SANDESH FARMER MORCHA v. UNION OF INDIKA & Anr.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1

ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..2

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….3

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….5

STATEMENT OF FACTS……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………6

STATEMENT OF ISSUES…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..8

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..9

ISSUE I: WHETHER THE WRIT IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT
and THE SLP FOR REJECTION OF BAIL IS MAINTAINABLE?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………9

ISSUE II : WHETHER SECTION 124A OF THE IPC IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID OR NOT?……………..….10

ISSUE III: WHETHER THE REJECTION OF THE BAIL BY THE HIGH COURT IS JUSTIFIED OR NOT

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….….…11

ISSUE I: WHETHER THE WRIT IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……..…..11

ISSUE II : WHETHER SECTION 124A OF THE IPC IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID OR NOT?……..…………..14

ISSUE III: WHETHER THE REJECTION OF THE BAIL BY THE HIGH COURT IS JUSTIFIED OR NOT?…...….19

PRAYER……………………………...…..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……..21

1
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
SANDESH FARMER MORCHA v. UNION OF INDIKA & Anr.

ABBREVIATIONS

Anr. Another

Art. Article

A.I.R. All India Reporter

Ed. Edition

Govt. Government

Hon’ble Honourable

I.C. International convention

NGO Non- governmental organization

Ors Others

PIL Public Interest Litigation

S.C Supreme Court

S.C.C. Supreme Court Cases

St. State

U/A Under Article

U.O.I Union Of India

Vs. Versus

W.P. Writ Petition

W.E.F. With Effect From

& And

2
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 SANDESH FARMER MORCHA v. UNION OF INDIKA & Anr.

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

TABLE OF CASES:

1. Chiranjit Lal Chowdhary v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 41.

2. Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, AIR 1963 SC 996
3. State of Bombay V. United motors Ltd, AIR 1953 SC 252
4. K.K. Kouchunni V. State of Madras,AIR 1959 SC 725
5. HarbansalSahnia V. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, AIR 2003 SC 2120
6. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149.
7. D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, 1987 AIR 579
8. Kishorechandra Wangkhemcha v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 609.
9. Ram Nandan v. State of UP, AIR 1959 All 101
10. Balwant Singh and Anr v. State of Punjab,1995 (1) SCR 411.,
11. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, AIR 2015 SC 1523
12. Kanhaiya Kumar v. the State of Delhi, MANU/DE/0498/2016,
13. Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, 1950 AIR 124
14. [Sabir Raza v. The State, Cri App No. 1434 of 1955, D/- 11-2-1958 (All) (Zl)]
15. Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1931 All 504.
16. P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) SCC OnLine SC 1549.
17. Hitesh Gandhi v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2020) SCC OnLine HP 1416.
18. Pramod Chandra v. State, 1969 Cri LJ 1534
19. Kishan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1960 Cri LJ 850
20. Ngangom Iboton Singh v. State, 1969 Cri LJ 128.
21. M.P. Jauaraj v. State, 1977 Cri LJ 1724; M.P. Ramesh v.State, 1991 Cri LJ 1298;
22. Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528.
23. Zakir Hussain v. UT of Ladakh through DGP & Ors., (2020) SCC OnLine J&K 484.
24. Suthenthiraraja v. State, AIR 1999 SC 3700: (1999) 9 SCC 323

3
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 SANDESH FARMER MORCHA v. UNION OF INDIKA & Anr.

STATUTES, RULES & REGULATIONS:

 The Constitution of India, 1950

 The Indian Penal Code, 1860

DATABASES AND WEBSITES REFERRED:

 Indiankanoon.org - search engine for Indian laws and court judgments

 Livelaw.in – All About Law
 Barandbench.com – Indian Legal news
 Latestlaws.com - Helping good people to do good things
 Sci.gov.in - Supreme Court of India
 Indiacode.nic.in – Digital Repository of all Central and State Acts
 eCourts.gov.in – Electronic Courts Mission Mode Project
 Judis.nic.in - Judgments Information system
 Lobis.nic.in - Judgments Information system

BOOKS REFERRED:

 V. N Shukla’s Constitution of India (Thirteenth Edition) Eastern Book Company, Lucknow

 Batuk Lal The Law of Penal Code (Twenty Second Edition) Central Law A  Central Law

Agency, 2018

 Glanville Williams, Text Book Of Criminal Law,( 2nd Edition,Universal Law Publishing,

1999)

 P.M.Bhakshi, Constitution of India, 17th Edition,2020

4
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 SANDESH FARMER MORCHA v. UNION OF INDIKA & Anr.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Appellants humbly submit to the Honorable Supreme Court under Article 32 and 136 of the
Constitution.

Article 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
(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.

Article 136: Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court

(1)  Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant
special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or
matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India
(2)  Nothing in clause ( 1 ) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order passed or
made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.”

The present memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments.

5
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 SANDESH FARMER MORCHA v. UNION OF INDIKA & Anr.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

 Union of Indika is a Democratic Country. Some group of individuals in this country are
protesting against the certain farm laws passed by the parliament. One Association by name
Sandesh Farmer Morcha (SFM) came forward to help the protestor. The said association
which came forward to support protestor has large network throughout the country. The said
association formed different social media groups on Wazzapp and Friendsbook to help the
protestors.

 On one day members of said association had post their views on social media about
constitutional validity of the Farm Law and pursuant to this certain members of the said
association expressed their critical views about the government and because of this agitation
& riots started all over the country against the government. The social media posts of the said
association were brought before Ruling party by some people and it reached up to some of
the Ministers. Therefore, an urgent cabinet meeting was called in order to ban these kinds of
online activities in the country. In the meeting a resolution was passed for banning these
kinds of activities in exercise of the power conferred by the Information Technology Act,
which talks about Monitoring and Decryption of Information.

 Some members of said associations were arrested and investigated by police stating that they
are disseminating false information about the law passed by the government with the purpose
of instigating people against the government and their phones, computers and laptops were
seized by authorities stating it forms part of investigation.

 The Government also authorized its securities and intelligence Agencies for the purpose of
interception; monitoring and decryption of any information generated, transmitted, received
or stored in any computer resources. The Members of the said association found to have
propagated such information and they were charged with sections 120B, 124A and 153A of
Indika Penal code and their Anticipatory Bail Application were rejected by the High court.

6
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 SANDESH FARMER MORCHA v. UNION OF INDIKA & Anr.

 The Said Association argued that it is the ultimate assault on fundamental rights and the right
to privacy. That pursuant to this the said Associations filed Writ petition by challenging the
validity of the order passed by the Home Ministry of Indika, Constitutional validity of section
124-A of Indika Penal code, and against the order of rejection of bail application before
Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indika.

7
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 SANDESH FARMER MORCHA v. UNION OF INDIKA & Anr.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE I: WHETHER THE WRIT FILED BY SANDESH FARMER

MORCHA AND THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FOR THE
REJECTION OF BAIL APPLICATION IS MAINTAINABLE?

ISSUE II: WHETHER SECTION 124A OF THE IPC IS

CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID OR NOT?

ISSUE III: WHETHER THE REJECTION OF THE BAIL BY THE HIGH

COURT IS JUSTIFIED OR NOT?

8
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 SANDESH FARMER MORCHA v. UNION OF INDIKA & Anr.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE I: WHETHER THE WRIT FILED BY SANDESH FARMER

MORCHA AND THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FOR THE
REJECTION OF BAIL APPLICATION IS MAINTAINABLE?
It is humbly submitted that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court can be invoked under Article
32 of the constitution for the violation of Fundamental rights guaranteed under Part – III of the
constitution. The main objective of Art. 32 is the enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed
by the Constitution of India. The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court can be invoked in
any case of violation of fundamental rights guaranteed by part III of the Constitution of India as
it has been previously observed in the case of v. Chiranjit Lal Chowdhary Union of India1
amongst the many other. Also, in the right to approach this Hon'ble Court in case of violation of
fundamental rights is itself a fundamental right enshrined in Art. 32. Further, in the present case,
the members of the association have don’t nothing but have just expressed their views on the
impending nature of things and they were merely arrested for the same, and it is humbly
requested that it is the gross injustice and hence, in such a situation it attracts Article 136 of the
Constitution.

ISSUE II: WHETHER SECTION 124A OF THE IPC IS

CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID OR NOT?

It is humbly submitted before the honourable court that Section 124A of the IPC is
unconstitutional. In India, the sedition law was introduced by the United Kingdom, but the UK
itself did not make any sedition charges against any person between 1972 and 2009. In the end,
the UK abolished the sedition law completely in 2009. The Supreme Court of India, in the case
of Kishorechandra Wangkhemcha v. Union of India (2021), that would discuss the validity of
Section 124A, which criminalizes sedition. In connection with posts and cartoons that were
posted on social media platforms, two journalists, Kishorechandra Wangkhemcha and Kanhaiya
Lal Shukla have been accused of committing sedition in India. They have filed a writ petition

1
Chiranjit Lal Chowdhary v. Union of India AIR 1951 SC 41.

9
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 SANDESH FARMER MORCHA v. UNION OF INDIKA & Anr.

challenging the constitutional validity of Section 124A, which criminalizes and punishes
sedition. The Court has thus put sedition law on hold.

ISSUE III: WHETHER THE REJECTION OF THE BAIL BY THE HIGH

COURT IS JUSTIFIED OR NOT?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the High Court has erroneously rejected
the bail application and has not appreciated the basic rule laid down by this Court that ‘grant of
bail is the rule and its denial is the exception’. Therefore, the petitioners is ought to be released
on bail.

10
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 SANDESH FARMER MORCHA v. UNION OF INDIKA & Anr.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE I: WHETHER THE WRIT FILED BY SANDESH FARMER MORCHA AND

THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FOR THE REJECTION OF BAIL APPLICATION
IS MAINTAINABLE?
The present writ petitions are filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India is maintainable.
From reading of Art. 32, it is manifested that clause 1(i) of Art. 32 guarantees the right to move
to the Supreme Court for an appropriate writ for the purpose of enforcing the Fundamental
Rights included in Part-III of the Constitution. The sole object of Article 32 is the enforcement of
Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution. It follows that no question other than
relating to the Fundamental Right will be determined in a proceeding under Article 32 of the
Constitution.

In the case of Chiranjit Lal Chowdhury vs. Union of India, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed
that: “The Writ Jurisdiction of Supreme Court can be invoked under Art. 32 of the Constitution
for the violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part-III of the Constitution. The sole
objective of Art. 32 is the enforcement of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution
of Indiana. The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court can be invoked in any case of
violation of the fundamental right guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution of India.”

It is humbly submitted that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court can be invoked under Article
32 of the constitution for the violation of Fundamental rights guaranteed under Part – III of the
constitution. The main objective of Art. 32 is the enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed
by the Constitution of India. The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court can be invoked in
any case of violation of fundamental rights guaranteed by part III of the Constitution of India as
it has been previously observed in the case of Chiranjit Lal Chowdhary v. Union of India 2
amongst the many other. Also, in the right to approach this Hon'ble Court in case of violation of
fundamental rights is itself a fundamental right enshrined in Art. 32.

In Prem Chand Garg, it was held that this right is absolute and may not be impaired on any
ground.3 The constitution makes have conferred on the Supreme Court the power to issue writs

2
Chiranjit Lal Chowdhary v. Union of India AIR 1951 SC 41.
3
Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, AIR 1963 SC 996

11
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 SANDESH FARMER MORCHA v. UNION OF INDIKA & Anr.

for the time efficient and speedy enforcement of fundamental rights and has made the right to
approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights. The fundamental rights
provided in the Indian Constitution are guaranteed against any executive and legislative actions.
Any executive or legislative action, which supposedly infringes upon the Fundamental Rights of
any person or any group of persons, can be declared as void by the Courts under Article 14 of the
Constitution.

By including Article 32 in the Fundamental rights, the Supreme Court has been made the
protector and the guarantor of these rights. Also, a Public Interest Litigation can be filed before
the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. In this case, Hence, the petitioner is
justified in challenging the authority of Supreme Court’s directive to government of applying the
concept of “Creamy Layer” In the instance of SC’s and ST’s.

ALTERNATIVE REMEDY NOT A BAR: Where there is well-founded allegation that

fundamental right has been infringed alternative remedy is no bar for entertaining write petition
and granting relief.4 The mere existence of an adequate legal remedy cannot be per se be a good
and sufficient ground for throwing out a petition under Article 32 is the existence of a
fundamental right and a breach, actual or threatened, of such right and is alleged is prima facie
established on the petition.5 In spite of availability of the alternative remedy, the court may
exercise its writ jurisdiction in at least petitions where the petitioner seeks enforcement of any
fundamental rights.6 Thus, the petitioner humbly submits that writ petition is maintainable as
existence of alternative remedy is not a bar.

MAINTAINABILITY OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION In the case of S.P. Gupta v.

Union of India,7 Justice P.N. Bhagwati articulated the concept of PIL as, “any member of public
can maintain an application for an appropriate direction, order or write in the High Court under
Article 226 and in cases of breach of fundamental rights of such persons or determinate class of
person, in the court under Article 32 seeking judicial intervention for the legal wrong or legal
injury caused to such persons or determinate classes of persons.” Also, the stern rule of locus
standi has been explained in D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar,8 The court held that the applicant
4
State of Bombay V. United motors Ltd. AIR 1953 SC 252
5
K.K. Kouchunni V. State of Madras AIR 1959 SC 725
6
HarbansalSahnia V. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. AIR 2003 SC 2120
7
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149.
8
D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar 1987 AIR 579

12
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 SANDESH FARMER MORCHA v. UNION OF INDIKA & Anr.

as a member of the public has initiates ‘sufficient interest’ to maintain a writ petition under
Article 32. Additionally in the case of Janta Dal v. H.S Chaudhary that only a person ‘acting
bona fide’ and ‘having sufficient public interest’ in the proceeding of public interest litigation
will have alone the locus standi8 but not a person for personal gain or political motive or any
oblique consideration. The rule of locus standi has stated that a person who is acting in a
bonafide (good intention) and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of public interest
litigation will have a locus standi and in that case he/she can approach the court to seek remedy
for such violation of fundamental rights. Thus, the instant petition filed under this Hon’ble court
is maintainable.

ARTICLE 136 IS MAINTAINABLE

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the special leave petition filed
under Article 136 is maintainable in the court of justice to cure gross miscarriage of justice and
protect the principles of natural justice.

TO PREVENT GROSS MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the Petition is filed to prevent gross
miscarriage of justice by the order of the Court as it is a matter having far reaching impact upon
the institution of family and society. The court in Suthenthiraraja v. State, 9 has observed: “…..to
maintain a SLP it has to be shown that there has been miscarriage of justice. Of course, the
expression ‘miscarriage of justice’ is all embracing.” It is humbly submitted that the final order
of the Court has overlooked the results of such order on the society and it is contended that abuse
of court process has been rampantly used as a weapon by the bad elements for their own vested
interest in weakening of the institution of marriage and encouraging the morale of those engaged
in such offence.

As per the case, the members of said association had post their views on social media about
constitutional validity of the Farm Law and pursuant to this certain members of the said
association expressed their critical views about the government and because of this agitation &
riots started all over the country against the government. The social media posts of the said
association were brought before Ruling party by some people and it reached up to some of the

9
Suthenthiraraja v. State, AIR 1999 SC 3700: (1999) 9 SCC 323.

13
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 SANDESH FARMER MORCHA v. UNION OF INDIKA & Anr.

Ministers. Therefore, an urgent cabinet meeting was called in order to ban these kinds of online
activities in the country. In the meeting a resolution was passed for banning these kinds of
activities in exercise of the power conferred by the Information Technology Act, which talks
about Monitoring and Decryption of Information. Some members of said associations were
arrested and investigated by police stating that they are disseminating false information about the
law passed by the government with the purpose of instigating people against the government and
their phones, computers and laptops were seized by authorities stating it forms part of
investigation. The Government also authorized its securities and intelligence Agencies for the
purpose of interception; monitoring and decryption of any information generated, transmitted,
received or stored in any computer resources. The Members of the said association found to have
propagated such information and they were charged with sections 120B, 124A and 153A of
Indika Penal code and their Anticipatory Bail Application were rejected by the High court. In the
present case, the members of the association have don’t nothing but have just expressed their
views on the impending nature of things and they were merely arrested for the same, and it is
humbly requested that it is the gross injustice and hence, in such a situation it attracts Article 136
of the Constitution.

14
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 SANDESH FARMER MORCHA v. UNION OF INDIKA & Anr.

ISSUE II: WHETHER SECTION 124A OF THE IPC IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID

OR NOT?

It is humbly submitted before the honorable court that Section 124A of the IPC is
unconstitutional. In India, the sedition law was introduced by the United Kingdom, but the UK
itself did not make any sedition charges against any person between 1972 and 2009. In the end,
the UK abolished the sedition law completely in 2009.

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Kishorechandra Wangkhemcha v. Union of India
(2021),10 would discuss the validity of Section 124A, which criminalizes sedition. In connection
with posts and cartoons that were posted on social media platforms, two journalists,
Kishorechandra Wangkhemcha and Kanhaiya Lal Shukla have been accused of committing
sedition in India. They have filed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section
124A, which criminalizes and punishes sedition. The Court has thus put sedition law on hold.

A RELIC OF OUR COLONIAL PAST:

The provision, as it reads today after some amendments, defines sedition as any action whether
by words, signs or visible representation which “brings or attempts to bring into hatred or
contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by
law in India”. The section also contains a clarification to the effect that the word “disaffection”
includes disloyalty and all feelings of enemity. This definition of sedition, as is only plainly
evident, is exceedingly broadly worded. Its vagueness certainly did wonders for the colonialists.
During the course of the British rule, there was a general consensus that Sec. 124A was intended
to indict any speech that as much as questioned the moral superiority of government, that
harboured any sentiments of ill feeling towards the state. Policies of government, the judiciary
largely agreed, could be questioned, so long as one didn’t excite hatred, contempt or disaffection.
As the lawyer and jurist A.G. Noorani once wrote, what this really meant was that the
government had to be “loved, not hated”.

Section 124A is useful in the fight against anti-national, separatist, and terrorist factors, among
others. It defends the elected government against attempts to destroy it through the use of violent
10
Kishorechandra Wangkhemcha v. Union of India 2022 SCC OnLine SC 609.

15
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 SANDESH FARMER MORCHA v. UNION OF INDIKA & Anr.

acts and illegal methods. Maintaining the legitimacy of the government established by law is a
necessary condition for the cohesion of a state. If contempt of court results in criminal
prosecution, then contempt of government should result in criminal prosecution as well.

LIMITS FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION:

The Constitution of Indiana bestows several fundamental rights to its citizens; the most powerful
one is the right to free speech and expression. Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India which
guarantees the right to free speech and expression absolutely allows for criticism of the
government. However, this right has been curbed by the sedition laws of the country. In 1942,
for the first time, the courts in India raised pressing questions against the use of sedition as a
weapon to chill all innocent forms of dissidence. Sir Maurice Gwyer, the chief justice of the
Federal Court, ruled that “public disorder, or the reasonable anticipation or likelihood of public
disorder, is the gist of the offence”. In so doing, he drew a necessity for a link between words
uttered and actual threat of violence for maintaining a prosecution of sedition. After the
Constitution was adopted, it appeared Sec. 124A would soon be denounced as an abhorrent relic
of our colonial past. The Supreme Court upheld Sec. 124A, in Kedar Nath Singh vs. State of
Bihar. But the court ignored all the apparent contradictions in allowing sedition to remain on the
IPC. While grounding the legality of the provision on supposed public order considerations, the
court also failed to establish any rational test on how to determine when speech in disaffection of
the government could be construed as causing a disruption of public order. It said that in 1979,
India ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which sets forth
internationally recognized standards for the protection of freedom of expression. However,
misuse of sedition law under Sec. 124A and the arbitrary slapping of charges continue to restrict
speech in ways that are inconsistent with the ICCPR.

Section 124A restricts our “freedom of expression”, it’s “tyrannical” remains of colonial rule
have been questioned by many in an India that is secular and independent, and where democratic
principles are upheld. Because of the widespread use of this law in the past years, not only
against journalists but also against other nonviolent dissenters, this is not unusual. To sustain law
and order in society, the state has a useful weapon in the form of the law against sedition. It
cannot, however, be used to quell unrest under the pretext of silencing the perpetrators of
criminal activity. Naturally, any act that has the potential to cause disorder or distress to public

16
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 SANDESH FARMER MORCHA v. UNION OF INDIKA & Anr.

order through the use of violence is prohibited by law. As a result, it is presumed that Section
124 A can be lawfully upheld against the person, although there was no admonishment, call,
incitement, and instigation to cause disorder or disruption of public peace by resorting to
violence, or any indirect reference or unsubtle statement or even any indication towards this aim,
ascribed to the person accused.

In Ram Nandan v. State of UP,11 was the first case that took the notion of the Constitutionality
of Section 124A. Allahabad High Court alleged that Section 124A of IPC is Ultra Vires in nature
& it violates the provision of Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution. It was said that Section 124A
restrict the freedom of speech & it struck out the very roots of the Constitution.

Similarly, in Balwant Singh and Anr v. State of Punjab,12 following the assassination of Prime
Minister Indira Gandhi, the accused chanted the slogan “Khalistan Zindabad” in front of a movie
theatre. Two people carelessly raising slogans could not be considered to be inciting
dissatisfaction with the government, according to the court’s conclusion. Because of the facts of
this case, Section 124A would not apply.

In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India,13 no one can be prosecuted for sedition unless they have a
direct connection to the commission of violence or the instigation of public disorder. This case
has a significant impact on the Indian law system because it questioned the constitutionality of
Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and ultimately succeeded in having it
repealed because it was found to be in violation of Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. In
Kanhaiya Kumar v. the State of Delhi,14 the Delhi Police detained Kanhaiya Kumar on
February 12, 2016, for violating Sections 124A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. He was
accused of violating the country’s dignity by yelling slogans that were derogatory to the
country’s dignity at an event organized by JNU students in commemoration of the hanging of
Afzal Guru. Kanhaiya Kumar denied all of the accusations and stated that he did not say
anything which is seditious. His detention sparked a political uproar between left-wingers and
right-wingers in the United States. The University conducted an investigation into the incident
and took disciplinary action against the individuals involved, as well as levying Rs. 10,000 fine

11
Ram Nandan v. State of UP, AIR 1959 All 101
12
Balwant Singh and Anr v. State of Punjab, 1995 (1) SCR 411.,
13
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, AIR 2015 SC 1523
14
Kanhaiya Kumar v. the State of Delhi, MANU/DE/0498/2016,

17
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 SANDESH FARMER MORCHA v. UNION OF INDIKA & Anr.

on Kumar. In a subsequent ruling, the Delhi High Court struck down the fine, declaring the
committee’s decision to be “illegal, infrequent, and unreasonable.”

A case was filed in the Supreme Court, Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras15 where the
petitioner pleaded that the order by Madras State for banning his paper "Cross Roads" infringed
his right to freedom of speech & expression given under Article 19 (1) of the Constitution. The
Supreme Court quashed the order of Madras State by stating that the restrictions of article 19 (1)
is imposed only where there is problem related to security of the public is involved. Therefore,
when there is no such problem is present it cannot be held constitutional.

In 1958, the Allahabad High Court was confronted with a similar constitutional challenge to
sedition. Justice Raghubar Dayal in the Sabir Raza case viewed any criticism of the Government,
a Member of Parliament or Government policy as protected under the right to freedom of speech
and expression. Such speech cannot be penalised under sedition even if it disrupts public order.
On the issue of threatening the security of the State, the Court held that disruption of public order
does not lead to the overthrow of State. It is only by rebellion and mutiny that the State can be
overthrown, and a Republic destroyed.16

As the world’s biggest democracy, India recognizes the importance of the right to free
expression and speech as a fundamental component of democracy. It should not be assumed that
sedition is committed when someone expresses or thinks something that is in opposition to the
government’s policy.

Sedition is a very serious offence which violates the provision of Article 19 of the Constitution.
There is a need for amendment in Sedition Law which should expressly contain the words that
can satisfy the restrictions & complement the provision of Article 19 (2). Sedition laws must be
interpreted & applied in accordance to the guidelines given by the Supreme Court. As the
purpose behind the Sedition Act which restricts speech, is to safeguard the National Security of
the State.Sedition is, without a doubt, a contentious concept, and it must be balanced delicately
against our constitutionally protected right to freedom of expression. While no citizen should be
permitted to incite unneeded hatred among the populace or to incite hatred and violence against
the government (especially in a nation founded on the principles of non-violence), every citizen

15
Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, 1950 AIR 124
16
[Sabir Raza v. The State, Cri App No. 1434 of 1955, D/- 11-2-1958 (All) (Zl)]

18
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 SANDESH FARMER MORCHA v. UNION OF INDIKA & Anr.

should be permitted to express their opinions about the government in a free and open manner. In
some cases, the viewpoint given by Indian courts and how the law is implemented are at odds,
leading some to describe the law as “draconian” in its application. In an era in which citizens are
becoming more and more aware of their rights and individual liberty, as well as a growing sense
of responsibility and duty in this democratic system, it may be the ideal time to consider
reforming this law.

Therefore, it is humbly submitted before the honourable court that Section 124A of the IPC is
unconstitutional.

19
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 SANDESH FARMER MORCHA v. UNION OF INDIKA & Anr.

ISSUE III: WHETHER THE REJECTION OF THE BAIL BY THE HIGH COURT IS
JUSTIFIED OR NOT?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the High Court has erroneously rejected
the bail application and has not appreciated the basic rule laid down by this Court that ‘grant of
bail is the rule and its denial is the exception’. Therefore, the petitioners is ought to be released
on bail.

Gravity of the offence cannot be a ground to refuse bail

Gravity or the heinousness of the offence cannot be the criteria for refusal of bail and therefore
grant of bail cannot be thwarted merely by asserting that offence is grave.17 The graveness of the
offence has to be interpreted by considering the facts and circumstances of each case and the
term of sentence prescribed for the offence alleged. 18 However, even if the allegation is for one
of the grave offences, it is not a rule that bail should be denied if other factors favour the
accused.19 The rationale behind the jurisprudence is to secure appearance of the accused in the
trial and therefore is neither punitive nor preventive. 20 It is submitted that the High Court has
refused the bail on the grounds that the crime is heinous, which is contrary to the precedents
where the Court has held that gravity cannot be the sole justification for rejecting bail of an
accused.21

The members of the association has asserted not to escape the trial

It has been held that one of the main considerations while granting bail can be whether the
accused would abscond from the trial or not.22 It was held that while granting or rejecting the bail
of an accused, the Court should apply its mind to the probability of the accused appearing for the
trial rather than just the seriousness of the accusation. 23 If the court is convinced that the accused
would appear for his trial and not escape, the court may grant bail to such accused.

17
Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1931 All 504.
18
P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) SCC OnLine SC 1549. Hitesh Gandhi v. Central Bureau
of Investigation, (2020) SCC OnLine HP 1416.
19
Pramod Chandra v. State, 1969 Cri LJ 1534
20
Kishan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1960 Cri LJ 850
21
NagangomIboton Singh v. State,1969 Cri LJ 128.
22
M.P. Jauaraj v. State, 1977 Cri LJ 1724; M.P. Ramesh v.State,1991 Cri LJ 1298; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh
Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528.
23
Zakir Hussain v. UT of Ladakh through DGP & Ors., (2020) SCC OnLine J&K 484.

20
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 SANDESH FARMER MORCHA v. UNION OF INDIKA & Anr.

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that one of the factors that the court might
consider in granting the bail to the accused is whether that the accused can tamper the evidence if
granted bail. The Indian Court in a case granted bail to the accused has held that ‘the
investigation was complete and there was very less chance of fleeing.’ There is no reason to
believe that the members will tamper the evidence if granted bail, since the charge sheet has
already been filed.

21
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 SANDESH FARMER MORCHA v. UNION OF INDIKA & Anr.

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, , arguments advanced, legal precedents and
authorities cited ,it is humbly requested that this Honorable Court may be pleased to adjudge and
declare:

 The Writ Is Maintainable Under The Jurisdiction Of the Supreme Court and the rejection

of bail application would attract Article 136 of the Constitution

 That Section 124A Of The IPC Is Constitutionally invalid.

 The Rejection Of The Bail By The High Court Is Not Justified.

AND/OR

Pass any other Order, Direction, or Relief that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interests
of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

Sd/-

COUNCIL FOR PETITIONER

22
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER