TEAM CODE: TB-2

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA

[WRIT, ORIGINAL AND CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION]

IN THE MATTERS OF:-

TOMAR RASHID (...Petitioner) vs. UNION OF INDIANA (...Respondent)

WRIT PETITION No. _______ of 2016.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of Indiana)

WITH

RAMAIYA KUMAR (...Appellant) vs. UNION OF INDIANA (...Respondent)

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. _______ of 2016.
(Under Article 132 of the Constitution of Indiana)

WITH

KAMAL KAPOOR (...Petitioner) vs. UNION OF INDIANA (...Respondent)

WRIT PETITION No. _______ of 2016.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of Indiana)

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

 IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY, DEHRADUN 4th NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2016.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS...........................................................................................................2

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS....................................................................................................3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

 BOOKS AND GUIDELINES REFERRED..................................................................4

 STATUTES INVOLVED..............................................................................................4
 LEGAL DATABASES..................................................................................................5
 TABLE OF CASES........................................................................................................5

STATEMENTS OF JURISDICTION........................................................................................6

STATEMENTS OF FACTS......................................................................................................7

STATEMENTS OF ISSUES...................................................................................................10

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.............................................................................................11

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. WHETHER THE RIGHT TO PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY OF TOMAR RASHID

WAS INFRINGED BY THE STATE?........................................................................12

II. WHETHER THE PROVISION OF SEDITION IS CONSTITUTIONALLY

VALID?........................................................................................................................16

III. WHETHER RAMAIYA KUMAR IS GUILTY OF SEDITION?...............................20

IV. WHETHER SECTION 14A OF THE PRESS COUNCIL ACT, 1978 IS

CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?...............................................................................23

PRAYER..................................................................................................................................29

BIBLIOGRAPHY....................................................................................................................30

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

≈ PAGE NO. 2 ≈
 IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY, DEHRADUN 4th NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2016.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATION DEFINITION

¶ Para

& And

AIR All India Reporter

Art. Article

Co-Op Co-Operative

CPC Code of Civil Procedure

Hon’ble Honorable

i.e. That is

Ltd. Limited

Ors. Others

p. Page

pp. Pages

Pvt. Private

r/w Read with

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

Sec. Section

u/a Under Article

vs. Versus

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

≈ PAGE NO. 3 ≈
 IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY, DEHRADUN 4th NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2016.

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

 BOOKS AND GUIDELINES REFERRED:

S. No. DESCRIPTION

Basu, D.D., “Commentary on the Constitution of India”, (Vol. 9) Lexis Nexis

1.
Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur, 8th Edition 2011.
Basu, D.D., “Law of the Press”, Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur, 5th
2.
Edition 2015.
De, D. J., “Interpretation and Enforcement of Fundamental Rights”, Eastern Law
3.
House, Calcutta, 2010.
Jain, M.P., “Indian Constitutional Law”, (6th Ed, LexisNexis Butterworth Wadhwa,
4.
2010).
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal (Rev. by Justice K.T. Thomas and M.A. Rashid), “The Indian
5.
Penal Code”, 34th Edition, Lexis Nexis 2014.

6. Sathe, S.P., “The Right to Know”, (1991, Tripathi).

Singh, M.P., “V.N. Shukla’s Constitution of India”, Eastern Book Company

7.
Lucknow, 12th Edition 2013.
Vibhute, K.I. (Ed.), “PSA Pillai’s Criminal Law {Incorporating The Criminal Law
8.
(Amendment) Act, 2013}”, 12th Edition, Lexis Nexis 2014.

 STATUTE INVOLVED
S. No. STATUTE/LEGISLATION

1. The Constitution of India, 1950.

2. Indian Penal Code, 1860

3. Press Council Act, 1978

4. The Press Council (Procedure for Inquiry) Regulations, 1979

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

≈ PAGE NO. 4 ≈
 IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY, DEHRADUN 4th NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2016.

 LEGAL DATABASES:
S. No. LEGAL DATABASES

1. Westlaw

2. Manupatra

3. SCC Online

 TABLE OF CASES:

S. No. NAME OF THE CASE CITIED CITATION OF THE CASE PAGE No.

1. Amba Prasad (1897) 20 All 55, 69, FB. 21

2. B. G. Tilak, (1908) 10 Bom LR 848. 21

(1897) 22 Bom 112; 528

3. Bal Gangadhar Tilak, 21
(PC).

4. Emperor vs. Bhasker Bom.L.R. 421. 26

Himat Lal K. Shah vs. Commissioner

5. Gujarat, AIR 1973 SC 87. 14
of Police

6. Kedar Nath vs. State of Bihar A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 160. 17; 26

Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of

7. A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 1804. 25
Kerala

8. Luxman (1899) 2 Bom LR 286. 21

9. Niharendu Majumdar vs. K.E. .(1942) F.C.R 38. 18

Rabindra Nath Ghosal vs. University

10. AIR 2002 SC 3560. 15
of Calcutta and Ors.

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

≈ PAGE NO. 5 ≈
 IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY, DEHRADUN 4th NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2016.

11. Raghubir Singh vs. State of Bihar AIR 1987 SC 149. 21

Railway Board, Representing the

12. AIR 1969 SC 966. 15
Union of India vs. Niranjan Singh

13. S. Sudin vs. Union of India and Ors. LAWS (KER) 2014-10-339. 25

Secretary Ministry of Broadcasting vs.

14. AIR 1995 SC 1236. 14
Cricket Association of Bengal & Ors.

15. Shankar (1910) 12 Bom LR 675. 21

Union of India vs. Naveen Jindal and

16. (2004) 2 SCC 510. 12
Ors.

 IMPORTANT DEFINITIONS:

(1) ‘Petitioner(s)/Appellant’ for the purposes of this memorandum, in the first issue shall
stand for ‘Tomar Rashid, Mr. Kamal Kumar and Ramaiya Kumar’; in the second issue
shall stand for ‘Tomar Rashid’, in the third issue shall stand for ‘Ramaiya Kumar’; in the
fourth issue shall stand for ‘Mr. Kamal Kumar’.
(2) ‘Respondent(s)’ for the purposes of this memorandum stands for ‘The Union of Indiana’.

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

≈ PAGE NO. 6 ≈
 IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY, DEHRADUN 4th NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2016.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

**************
**************

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA HAS JURISDICTION TO TRY,

ENTERTAIN AND DISPOSE THE PRESENT CASE BY VIRTUE OF ARTICLE 321 (1) &
(2) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA, 1960.

***************
***************

ALSO UNDER ARTICLE 132(1)2 SUPREME COURT IS EMPOWERED TO HEAR AN

APPEAL IN THE CASES ADJUDGED BY THE HIGH COURT.

***************
***************

FURTHER ‘RULE 5 AND RULE 6 OF ORDER XLVII’3 OF THE SUPREME COURT

RULES, 1966 ALLOWS THE SUPREME COURT TO HEAR ALL THE PETITIONS
TOGETHER.
***************
***************

1
Art. 32 - 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.

2
Art. 132 - Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in appeals from High Courts in certain cases:
(1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final order of a High Court in the
territory of India, whether in a civil, criminal or other proceeding, if the High Court certifies under Article
134A that the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution.

3
ORDER XLVII - Power to Dispense and Inherent Powers:
(5) Where there are two or more appeals arising out of the same matter, the Court may at any time either on its
own motion or on the application of any party, order that the appeals be consolidated 3[***]. Unless
otherwise ordered by this Court the liability of the parties to pay separate Court-fees shall not be affected
by any order for consolidation.
(6) Nothing in these rules shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers of the Court to make
such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

≈ PAGE NO. 7 ≈
 IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY, DEHRADUN 4th NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2016.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1.Indiana is a federal country with the written Constitution. The pragmatic approach of the
drafters of the Constitution, led to incorporation of certain significance value loaded phrase in
its preamble “sovereign, democratic & republic” which was later supplemented by “secular
& socialist”. The most striking feature of the Constitution is the fundamental rights
guaranteed to the citizens so that they would live a dignified life with less intervention of the
government.
2.New Delporto, being the capital city of state of Indiana has been given special status owing
to which it has its own Government however Union has control over the maintenance of
public order through the Home Ministry.
3.Great Northern University (GNU) is a reputed university in Delporto offering quality
education but at the same time it has a “very active culture of student politics”. Great
Northern University Student Union (GNUSU) is the branch of All India Student Union
(AISU) and has been consistently wining the student council elections since last 10 years due
to which its president has a substantial influence among the member of union.
4.The Indiana Peoples Party (IPP), a newly elected right wing party embarked on an
economic reform mission which looked at the labialization of the economy to bring more
foreign investments. But this idea didn’t go well and country wide protests were held by
GNUSU.
5.On, 8th June, 2016 a countrywide strike was called by the parent body of GNUSU where the
protestors were sitting peacefully on the road but they were alleged of blocking national
highway and lathi charged by the Police. As news of lathi charge broke out the violent
protests were held all across the country especially in Delporto. In Delporto, GNUSU led by
its President Ramaiya Kumar started the movement which later gained political colour.
6.On 16th June, 2016 a rally was organized and some posters which contains the signature of
Ramaiya Kumar were put up across the GNU campus, claiming a rally to be in the solidarity
of the hanging of Chengiz Khan, who belongs to the Makshir & was the main accused in the
terrorist attack at Indiana Parliament in 2006. Makshir was northern-most state which has
always been in an issue of dispute with the Paristan.
7.Since the start of rally protestors were high in energy and enthusiasm as they were shouting
slogans against the governments ‘dictatorship’ and protestors pledged to fight against the

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

≈ PAGE NO. 8 ≈
 IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY, DEHRADUN 4th NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2016.

government, as soon as the rally ended some videos become viral on social media where it
was seen that Ramaiya Kumar in his speech claimed the Mashkir deserved to be independent
and they will seek independence at any cost and soon the government arrested Ramaiya
Kumar and charged with offence of Sedition. The session court sentenced him for one year
imprisonment. He filed an appeal in the High Court of Delporto where he also challenged the
constitutionality of the provision related to Sedition & argued that it is a colonial provision
and has no relevance in an independent nation like Indiana. The Delporto High Court upheld
the order of the session court but issued a certificate under Art. 134A stating that the case
involved substantial questions of law which is to be decided by the Supreme Court.
8.The Ramaiya Kumar’s arrest became a nationwide topic of discussion & the news channels
provided an extensive coverage to the issue. Some of the channels repeatedly telecasted the
speech of Ramaiya Kumar which pours in some sympathy from certain sections of political
and intellectual class of the nation who were ideologically opposed to the IPP.
9.As the monsoon session began, the government amended the Press Councils Act, 1978.
Section 14A was incorporated into the act which read as: “Where, on receipt of a complaint
made to it or otherwise, the Council has reason to believe that a newspaper or news agency
has offended against the sovereignty or integrity of the nation or national interest or that an
editor or working journalist has by their conduct either by written or orally tried to
manipulate public opinion against the sovereignty & integrity of the nation or against the
elected government, the Council may, after giving the newspaper, or news agency, the editor
or journalist concerned an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry in such manner as
may be provided by regulations made under this Act and, if it is satisfied that it is necessary
so to do, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, warn, admonish, censure the
newspaper, the news agency, the editor or the journalist, disapprove the conduct of the editor
or the journalist as the case maybe or may impose a fine not exceeding Rs 10,00,000”
10. Since the passing of the amendment number of newspapers and news channels were
censured & also fined. One of them, Mr. Kamal Kapoor, who is the head of “Indiana 24*7”,
an English news channel, filed a petition in the Supreme Court of Indiana and challenged the
constitutionality of Section 14A of the Press Councils Act, 1978.
11. The Supreme Court of Indiana in the interest of justice clubbed the 3 matters given their
inter connection and listed them for final hearing.

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

≈ PAGE NO. 9 ≈
 IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY, DEHRADUN 4th NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2016.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE I:

WHETHER THE RIGHT TO PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY OF TOMAR

RASHID WAS INFRINGED BY THE STATE?

ISSUE II:

WHETHER THE PROVISION OF SEDITION IS

CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?

ISSUE III:

WHETHER RAMAIYA KUMAR IS GUILTY OF SEDITION?

ISSUE IV:

WHETHER SECTION 14A OF THE PRESS COUNCIL ACT, 1978 IS

CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

≈ PAGE NO. 10 ≈
 IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY, DEHRADUN 4th NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2016.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. WHETHER THE RIGHT TO PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY OF TOMAR

RASHID WAS INFRINGED BY THE STATE?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the right to peaceful assembly of Tomar
Rashid was not infringed by the State because the assembly was an unlawful one, dispersion
of which was necessary to maintain public order.

II. WHETHER THE PROVISION OF SEDITION IS

CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?
The counsel humbly submits before this Hon’ble Court that the provision of sedition is
constitutional as Article 19(2) of the Constitution saves it from the vires of constitutional
invalidity and also it takes care of freedom of speech and expression under its explanations.

III. WHETHER RAMAIYA KUMAR IS GUILTY OF SEDITION?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that Ramaiya Kumar is guilty of sedition as
his conducts fulfilled the essential ingredients of sedition i.e., by his words and visual
representations, he attempted to bring hatred and contempt and excited disaffection in certain
sections of the society, towards the Government established by the law.

IV. WHETHER SECTION 14A OF THE PRESS COUNCIL ACT, 1978

IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?
The counsel humbly submits before this Hon’ble Court that the provision of Sec. 14A of the
Press Council Act, 1978 which was incorporated by the amendment is constitutionally valid
as the words of the Section are clear and unambiguous and the also the amendment made to
the Act was necessary as to the prevailing conditions of the country.

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

≈ PAGE NO. 11 ≈
 IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY, DEHRADUN 4th NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2016.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. WHETHER THE RIGHT TO PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY OF TOMAR

RASHID WAS INFRINGED BY THE STATE?

A. ACTION OF STATE WAS NECESSARY IN PURSUANCE OF THEIR

DUTY TO MAINTAIN ‘PUBLIC ORDER’ AND ‘PUBLIC SAFETY’.

1. The framers of our Constitution, in unambiguous terms, granted the right to freedom of
speech and expression and the right to assemble peaceably and without arms. This gave to the
citizens of this country a very valuable right, which is the essence of any democratic system.
There could be no expression without these rights. Liberty of thought enables liberty of
expression. Belief occupies a place higher than thought and expression. Belief of people rests
on liberty of thought and expression.

2. Art. 19(1)(b) one of the valuable fundamental right guarantees the freedom of assembly to
the people, which reads as:

Art. 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.”
1. Although the right are been recognized in the Constitution however, every right has a
corresponding duty.4 Part III of the Constitution of India although confers rights and duties,
restrictions are inherent thereunder. Art. 19(1)(b) though it recognises and guarantees the
4
Union of India vs. Naveen Jindal and Ors., (2004) 2 SCC 510.

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

≈ PAGE NO. 12 ≈
 IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY, DEHRADUN 4th NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2016.

freedom of assembly. But it is not an absolute right. Restrictions are possible against this
right too, as provided under Art. 19(3)5 and Art. 19(4)6.
2. In the present case a countrywide strike was called by the AISU (All India Students
Union) and during the strike a national highway was blocked by the supporters in Utkal.
Though it has been accepted that the appellant has right to peaceful assembly but this doesn’t
mean that they can obstruct a national highway which is public pathway and take away the
right of other persons to enjoy their freedom of movement enshrined under Art. 19(1)(d).
3. It is to be noted here that a public highway exists for the purpose of free passage only,
and for purposes reasonably incidental to this right. There can be no claim on the part of
persons who desire to assembly for the purpose of holding a meeting to do so on the highway.
The claim is irreconcilable with the purpose for which a highway exists.
4. Further, strike on the national highway itself comes under the ambit of Sec. 268 of the
Indian Penal Code i.e., Public Nuisance.7 and the assembly in this case is to be considered as
an ‘unlawful assembly’ under Sec. 141 of IPC.8
5. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Himat Lal K. Shah vs. Commissioner of Police,
Gujarat, clearly expressed its view in this regards as ‘Public meeting will be a nuisance if it
appreciably obstructs the road.’
5
(3) Nothing in sub clause (b) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it
imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of
India or public order, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause.
6
(4) Nothing in sub clause (c) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it
imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of
India or public order or morality, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub
clause.
7
Sec. 268 IPC - Public nuisance: A person is guilty of a public nuisance who does any act or is guilty of an
illegal omission which causes any common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or to the people in general
who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity, or which must necessarily cause injury, obstruction, danger or
annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use any public right. A common nuisance is not excused on the
ground that it causes some convenience or advantage.
8
Sec. 141 IPC - Unlawful assembly: An assembly of five or more persons is designated an “unlawful
assembly”, if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is -
(First) - To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, 1[the Central or any State Government or
Parliament or the Legislature of any State], or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such
public servant; or
(Second) - To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or
(Third) - To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or
(Fourth) - By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person, to take or obtain possession of
any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other
incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or
(Fifth) - By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not
legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do. Explanation - An assembly which was not
unlawful when it assembled may subsequently become an unlawful assembly.

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

≈ PAGE NO. 13 ≈
 IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY, DEHRADUN 4th NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2016.

6. It further observed that: “The power of the appropriate authority to impose reasonable
regulation in order to assure the, safety and convenience of the people in the use of public
highways has never been regarded as inconsistent with the fundamental right of assembly.”9
7. In this particular case Supreme Court with approval cited the view expressed in
Blackwell’s ‘Law of Meetings’ that “There appears to exist a view that the public has a right
to hold meetings for political and other purposes on the highway. This is an erroneous
assumption. A public highway exists for the purpose of free, passage and free passage only,
and for purposes reasonably incidental to this right. There can be no claim on the part of
persons who desire to assemble for the purpose of holding a meeting to do so on the highway.
The claim is irreconcilable with the purpose for which a highway exists.”10
8. Further in the present case the situation was as such which expedites the State to take an
immediate action and in order to maintain ‘Public Order’ and ‘Public Safety’ which if not
had been taken may leads to the serious law and order problem. Therefore, the police have
taken all sort of care before taking resorts to lathi charge. And also, in case of lathi charge
the action of police cannot be called as to be violative of any right of protestors as police
official were acting under the colour of their office and discharging the public duty entrusted
to them by the law. The Police had acted in good faith and bona fide. Therefore, the action of
the Police cannot be termed as arbitrary, mala fide or violative of the basic rule of law.
9. “Public Safety” was be defined by the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary Ministry of
Broadcasting vs. Cricket Association of Bengal & Ors.11, as a means security of the public or
their freedom from danger. The Court distinguished between “Public Order” and “Public
Safety” and held that public safety was a part of the wider concept of public order.
10. It is not surprising that the Constitution makers conferred a fundamental right on all
citizens 'to assemble peaceably and without arms'. While prior to the coming into force of the
Constitution the right to assemble could have been abridged or taken away by law, now that
cannot be done except by imposing reasonable restrictions within Art. 19(3). But it is urged
that the right to assemble does not mean that that right can be exercised at any and every
place.

9
Himat Lal K. Shah vs. Commissioner of Police, Gujarat, AIR 1973 SC 87.
10
Blackwell’s Law of Meetings (9th Edn. p. 5).
11
Secretary Ministry of Broadcasting vs. Cricket Association of Bengal & Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1236.

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

≈ PAGE NO. 14 ≈
 IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY, DEHRADUN 4th NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2016.

11. This Court held in Railway Board, Representing the Union of India vs. Niranjan Singh12,
that there is no fundamental right for anyone to hold meetings in government premises. It was
observed:
“The fact that the citizens of this country have freedom of speech, freedom to assemble
peaceably and freedom to form associations or unions does not mean that they can exercise
those freedoms in whatever place they please.”
12. Also in the present case petitioner has demanded compensation for the injuries sustained
by him in the course of lathi charge. Here it is to be noted that the action of the State (Police)
was in the discharge of their official duties and it was neither mala fide nor capricious.
Therefore, no compensation can be awarded to the petitioner of his own wrong.
13. In Rabindra Nath Ghosal vs. University of Calcutta and Ors.,13 Supreme Court adopted
as view that:
“The Courts having the obligation to satisfy the social aspiration of the citizens have to apply
the tool and grant compensation as damages in a public law proceeding. Consequently when
the Court moulds the relief in proceedings under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution
seeking enforcement or protection of fundamental rights and grants compensation, it does so
under the public law by way of penalizing the wrongdoer and fixing the liability for the public
wrong on the State which has failed in its public duty to protect the fundamental rights of the
citizens. But it would not be correct to assume that every minor infraction of public duty be
every public officer would be commend the Court to grant compensation in a petition under
Articles 226 and 32 by applying the principle of public law proceeding. The Court in exercise
of extraordinary power under Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution, therefore, would not
award damages against public authorities merely because they have made some order which
turns out to be ultra vires, or there has been some inaction in the performance of the duties
unless there is malice or conscious abuse. Before exemplary damages can be awarded it must
be shown that some fundamental right under Article 21 has been infringed by arbitrary or
capricious action on the part of the public functionaries and that the sufferer was a helpless
victim of that act.”

12
Railway Board, Representing the Union of India vs. Niranjan Singh AIR 1969 SC 966.
13
Rabindra Nath Ghosal vs. University of Calcutta and Ors. AIR 2002 SC 3560.

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

≈ PAGE NO. 15 ≈
 IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY, DEHRADUN 4th NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2016.

In the light of aforementioned observations related to the facts of the case and various
judicial pronouncements, it is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the right to
peaceful assembly of Tomar Rashid was not infringed by the State because the assembly
was an unlawful one, dispersion of which was necessary to maintain public order and in
such circumstances no compensation shall be awarded to him.

II. WHETHER THE PROVISION OF SEDITION IS

CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?

The counsel humbly submits before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the provision of sedition
under Sec. 124A of the Indian Penal Code is constitutionally valid.

A. ARTICLE 19(2) OF THE CONSTITUTION SAVES THE PROVISION

OF SEDITION FROM THE VICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL
INVALIDITY.

1. After the Constitution of Indiana came into operation, the constitutional vires of the
provisions of Sec. 124A of the Indian Penal Code was assailed on the ground that it
contravenes the Freedom of Speech and Expression guaranteed under Art. 19 of the
Constitution. Divergent views were expressed by the Supreme Court of Indiana in Romesh
Thapar vs. State of Madras and Brij Bhusan vs. State of Delhi regarding the scope of Art.
19(2) vis-à-vis the Freedom of Speech and Expression. Subsequently, the Constitution First
(Amendment) Act, 1951 added two words of wide amplitude, namely, ‘in the interest of’ and
‘public order’ in Art. 19(2) dealing with the restriction that can be put through law on the
Freedom of Speech and Expression guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(a).
2. Article 19(2) of the Constitution reads as:
“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

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

≈ PAGE NO. 16 ≈
 IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY, DEHRADUN 4th NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2016.

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.”
The right is subject to such reasonable restrictions as would come within the purview of
clause (2) which comprises:
(a). the security of the State,
(b). friendly relations with foreign States,
(c). public order and,
(d). decency or morality

3. Hence, any acts within the meaning of Sec. 124A which have the effect off subverting the
government by bringing that government into contempt or hatred, or creating disaffection
against it, would be the penal statute because the feeling of disloyalty to the government
established by law or enmity to it imports the idea or tendency to public disorder by the use
of actual violence or incitement to violence. In other words, any written or spoken words,
etc., which have implicit in them the idea of subverting the government by violent means,
which are compendiously included in the term ‘revolution’, have been made penal by the
section in question.
4. The expression ‘in the interest of... public order’ of clause 2 to Art. 19 are words of great
amplitude and are much more comprehensive than the expression for the maintenance of as
observed by this court in the case of Virendra vs. State of Punjab.
5. In the case of Kedar Nath vs. State of Bihar14, Hon’ble Supreme Court recalled that, Art.
19(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees the Freedom of Speech and Expression and Art. 19(2)
allows reasonable restrictions thereon ‘in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of
Indiana, 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’, it
held that any law which is enacted ‘in the interest of public order’ can be saved from the vice
of constitutional invalidity. The Court further observed: “...The security of the State, which
depends upon the maintenance of law and order is the very basic consideration upon which
legislation, with a view to punishing offences against the State, is undertaken. Such

14
Kedar Nath vs. State of Bihar AIR 1962 SC 955.

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

≈ PAGE NO. 17 ≈
 IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY, DEHRADUN 4th NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2016.

legislation has, on the one hand, fully to protect and guarantee the freedom of speech and
expression, which is the sine quo non of a democratic form of Government that our
Constitution has established... But the freedom has to be guarded again becoming a licence
for vilification and condemnation of the Government established by law, in words which
incite violence or have the tendency to create public disorder. A citizen has a right to say or
write whatever he likes about the Government, or its measures, by way of criticism or
comment, so long as he does not incite people to violence against the Government established
by law or with the intention of creating public disorder.”

6. The Supreme Court quoted with approval the judgment of the Federal Court and said that
if the interpretation of the offence of sedition is held in consonance with the views expressed
by the Federal Court in Niharendu Majumdar’s case15, then the law of sedition under Sec.
124A will be within the permissible limits laid down in clause (2) of Art. 19 of the
Constitution. After discussing, with analysis, the thitherto judicial pronouncements on Sec.
124A, the apex court opined that: “...If we accept the interpretation of the Federal Court as
to the gist of criminality in an alleged crime of sedition, namely, incitement to disorder or
tendency or likelihood of public disorder or reasonable apprehension thereof, the section
may lie within the ambit of permissible legislative restrictions on the fundamental right of
freedom of speech and expression...”

7. It is very well established that by the insertion of ‘reasonable restriction’ on the freedom
of speech and expression under Art. 19(2), the provision of sedition is within the
constitutional vires and hence, constitutionally valid.

B. THE PROVISION OF SEDITION TAKES CARE OF THE FREEDOM OF

SPEECH AND EXPRESSION UNDER ITS EXPLANATION.

1. 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 section. Similarly, comments, however,
strongly worded, expressing disapprobation of actions of the Government, without exciting

15
Niharendu Majumdar vs. K.E.(1942) F.C.R 38.

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

≈ PAGE NO. 18 ≈
 IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY, DEHRADUN 4th NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2016.

those feelings which generate the inclination to cause public disorder by acts of violence,
would not be penal.
2. In other words, disloyalty to Government established by law is not the same thing as
commenting in strong terms upon the measures or acts of Government, or its agencies, so as
to ameliorate the condition of the people or to secure the cancellation or alteration of the
those acts or measure by lawful means that is to say, without exciting those feelings of
enmity and disloyalty which imply excitation to public disorder or the use of violence.

The explanations given under Sec. 124A of the Indiana Penal Code for the provision of
Sedition are as follow:

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

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

3. The provisions of the section read as a whole, along with the explanations, make it
reasonably clear that the sections aim at rendering penal only such activities as would be
intended, or have a tendency, to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to
violence. As already pointed out, the explanations appended to the main body of the section
make it clear that criticism of public measures or comment on Government action, however
strongly worded, would be within reasonable limits and would be consistent with the
fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression. It is only when the words, written or
spoken, etc. which have the pernicious tendency or intention of creating public disorder or
disturbance of law and order that the law steps in to prevent such activities in the interest of
public order. So construed, the section, in our opinion, strikes the correct balance between
individual fundamental rights and the interest of public order.

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

≈ PAGE NO. 19 ≈
 IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY, DEHRADUN 4th NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2016.

4. Hence, with the due respect the counsel would like to establish before the Hon’ble Court
that the provision of Sedition when read with the explanations takes care of the freedom of
speech and expression under Art. 19.

Therefore, in the light of for the aforementioned reasons the provision of Sedition is well-
within the mandates of permissible Constitutional schemes and hence is constitutionally
valid.

III. WHETHER RAMAIYA KUMAR IS GUILTY OF SEDITION?

The counsel humbly submits before this Hon’ble Court that Ramaiya Kumar is guilty of
sedition as his conducts fulfilled all the essential ingredients of sedition and hence come
under the provision of sedition.

1. The provision of sedition under Section 124A of the Indiana Penal Code read as:
‘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 Indiana, 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.’
A. ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF SEDITION:
Sec. 124A of IPC requires two essentials:
 Bringing or attempting to bring into hatred or contempt, or exciting or attempting to
excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India:
Necessary ingredients to attract punishment under Sec 124A of IPC appears to be the effort
of bringing or attempting to bring into hatred or contempt or excite or attempt to excite
disaffection towards the government established by law in India. 16 The offence does not
consist in exciting or attempting to excite mutiny or rebellion, or any sort of actual

16
Asit Kumar Sen Gupta vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2012 (NOC) Cr LJ 348 (Chh).

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

≈ PAGE NO. 20 ≈
 IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY, DEHRADUN 4th NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2016.

disturbance, great or small. Whether any disturbance or outbreak was caused by the
publication of seditious articles is absolutely immaterial. If the accused tried to excite feelings
of hatred or contempt towards the Government, that is sufficient to make him guilty under
this section.17 However, the law steps in, when this inner feeling of hatred or contempt
excites or has tendency to excite disaffection against the Government.18
 Such act or attempt may be done by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by
visible representations, or otherwise
As per Section 124A, the manner in which seditious activities can be carried out is by words,
either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representation, or otherwise. The terms
‘words’ and ‘signs’ present no difficulty in understanding. The next term ‘visible
representation’ is not defined, but it really means any form of communication which is visible
to the eye. It includes pictures or dramatic performances. The next words ‘or otherwise’
indicate the universality of the means by which the offence may be committed. Distribution
or circulation of seditious material will also constitute an offence.19

B. PRESENCE OF ALL ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF SEDITION IN THE

PRESENT CASE:
1. In the present case, all the above mentioned essential ingredients of Sedition have been
covered by the conducts of Ramaiya Kumar.
2. Following the facts of the case, first of all, posters claiming the rally to be in solidarity of
the hanging of a terrorist, Changiz Khan, who was found to be the main accused in a terrorist
attack at the Indiana Parliament, were put across the campus of GNU had the signature of
Ramaiya Kumar. So it is clear from this that by going against the hanging of a terrorist and
organizing a rally against the government, Ramaiya Kumar was attempting to bring into
contempt towards the government established by law.
3. Not only this, the rally was organised by GNUSU and Ramaiya Kumar being the
President of GNUSU had a substantive influence among the other members of the union. As
the rally began, the protestors began to shout against the Government and pledged to fight

17
Bal Gangadhar Tilak, (1897) 22 Bom 112; 528 (PC); B. G. Tilak, (1908) 10 Bom LR 848; Amba Prasad,
(1897) 20 All 55, 69, FB; Luxman, (1899) 2 Bom LR 286; Shankar, (1910) 12 Bom LR 675.
18
(1906) Cr LJ 1 (Bom).
19
Raghubir Singh vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 149.

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

≈ PAGE NO. 21 ≈
 IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY, DEHRADUN 4th NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2016.

against the Government till the date. At that time, Ramaiya Kumar was also there and as
being the President, was leading the rally and all these anti-government slogans were raised
under his leadership. And instead of handling the situation, he himself made statements
against the government. In his speech, Ramaiya Kumar claimed that Mashkir deserved to be
independent and they will seek independence at any cost. This statement evidently reflects
the tendency to excite hatred and disaffection against the government as he is trying to make
the point that their separatist demand is not at all considered by the Government and they are
not all in favour of doing justice with Mashkir and hence they will seek their so called
‘justice’ at any cost, whether by legal means or by the means which separatist leaders like
Chengiz Khan adopted.
4. Also when people came to hear his speech after the telecast, sympathies began to pour
in. And sympathies in favour of the conducts of Ramaiya Kumar against the government
clearly mean that he has been able to excite disaffection against the government established
by the law in certain sections of the society. Hence, considering the above facts and the acts
and conducts of Ramaiya Kumar, it is clearly evident that Ramaiya Kumar has fulfilled the
first essential ingredient of sedition.
5. Also following the same facts, the posters which were put across the campus of GNU
which claimed that the rally was also in solidarity of the hanging of Changiz Khan and had
the signature of Ramaiya Kumar, are visible representations to bring or attempt to bring into
hatred or contempt, or excite or attempt to excite disaffection towards the Government estab-
lished by law.
6. The seditious speech given by Ramaiya Kumar during the progression of the rally is
clearly the ‘spoken words’ covered under the Section 124A, to bring or attempt to bring into
hatred or contempt, or excite or attempt to excite disaffection towards the Government estab-
lished by law. Hence, considering the above facts, it is clearly evident that Ramaiya Kumar
has also fulfilled the second essential ingredient of sedition.
Therefore, in the light of for the aforementioned reasons and facts, it is clearly evident that
Ramaiya Kumar is liable for Sedition.

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

≈ PAGE NO. 22 ≈
 IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY, DEHRADUN 4th NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2016.

IV. WHETHER SECTION 14A OF THE PRESS COUNCIL ACT, 1978

IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?

The counsel humbly submits before this Hon’ble Court that the provision amendment of
Section 14A which was incorporated into the Press Councils Act, 1978 is constitutionally
valid.

A. THE AMENDMENT MADE TO SECTION 14A WAS NECESSARY AS TO THE

PREVAILING CONDITIONS IN THE COUNTRY:

1. The newly incorporated Sec. 14A of the Press Councils Act, 1978 is constitutionally valid
as it provides for the reasonable restrictions which flow from the Art. 19(2) of the
Constitution of Indiana. The provision incorporated is as hereunder:
2. “Where, on receipt of a complaint made to it or otherwise, the Council has reason to
believe that a newspaper or news agency has offended against the sovereignty or integrity of
the nation or national interest or that an editor or working journalist has by their conduct
either by written or orally tried to manipulate public opinion against the sovereignty &
integrity of the nation or against the elected government, the Council may, after giving the
newspaper, or news agency, the editor or journalist concerned an opportunity of being heard,
hold an inquiry in such manner as may be provided by regulations made under this Act and,
if it is satisfied that it is necessary so to do, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing,
warn, , admonish, censure the newspaper, the news agency, the editor or the journalist,
disapprove the conduct of the editor or the journalist as the case maybe or may impose a fine
not exceeding Rs 10,00,000”
3. In the present case a protest against the policy decision of the government becomes a
wide spread issue in the country. From the very beginning since the strike was called and an
incident of lathi charge took place the conduct of media was quite questionable. A simple
issue of dispersion of an Unlawful Assembly in the Union Territory of Utkal becomes a
nationwide problem and movement started all across the country. Even the political colours
were added to it and persons like Ramaiya Kumar exploited this opportunity to adhere their

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

≈ PAGE NO. 23 ≈
 IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY, DEHRADUN 4th NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2016.

liberal separatist ideology which was in contravention of ‘Sovereignty and Integrity of

Indiana’.
4. Role of Media which is considered to be the one of the pillars of democracy in this regard
is so irresponsible that the video of the rally which was recorded by certain news agencies
became viral and after the arrest of the Ramaiya Kumar all news channels, instead of dealing
with such crucial issues with great care and caution dived into the phenomena of giving
extensive coverage and repeatedly telecasted the speech of Ramaiya Kumar. This whole issue
compels the government to take an immediate action so as to put a check on the freedom of
media which till now enjoyed absolute freedom.
5. It is to be noted here that the fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution itself being
made subject to reasonable restrictions, the laws so enacted to specify certain restrictions on
the right to freedom of speech and expression have to be construed meaningfully and with the
constitutional object in mind. Here, the words ‘Sovereignty or Integrity of Nation’ directly
been prescribed under Art. 19(2), as one of the eight specific grounds for regulating the
freedom of speech and expression.
6. As per the Art. 19(2) the state can impose ‘reasonable restrictions’ (i) in interest of
‘sovereignty and integrity of India’, (ii) in the interest of ‘unity of the state’ (iii) in the interest
of ‘friendly relations with foreign States’, (iv) in the interest of ‘public order’ (v) in the
interest of ‘decency or morality’ (vi) in relation to ‘contempt of court’ (vii) in relation to
‘defamation’ and (viii) in relation to ‘incitement to an offence.’20
7. The operation of the ‘reasonable restriction’ may be through any existing law or the laws
to be made by the State. The second observation was that: “A look at the grounds in Art. 19
(2) of the Constitution, in the interest of which law can be made placing reasonable
restrictions upon the freedom of speech and expression goes to show that they are all
conceived in the national interest as well as in the interest of the society. The first of the
grounds viz. the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, friendly relations
with foreign states and public order are grounds referable to national interest whereas the

20
“Article 19 - Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc. - (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.”

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

≈ PAGE NO. 24 ≈
 IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY, DEHRADUN 4th NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2016.

second set off grounds viz., decency, morality, contempt of court, defamation and incitement
to offence are conceived in the interest of the society.”
8. S. Sudin vs. Union of India and Ors.,21has observed that: “...it has to be remembered that
the freedom of press is not absolute, unlimited and unfettered at all times and in all
circumstances as giving an unrestricted freedom of speech and expression would amount to
an uncontrolled licence. If it were wholly free even from reasonable restraints it would lead
to disorder and anarchy. The freedom is not to be misunderstood as to be a press free to
disregard its duty to be responsible. In fact, the element of responsibility must be present in
the conscience of the journalists. In an organized society, the rights of the press have to be
recognized with its duties and responsibilities towards the society...”
9. Freedom of speech and expression assured by the Constitution does not include speaking
anything. Broadcasting may contain programmes which may incite to commit offences. The
term offence is a wide one. It may be any offence mentioned in Indian Penal Code. In State of
Bihar vs. Sailabala Devi it was held that to murder or other violent crime would generally
endanger the security of the State; therefore the restriction against such incitement would be a
valid law under clause (2) of Article 19.

10. It is to be noted here that not only Print Media even Electronic Media which comes under
the ambit of the ‘News Agency’ as far as the matter of Press Council Act, 1978 are concerned,
plays a crucial role in maintaining the sovereignty and integrity of every nation in the
contemporary world. Sovereignty means the supreme authority of the State.22 By virtue of the
provisions in the Preamble India is a Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic. India
can make or unmake decisions with respect to the country without the authority or
interference of any other country.23

11. Sec. 124A of Indian Penal Code, which relates with the offence of Sedition, is applicable
to Electronic Media also. The wordings of the section says that: “Whoever by words, either

21
S. Sudin vs. Union of India and Ors. LAWS (KER) 2014-10-339.
22
In political theory, the ultimate overseer, or authority, in the decision-making process of the state and in the
maintenance of order. The concept of sovereignty, one of the most controversial ideas in political science and
international law, is closely related to the difficult concepts of state and government, of independence and
democracy. Originally, as derived from the Latin term superanus through the French term souveraineté,
sovereignty was meant to be the equivalent of supreme power.
23
Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 1804.

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

≈ PAGE NO. 25 ≈
 IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY, DEHRADUN 4th NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2016.

spoken or written, 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 for life, to which fine may be added or with
imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine.”

12. Any broadcasted material containing any contemptuous or hatred breeding or capable of
exciting disaffection material which may detrimentally act against the state it will attract the
penal provisions. In a case the Bombay High Court had observed that: ‘Hatred is explained
as a passion which every wise and good man endeavours to check in himself. Hatred didn’t
do any good. It can only do harm and if unchecked would tend to disruption of social ties and
return of barbarism. With feeling of hatred the law can do nothing because it cannot see into
the heart and cannot reform it, but law does step in when any attempt is made to excite that
feeling in others, and it does so as much for protection of the individual as for the protection
of the state. If it is the individual against whom hatred is excited the offence is described as
defamation, and the law extends similar protection to the collective body which is called the
Government and which represents community as a whole; and whose duty it is to perform the
functions of preserving order and peace, which are essential to the beneficent co-operation of
human beings and to the enjoyment and safety of life and property.24
13. The term disaffection means a feeling contrary to affection and includes disloyalty and
all feelings of enmity. The term came for discussion in Kedar Nath vs. State of Bihar25 the
court held: “The security of the State, which depends upon the maintenance of law and order,
is the very basic consideration upon which legislation with a view to punishing offences
against the state is undertaken. Such legislation has on the one hand fully to protect and
guarantee the freedom of speech and expression, which is the sine qua non of the democratic
form of Government that our Constitution has established. But, the freedom has to be
guarded against becoming a license to vilification and condemnation of the Government
established by law, in other words which incite violence or have a tendency to create public
disorder. A citizen has right to say or write whatever he likes about the Government or its
measures, by way of criticism or comment, so long as he does not incite people to violence
against the Government established by law or with the intention of creating public disorder.”

24
Emperor vs. Bhasker Bom.L.R. 421.
25
Kedar Nath vs. State of Bihar A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 160.

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

≈ PAGE NO. 26 ≈
 IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY, DEHRADUN 4th NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2016.

14. The legal control over electronic media in India is principally the Sovereign State
control.26 The term 'State' as defined in the Art. 12 of the Constitution of India covers four
levels of the government; the parliament, the States, the local bodies and other authorities
within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India. The state
authority is exercised through the three chambers of the government .the legislature,
executive and judiciary. The state as a regulator over the media can act through any of these
three branches of the state. The developed countries have a mixed system of control with
voluntary, professional as well as state controls but in developing countries it is quite
impossible. Thus a restriction imposed by the Sec. 14A of the Press Council Act, 1978 is a
valid law.

B. THE WORDS OF SECTION 14A OF THE PRESS COUNCIL ACT, 1978 WAS
CLEAR & UNAMBIGUOUS:

1. The words which are used in the Sec. 14A of the Press Council Act, 1978 was quite clear
and self-explanatory. Though on some places ambiguity may arise because as to the
difference in the interpretation of the words. Legislature has tried to define all the necessary
words to the best possible extent in definition clause appended under the Press Council Act,
1978 and also in the Press Council (Procedure for Inquiry) Regulations, 1979. Still in case of
any ambiguity one may take resorts to the Judiciary in order to resolve and clarify it.
2. Here, as to the interpretation of the word ‘Otherwise’ is concerned, it gives the power to
the council to take cognizance of the matter ‘sue-moto’. In this regards Regulation 13 was
incorporated under the Press Council (Procedure for Inquiry) Regulations, 1979, which reads
as: “13. Power to take suo moto action: The Chairman may suo moto issue notice or, as the
case may be, take action in respect of any matter which falls within the mischief of Sec. 14(1)
of the Act or in respect of or relating to any matter falling under Sec. 13(2) thereof and
thereupon the procedure prescribed by these regulations from Regulation 5 onwards shall be
followed as if it were a complaint under Regulation 3.”

It is by virtue of 7th Schedule List I - Entry 31: ‘Posts and telegraphs; telephones, wireless, broadcasting
26

and other like forms of communication.’

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

≈ PAGE NO. 27 ≈
 IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY, DEHRADUN 4th NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2016.

3. Also the word ‘Sovereignty and Integrity of the Nation’ is directly been prescribed under
Art. 19(2), as one of the eight specific grounds for regulating the freedom of speech and
expression.
4. The word ‘National Interest’ in although has not been defined but its general meaning
connotes the meaning as to best suits to the ‘interest of whole nation’. Under Art. 24927 of the
Constitution of Indiana, Parliament have been empowered to make law in respect of State
List if it is necessary or expedient in the national interest. National Interest incorporates the
word ‘National Security’ and ‘National Integrity’.

Therefore, in the light of aforementioned observations related to the facts of the case and
various judicial pronouncements, it is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that Sec.
14A of the Press Council Act, 1978 which was incorporated by the amendment is
constitutionally valid.

27
Art. 249 - Power of Parliament to legislate with respect to a matter in the State List in the national
interest.
(1) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, if the Council of States has declared
by resolution supported by not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting that it is necessary or
expedient in the national interest that Parliament should make laws with respect to any matter enumerated
in the State List specified in the resolution, it shall be lawful for Parliament to make laws for the whole or
any part of the territory of India with respect to that matter while the resolution remains in force.
(2) A resolution passed under clause (1) shall remain in force for such period not exceeding one year as may be
specified therein: Provided that, if and so often as a resolution approving the continuance in force of any
such resolution is passed in the manner provided in clause (1), such resolution shall continue in force for a
further period of one year from the date on which under this clause it would otherwise have ceased to be in
force.
(3) A law made by Parliament which Parliament would not but for the passing of a resolution under clause (1)
have been competent to make shall, to the extent of the incompetency, cease to have effect on the expiration
of a period of six months after the resolution has ceased to be in force, except as respects things done or
omitted to be done before the expiration of the said period.

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

≈ PAGE NO. 28 ≈
 IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY, DEHRADUN 4th NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2016.

PRAYER

In light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, reasons given and authorities cited it is
most humbly and respectfully requested that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to adjudge
and declare on behalf of Union of Indiana that:

1. The Right to Life & Personal Liberty and Right to Peaceful assembly of Tomar
Rashid were not infringed by the State.
2. The Provision of Sedition is constitutionally valid.
3. Ramaiya Kumar is guilty of sedition and upheld his conviction.
4. The newly incorporated Sec. 14A of the Press Council Act, 1978 is intra-vires to the
Constitution and hence constitutionally valid.

AND/OR

Pass any other Order, Direction, or Relief that it may deem fit in the Best Interests of Justice,
Fairness, Equity and Good Conscience.
For this Act of Kindness, the Respondents as in duty bound, shall forever pray.

The Respondent

Sd/-

.................................

(COUNSELS FOR THE RESPONDENT)

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

≈ PAGE NO. 29 ≈
 IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY, DEHRADUN 4th NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2016.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

STATUTE/LEGISLATION:
 The Constitution of India, 1950.
 Indian Penal Code, 1860.
 Press Council Act, 1978.
 The Press Council (Procedure for Inquiry) Regulations, 1979.

LIST OF BOOKS:
 Basu, D.D., “Commentary on the Constitution of India”, (Vol. 9) Lexis Nexis
Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur, 8th Edition 2011.
 Basu, D.D., “Law of the Press”, Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur, 5th
Edition 2015.
 De, D. J., “Interpretation and Enforcement of Fundamental Rights”, Eastern Law
House, Calcutta, 2010.
 Jain, M.P., “Indian Constitutional Law”, (6th Ed, LexisNexis Butterworth Wadhwa,
2010).
 Ratanlal & Dhirajlal (Rev. by Justice K.T. Thomas and M.A. Rashid), “The Indian
Penal Code”, 34th Edition, Lexis Nexis 2014.
 Sathe, S.P., “The Right to Know”, (1991, Tripathi).
 Singh, M.P., “V.N. Shukla’s Constitution of India”, Eastern Book Company
Lucknow, 12th Edition 2013.
 Vibhute, K.I. (Ed.), “PSA Pillai’s Criminal Law {Incorporating the Criminal Law

(Amendment) Act, 2013}”, 12th Edition, Lexis Nexis 2014.

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

≈ PAGE NO. 30 ≈