposition party, Indian Secular Party
(ISP). Disturbed by the bill passed, he calls a public gathering outside the JNU campus to protest the
ban. In the speech given by him, he points out the dying ideals of the Constitution and shows the
irrationality of such laws.

SPEECH: Krishna Kumar points out the contradiction between the character and the speeches given
and policies made by the Prime Minister. His mind in a state of unrest because of the policies of the
government which affects the public adversely and thus, the only motive of the protest is to pressurise
the government to put a stay on such laws.

POST SPEECH: There is silence after the speech depicting the sorrow towards the dying ideals of the
Constitution but suddenly a single voice breaks the silence by slogans resulting in a sudden outburst of
anger in the crowd thus leading to a situation of emergency which was subsequently controlled by the
police.

F.I.R LODGED: An F.I.R has been lodged against Krishna Kumar with the charges of sedition and
defamation and he is arrested for the same. He files an appeal in the High Court of Dili under section
482 of Cr.P.C for the quashing of F.I.R claiming he was merely exercising his right of freedom of speech
and expression.

VII
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 CNLU FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2018

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE 1

Whether the petition for quashing of F.I.R is maintainable in the Court of Law.

ISSUE 2

Whether the speech delivered by Krishna Kumar was seditious.

ISSUE 3

Whether there were any grounds of defamation under section 499 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

VIII
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 CNLU FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2018

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

I. That the petition for quashing of F.I.R is maintainable in the Court of Law.
The Counsel on the behalf of the petitioners most humbly submits that the petition for quashing of F.I.R
is maintainable before the Hon’ble Court as the charges against the petitioner are false and baseless and
the petitioner and neither committed on the offence of sedition*, nor was his speech defamatory*. The
petitioner has his rights protected under the Article 19(1) and has not violated the restrictions imposed
though Article 19(2).

II. That the speech delivered by Krishna Kumar was seditious.

The counsel on behalf of the petitioner most humbly submits that the speech given by the petitioner is
not seditious as the motive of the speech given was to pressurise the government for abolishing any
irrational laws which might not be for the public good and is against the spirit of the constitution. A mere
criticism of the government or the policies of the government cannot amount to the crime of sedition. A
mere expression of views which criticize the government without inciting violence cannot amount to the
crime of sedition. The Supreme Court asserted that “making a strong criticism of the government” is not
even defamatory. The court also directed all authorities, including police and trial judges, to follow its
Constitution Bench ruling which stated that only incitement to violence and public disorder could form
the basis of a sedition charge. Thus, the speech made by the petitioner in this case does not amount to
sedition.

III. That there were any grounds of defamation under section 499 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The counsel on behalf of the petitioner most humbly submits that the speech given by the petitioner
cannot amount to defamation as a comparison was made between the Prime Minister’s personal front
and the policies were merely an opinion and a mere opinion of any person cannot amount to defamation
of the other. The speech given by the petitioner cannot amount to defamation as his motive was for the
public good which falls under the various exceptions of section 499 of Indian Penal Code. The Supreme
Court asserted that “making a strong criticism of the government” is not defamation. Thus, proving that
the speech given is not defamatory. Thus, the petitioner cannot be charged with the crime of defamation.

IX
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 CNLU FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2018

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. WHETHER THE PETITION FOR QUASHING OF F.I.R IS MAINTAINABLE IN THE

COURT OF LAW.
According to Black’s dictionary, ‘quash’ means “To overthrow; to abate; to vacate; to annul;
to make void”. In ordinary law terms quash would mean to stop and put an end to the criminal
proceedings, be it at Charge sheet filed stage of F.I.R filed stage. Under the scope of the powers
of High Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a High Court, under
rarest of rare cases, may quash F.I.R/ Charge sheet.1

A petition for quashing of F.I.R can be filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C., either to prevent
abuse of any process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Exercise of such
power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. One of the cases where
such power can be exercised is where the F.I.R or the complaint, even if they are taken at their
face value and accepted to their entirety do not prima constitute any offence or make out a case
against the accused.2 The High Court would exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under s. 482
Cr.P.C where it finds that non-interference shall result in abuse of the process of the Court or
failure of justice, or where grave injustice is shown to have been caused and requires to be
undone.3 If the Court is satisfied that there is great miscarriage of justice or abuse of the process
of the Court or the required statutory has not been compiled with or there is failure of justice,
in that event, it is but the duty of the Court to have it corrected at the inception.4 Where the
criminal proceedings lodged would be mere result in harassment to the petitioner, the
proceedings would be quashed.5

1
Black’s Law Dictionary
2
Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate
3
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Code of Criminal Procedure
4
Sanapareddy Maheedhar Seshwhagiri v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2008
5
Pawan Kumar Bhalotia vs State of West Bengal, 2005
1
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 CNLU FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2018

2. WHETHER THE SPEECH DELIVERED BY KRISHNA KUMAR WAS SEDITIOUS

According to the Section 124 A of the Indian Penal Code “Whoever by words, either spoken,
or written or by signs or by visible representation, or otherwise brings an attempt to bring into
hatred and contempt or excites or attempts to excite dissatisfaction towards the government
established by law in India, shall be punished for the crime of defamation.”

Explanation 1 – The Word disaffection includes disloyalty and all the feeling of enmity.

Explanation 2 – Comments Expressing disapprobation of measures of the government with a

view to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred
or contempt or dissatisfaction, do not constitute and offence under this section.”

In case Kedar Nath vs State of Bihar (AIR 1962, SC/955) of the supreme court held the
constitutionality of the law in the case but narrowed scope of the law to acts involving
intention or tendency to create disorder, or disturbance of law and order, or incitement of
violence. Citizens can criticise the government if they are not inciting people to violence
against the government to create public disorder. Thus, Supreme Court provided an additional
safeguard to the law, not only was the constructive criticism or disapprobation allowed, but if
the speed concerned did not have an intention or tendency to cause violence or disturbance of
law and order, it was permissible. Also in the case of Balwant Singh vs State of Punjab (AIR
/1995/SC/1785) , the apex court held that mere casual raising of some slogans , a couple of
times by the accused persons without intention to incite people to create disorder would
neither constitute any threat of the Government of India nor it gives rise to the feeling of
enmity or hatred among different communities or religious groups. In said circumstances, the
provisions of Sections 124A of the Indian Constitution does not kick in. Also, in the case of
Simranjeet Singh Mann vs State of Punjab (1995 CriLJ 3264), anti – nationalists’ slogans like
“Khalistan Zindabad”, were raised which instigated Dilwan Singh, human bomb who
assassinated the Chief Minister, but were quashed by the court of law.

Also, in case of Gurjinder Pal Singh vs State of Punjab (PH/2036/2009), The Hon’ble High
Court of Punjab and Haryana, quashed the Section 124A of the IPC in an appeal against the
order decided by the district court under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the slogan raised were
like – “Raj Karega Khalsa”

2
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 CNLU FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2018
, “Dhotu kurte ki Sarkar, raj karegi jamuna par”, here in this case the high court quashed the
sedition charges against the appellant and said that since we are living in a democratic country,
everyone has different views about things and people can disagree on certain grounds and
matters, so despite the

slogans raised, it cannot be said that the appellant wanted to overthrow the government
established by law, and mere raising the slogans against the govt. would not amount to a crime
under Section 124 of the IPC, 1860.

The Supreme court of India in the case of Vinayak Sen vs State of Chhattisgarh
(CG/0001/2011), held that, “India is a democratic country, he may be a (Maoist)
sympathizer. That does not make him guilty of sedition.

So , in the present mentioned fact , the petitioner has merely used his freedom of speech and
expression as enshrined by the Indian constitution under article 19(1)(a) and there was no
kind of threat to the sovereignty of the country or any fear to the government established by
law and according to the above citied cases and relatability among them can only prove that
the petitioner’s speech was not attempted to bring any kind of hatred or dissatisfaction to the
present government and was mainly about criticising the policies and laws made by the
Government , everyone has a right. The petitioner in his speech has shown full confidence in
the Constitution and the basic structure of the constitution and in the last lines of the speech,
the petitioner also quoted “The only motive of this protest is to pressurize the government to
put a stay on such laws.”

So, from the above-mentioned facts and cases cited the council humbly submits that the speech
delivered by the petitioner was not seditious and hence the council pleads to quash the charges
on the Petitioner under section 124 A of the IPC.

3
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 CNLU FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2018

3. WHETHER THERE WERE ANY GROUNDS OF DEFAMATION UNDER SECTION 499

OF INDIAN PENAL CODE 499
It is humbly pleaded before the Court of Law that the speech made by the petitioner, Mr.
Krishna Kumar, does not amount to defamation. Defamation is any intentional false
communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation; decreases the
respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile, or
disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person.

3.1 WHETHER THE STATEMENT FALLS UNDER THE THIRD EXCEPTION OF S. 499
OF IPC

The third exception states that- conduct of any person touching any public question.6

The counsel on the behalf of the petitioner humbly submits that the statement made by
the petitioner does not amount to defamation as the as raising the topic of public
question. The public question in here is of the unity of the nation, of the livelihood which
was based on the trade of beef and its related product.

3.2 WHETHER THE PRESENT CASE FALLS UNDER THE AMBIT OF THE
CONSTITUENTS OF DEFAMATION

The essentials required to constitute the offence of defamation are as follows:

• Public figures who seek to prove that they have been defamed must prove an
additional element that in publishing the statement the defendant was acting with
‘actual malice’ (by publishing something they know to be a lie) or at least to have a
total disregard for whether the statement is true or not.

The person about whom the defamatory statement is made must be ‘damaged’ by the
statement. The counsel on the behalf of the petitioner humbly submits that neither of
the given essentials are fulfilled in the given case, i.e., neither there was any malice
intended by the petitioner in the speech and the only motive was to pressurize the
government to put a stay on the law7 nor any damage had been caused to the Prime
Minister. The judgement given in the case of Kartar Singh & Others vs The State of
Punjab

6
Exception third, s 499, IPC,1860
7
Moot Proposition, para 6
4
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 CNLU FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2018

on 26 April 1956 states that the sole question for determination of the presence or
absence is whether the statements (1) undermined the security of the State, friendly
relations with foreign States, public

order, decency or morality or (2) amounted to contempt of Court, defamation or

incitement to an offence prejudicial to the security of the State or maintenance of
public order, or (3) tended to overthrow the State.

3.3 WHETHER THE STATEMENT FALLS UNDER THE NINTH EXCEPTION OF S. 499 OF
IPC
The ninth exception states that imputation made in good faith by person for protection
of his or other’s interests.8

The counsel on the behalf of the petitioner humbly submits that the statement made by
the petitioner does not amount to defamation as it is not defamation to make an
imputation on the character of another, provided that the imputation be made in good
faith for the protection of the interest of the person making it or for the public good.
which is affected by passing the law of beef ban as such laws would go against the
norms of the constitution and would also create a negative impact

3.4 WHETHER THE STATEMENT FALLS UNDER THE TENTH EXCEPTION OF S. 499 OF
IPC

The tenth exception states that caution intended for good of person to whom conveyed
or for public good.9 It is not defamation to convey a caution, in good faith, to one
person against another, provided that such caution be intended for the good of the
person to whom it is conveyed, or of some person in whom that person is interested,
or for the public good. Imputation without publication is not liable to be punished
under that section.10

Those who fill a public position must not be too thin skinned about comments made
upon them. It would often happen that observations would be made upon public 'men

8
Exception ninth, s 499, IPC,1860
9
Exception tenth, s 499, IPC,1860
10
Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1997) 7 Supreme Today 127.
5
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 CNLU FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2018
which they know from the bottom of their hearts were undeserved and unjust; yet they
must bear with them and submit to be misunderstood for a time. Whoever fills a public

position renders himself open thereto. He must accept an attack as a necessary, though
unpleasant, appendage to his office11.

Thus, in the light of the above stated relevant cases and laws it is humbly submitted in
the Court that the offence of defamation has not been committed by the petitioner. Thus,
the counsel on behalf of the petitioner pleads that the charges of defamation are void.

11
Kartar Singh & Others vs The State of Punjab on 26 April 1956

6
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 CNLU FRESHERS’ MOOT COURT COMPETITION- 2018

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the legal precedents and principles cited; and considering the provisions of the
Constitution applied and arguments advanced; it is most humbly pleaded before the Hon’ble Court that
this Court adjudges and declare that:

❖ That the quashing of F.I.R is maintainable in the Court of Law

❖ That the speech delivered by Krishna Kumar does not amount to sedition
❖ That there are no grounds that establishes the offense of defamation under section 499 of Indian
Penal Code, 1860

direction, or relief that it may deem fit in the best interests of justice, fairness, equity and good
conscience. And pass any other order

All of which is Respectfully Submitted

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS

7
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER