1ST MCA-CCLG NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

T01R

1ST MCA CCLG Novice Moot Court Competition,2022

MAHARASHTRA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, AURANGABAD

BEFORE

THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI

People’s Newspaper Organization &Ors..............................................................(Petitioner)

Vs.

State of Maharashtra............................................................................................(Respondent)

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TO THE HON’BLE JUDGES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Counsel Appearing On Behalf of Respondent

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

1 | Page

MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT

 1ST MCA-CCLG NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . 2
Index of Authorities . . . . . . . . . 3
Index of Abbreviations . . . . . . . . 4
Statement of Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . 5
Statement of Facts . . . . . . . . . 6-7
Issues Raised . . . . . . . . . . 8
1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition filed by People’s Voice
Newspaper Organization
2. Whether the State government should be liable and pay compensation against the
acts and omissions by the Minister, his supporters and the authorities.
3. Validity of Section 124-A of the Penal Code, 1860 vis-a-vis Art. 19(1)(a) of the
Indian Constitution.
Summary of Arguments 9-10
1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition filed by People’s Voice
Newspaper Organization
2. Whether the State government should be liable and pay compensation against the
acts and omissions by the Minister, his supporters and the authorities.
3. Validity of Section 124-A of the Penal Code, 1860 vis-a-vis Art. 19(1)(a) of the
Indian Constitution.
Arguments Advanced
1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition filed by People’s Voice Newspaper
Organization 11-14
1.1 Interpretation definition of state according to article 12 and who all fall
in its ambit under the present case.
1.2 Remedies that can be sought under Article 32
2. Whether the State government should be liable and pay compensation against the
acts and omissions by the Minister, his supporters and the authorities. 15-19
2.1 State is not liable for actions of servants in exercise of Statutory Authority
2.2 The state is not liable for the actions of private individuals
3. Validity of Section 124-A of the Penal Code, 1860 vis-a-vis Art. 19(1)(a) of the
Indian Constitution. 20-22
3.1 Bare essential for Sedition is the intention of the person to incite feeling of
hatred in minds of listeners
3.2 Constitutional validity of Section 124-A vis-à-vis Article 19(1)(a)

Prayer of Relief . . . . . . . . . 23

2 | Page

MEMORIAL for
 1ST MCA-CCLG NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES
1. Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company v. Secretary of State for India
(1861) 5 Bom. H.C.R. App. I,p.1
2. Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v. The State Of Uttar Pradesh 1965 AIR 1039, 1965 SCR
(1) 375
3. Shivabhajan v. Secretary of State, ILR 28 Bom 314 Secreretary of State v. Srigobinda
Chaudhari, AIR 1932 Cal 834
4. Nobin Chunder Dey vs The Secretary Of State (1876) ILR 1 Cal 12
5. State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Chironji Lal, AIR 1981 MP 65 Common Cause (A
Regd. Society) vs. Union of India and Anr. (2018) 5 SCC 1, AIR 2018 SC 1665
6. Lucknow development authority vs M.k. Gupta AIR 1994 SC 787
7. Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. v. Partha Sarathi Sen Roy, (2013) 8 SCC 345 : (2013) 3
SCC (Civ) 804.)
8. Nobin Chunder Dey vs The Secretary Of State For India (1876) ILR 1 Cal 12
9. Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, (2002) 5 SCC 111
10. Ramdas Athawale v. Union of India, (2010) 4 SCC 1.

11. Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar (Union) v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 568

12. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 161, 185, 186

13. PUDR v. Union of India, (1982) 3 SCC 235; (1989) 4 SCC 286

14. Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v. The State Of Uttar Pradesh 1965 AIR 1039, 1965 SCR
(1) 375

15. Kedarnath v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 955.

16. Justice K.S. Puttuswamy v. Union of India: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 833 Of 2013.
17. V.G. Row v. State of Madras (1952) AIR 196.
18. Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P.(1957) AIR 620, 1957 SCR 860.
19. Amish Devgan v. Union of India and Ors.: Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 160 of 2020.
20. Kharak Singh v. State of U.P (1963) AIR 1295, 1964 SCR (1) 332.

CONSTITUTION
1. Constitution of India

3 | Page

MEMORIAL for
 1ST MCA-CCLG NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR All India Reporter

ILR Indian Law Reports
IPC Indian Penal Code
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCJ Supreme Court Journal
SCR Supreme Court Reporter
Sec. Section
U.O.I. Union of India
v. Versus
Ltd. Limited
Pvt. Private
Co. Company

Ors Others

4 | Page

MEMORIAL for
 1ST MCA-CCLG NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Counsel for Respondents, State of Maharashtra, hereby humbly submit this
memorandum to the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India. This invokes the right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate
proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution of
India.

5 | Page

MEMORIAL for
 1ST MCA-CCLG NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Criston, aged 28 years resides in the State of Maharashtra and works as a salesperson
for a big multinational corporation. Criston is recently married and living a happy and
contented life with his family.

2. On August 15th, while Criston was out on his bike, a politician, Kaleen Tripathi, was
organizing a big celebration to mark the Independence Day for that year. The politician’s
rally had attracted a very large crowd as he was a Minister in the ruling party of the time
and had also promised people of providing them unlimited sweets during the rally.

3. The rally had caused a huge crowd to gather around the venue as a result of which the
roads were unnavigable. This caused huge problems for the traffic on the day which
caused a huge nuisance for all. The travellers on the road were very irritated and were
talking amongst themselves about how inconsiderate their politicians were. Criston also
joined this conversation amongst his fellow travellers. Their conversation was heard by
some supporters of the politician-Minister who were passing by the group where Criston
was ranting about the failures of the government.

4. The supporters of Kaleen Tripathi, stopped and started arguing with the travellers of
the group. The already exasperated Criston too started arguing with them and soon a huge
crowd gathered around them. The supporters of the politician soon turned violent and
started beating up the traveling group that had assembled. Many including Criston were
beaten up and hurt severely.

5. The police officials who were present to ensure law and order, did not do anything to
intervene when the tensions were flaring and only came in after the supporters of Kaleen
Tripathi were done beating up the travellers. Later, a newspaper called People’s Voice
gathered all the information regarding the incident and was going to publish the same in
its Sunday edition, but was coerced into not doing so by the Minister’s supporters under
the threat of prosecution under Section 124-A of the Penal Code, 1860.

6 | Page

MEMORIAL for
 1ST MCA-CCLG NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

6. Criston after his recovery more than a month later, filed a Writ Petition in the High
Court against the Minister and the State and claimed compensation to the tune of 5 lacs
for violating his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. Similar petitions were filed
by other travellers who were beaten up on that fateful day.

7. The editor of People’s Voice also filed a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court against the State for threatening his reporters and has also challenged the validity of
Section 124-A of the Penal Code, vis-a-vis Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution only.

8. The State has raised the same argument before the High Court and the Supreme Court
that it cannot be held responsible for the actions of the Minister and his supporters. It is
the case of the State that the actions of the Minister and his supporters cannot be deemed
to be State action since they were private persons.

9. These arguments of the State were reported by all media houses. On reading of this,
Criston filed an application before the Hon’ble Supreme Court for it to hear all these writ
petitions together.

7 | Page

MEMORIAL for
 1ST MCA-CCLG NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

ISSUES RAISED

1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition filed by People’s Voice Newspaper organization.

2. Whether the State government should be liable and pay compensation against the
acts and omissions by the Minister, his supporters and the authorities.

3. Validity of Section 124-A of the Penal Code, 1860 vis-a-vis Art. 19(1)(a) of the
Indian Constitution.

8 | Page

MEMORIAL for
 1ST MCA-CCLG NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition filed by People’s

Voice Newspaper organization.
The counsel for the respondent humbly submits that the writ petition filed by People's
Voice Newspaper is not maintainable. The petition filed is against the state for
threatening the reporters.

But the supporters of the minister turned violent and attacked the travelers and then
threatened the reporters all this was done in private capacity by them and not under
any persuasive control of State. So, the writ petition filed is invalid and they have no
valid grounds for contention.

2. Whether the State government should be liable and pay

compensation against the acts and omissions by the Minister, his
supporters and the authorities.

The Counsel for Respondents humbly submits before the court that the State
Government is not liable for the violence caused by the supporters of the Ministers,
since they are not Servants of the State. There is no relationship between the
perpetrators and the State, and the acts were not done in the service of the State. The
State is not responsible for the actions of private individuals and hence, is not liable to
pay compensation for their actions.

The actions of the authorities, i.e., the police officials, come under the purview of
sovereign actions, and for any act committed in the exercise of sovereign functions
the State cannot be held liable.

9 | Page

MEMORIAL for
 1ST MCA-CCLG NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

3. Validity of Section 124-A of the Penal Code, 1860 vis-a-vis Art.

19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.
The counsel for Respondents humbly submits before the Hon’ble court that the
constitutionality of Section 124-A vis-à-vis Article 19(1)(a) is completely valid
because the steps taken by the ministers’ people were to protect the public order and
prevent hatred against the state which are reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2)
of the Indian Constitution.The constitutionality of Section 124-A has also been
challenged in earlier, and the Supreme Court in its various precedents has held that
Section 124-A vis-à-vis Article 19(1)(a) is constitutionally valid.

10 |

MEMORIAL for
 1ST MCA-CCLG NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE WRIT PETITIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONS ARE

MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

The counsel for respondent humbly submits that a petition necessarily involves a cause of
action. Without cause of action, any individual or class of persons have no occasion to make
out a petition. Therefore, every petition is made to an appropriate authority for fair
consideration by the authority.

It is most respectfully submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the instant
petition is not maintainable as writ petitions can only be invoked in Supreme Court under
Article 32 if there is a violation of fundamental right and according to Constitution of India
remedies can be asked for violation of fundamental rights from State only if the violation was
done by any state authority and not any private individual.

[1.1] WERE THE INDIVIDUALS ACTING UNDER STATE AUTHORITY?

The counsel for respondent humbly submits that in the case of Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. v.
Partha Sarathi Sen Roy1 if the body concerned is, financially, functionally and
administratively under the control of the Government and is not merely regulatory but deep
and pervasive then the state can be held liable. Here in the instant case the supporters were
not under pervasive control of State by any means but were present there out of their own
free will and they attacked on travellers out of their own free will and not by orders, so the
pleading that the state threatened the reporters stands invalid.

The counsel for respondent humbly submits that in the case of Nobin Chunder Dey v
Secretary of State2when the Plaintiff pleaded for damages for refusal of Government to give
him licence to sell liquor and drugs, it was held that it was out of sovereign functions of the
state and thus, is out of reach of tortious liability. Since this decision, the distinction between
sovereign and non-sovereign functions is the foremost criteria that are looked into by the
courts in their

1
Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. v. Partha Sarathi Sen Roy, (2013) 8 SCC 345 : (2013) 3 SCC (Civ) 804.)
11 |

MEMORIAL for
 1ST MCA-CCLG NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION,
2
Nobin Chunder Dey vs The Secretary Of State For India (1876) ILR 1 Cal 12

12 |

MEMORIAL for
 1ST MCA-CCLG NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

judgements. Here in the present case the minister organized rally in his personal capacity and
was not under order from State also the supporters that attacked the reporters and also
coerced them for not publishing the report was on their own free will and even the minister
didn’t know about this. These acts of both of them were done in individual capacity and
doesn’t attract any state liability.

The counsel for respondent humbly submits that in Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian
Institute of Chemical Biology3, the test was given whether the entity is financially,
functionally & administratively under Government control is that control that may be
pervasive and not merely regulatory. Here it was held that the CSIR was funded by
government of more than fifty percent of its fund requirements and that member secretaries
and op governing officials were appointed by the prime minister and this institute was public
established for welfare of public so it was considered as a state body. While no such control
as mentioned above were exercised by the Government here no rally was called or
administered by the government neither the sweets distributed were financed by state . This
very statement specifies that the Minister was not acting as a State and the rally organized by
him was under his private capacity and hence no cause of action lies against the state so the
writ is not maintainable.

Under the Constitution of India, the remedies for violation of fundamental rights can be
pleaded against State and not private persons for that only writs like mandamus, prohibition,
quo warranto and certiorari are issued against different bodies but not against private persons.
In the statement of facts, the travellers were talking amongst themselves which was heard by
some supporters of the Minister. The supporters argued with them and turned violent. The
supporters who turned violent were private person’s not a body that was under the persuasive
control of State and they threatened the reporters and attacked the travellers, so writ against
state is not maintainable.

13 |

MEMORIAL for
 1ST MCA-CCLG NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION,
3
Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, (2002) 5 SCC 111

14 |

MEMORIAL for
 1ST MCA-CCLG NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

[1.2] CAN REDRESSAL BE SOUGHT UNDER ARTICLE 32?

The counsel for respondent humbly submits that in the 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. Only, writ of
Habeas Corpus can be issued against private persons and State while others can’t be issued
against private individual. Since, above it is already stated that the Ministers and his
supporters were not acting as State, so no petition can stand against State.4

The counsel for respondent humbly submits that in the case of Ramdas Athawale (5) v.
Union of India5 it was stated that article 32 guarantees right to constitutional remedy and
relates only to enforcement of rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution, and unless a
question of enforcement of fundamental rights arises, Article 32 does not apply. Here in the
present case the police was the only one present under the control of state and they omitted
from their duty but didn’t threaten anyone and hence didn’t violate any of the fundamental
rights of the reporters or anyone under Part III of the Constitution of India.

The counsel for respondent humbly submits that in the case of Fertilizer Corporation
Kamgar (Union) v. Union of India6 the jurisdiction conferred on the Supreme Court by
Article 32 is an important and integral part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The
violation of a fundamental right is the sine qua non of the exercise of the right under Article
32. Since the State did not violate any fundamental rights as the state never threatened them
but, the supporters who were private persons did so. Hence the writ that the state threatened
them is not maintainable in this court.

The counsel for respondent humbly submits that in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of
India7 the court said that the interpretation of Article 32 should be guided not by any verbal
or formalistic canons of construction but by the paramount object and purpose for which this
article has been enacted and its interpretation must receive light from the Preamble, the

4
Constitution of India
5
Ramdas Athawale v. Union of India, (2010) 4 SCC 1.
6
Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar (Union) v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 568
7
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 161, 185, 186

15 |

MEMORIAL for
 1ST MCA-CCLG NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles. With the reference of this case, it is to be
noticed that a fundamental right shall be violated for seeking redressal under this article but
no such fundamental right has been violated by the State as they were never threatened by the
state and there was no violation of freedom of speech and personal liberty by them.

The counsel for respondent humbly submits that in PUDR v. Union of India8 it was decided
that Article 32 can be invoked against Private Persons if Rights under Articles 32 and 17, 23
and 24 are enforceable against any private person. While, according to the facts no such
rights have been violated so the cause of action doesn’t arise here even for private persons
under Article 32.

The counsel for respondent humbly submits that Although Article 32 cannot be used as a
substitute for the enforcement of rights and obligations which can be enforced efficaciously
through the ordinary processes of courts. The police came in between and tried to stop the
supporters of the minister but, in the instant case it is pleaded that the State threatened the
reporters but the police which is the only known body under the direction and control of State
didn’t threaten the reporters nor did it beat the travellers and attack on Criston which was
done by the ministers’ supporters who were not State.

Hence, the writ petition is not maintainable against the state.

8
PUDR v. Union of India, (1982) 3 SCC 235; (1989) 4 SCC 286

16 |

MEMORIAL for
 1ST MCA-CCLG NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

ISSUE -2: WHETHER THE STATE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE LIABLE AND

PAY COMPENSATION AGAINST THE ACTS AND OMISSIONS BY THE
MINISTER, HIS SUPPORTERS AND THE AUTHORITIES?

In a society based on the principles of equality and justice, it is only fair that any entity which
has authoritative power is held responsible for the actions of those who are in service or are
employed under them, and the State is no exception. As such the legal regime governing state
liability for tortious acts of its employees is based on Article 300 of the Constitution of India.
Article 300 says that –

“The Government of India may sue or be sued by the name of the Union of India and
the Government of a State may sue or be sued by the name of the State and may,
subject to any provisions which may be made by Act of Parliament or of the
Legislature of such State enacted by virtue of powers conferred by this Constitution,
sue or be sued in relation to their respective affairs in the like cases as the Dominion
of India and the corresponding Provinces or the corresponding Indian States might
have sued or been sued if this Constitution had not been enacted. ”

[2.1] STATE IS NOT LIABLE FOR ACTIONS OF SERVANTS IN EXERCISE OF

STATUTORY AUTHORITY

For cases in which there is the question of liability of state caused by negligence of servants
in the service of the government, it has been laid down that State can only be liable for
actions of non-sovereign nature, in the first important case9 involving tortious liability of the
State, wherein Chief Justice peacock admitted the distinction between the sovereign and non-
sovereign functions of the government and said:

“There is a great and clear distinction between acts done in exercise of what are
termed sovereign powers, and acts done in the conduct of undertakings which might
be carried on by private individuals without having such powers delegated to them.”

9
Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company v. Secretary of State for India (1861) 5 Bom. H.C.R. App.
I,p.1

17 |

MEMORIAL for
 1ST MCA-CCLG NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

In Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of U.P.10,the Supreme Court also refused to hold the
State liable for the act done by its servant in the exercise of statutory duties.

The Supreme Court held that state liability for tortious acts of public servants would not arise
if the tortious act in question was committed by the public servant while employed “in
discharge of statutory functions which are referable to, and ultimately based on, the
delegation of the sovereign powers of the State.”

In Shivabhajan v. Secretary of State11, certain bundles of hay were attached by the chief
constable of Mahim because they were believed to be stolen property. The person from
whose possession hay was attached was prosecuted but acquitted. The hay was lost in the
meantime. The person concerned sued the Secretary of State for compensation for negligence
of the chief constable. The High Court geld that the Secretary of State was not liable as the
chief constable had acted under the powers conferred on him by the Criminal Procedure
Code.

Following the same principle, in Secretary of State v. Srigobinda Chaudhari12, a suit for
damages against the Secretary of State for misfeasance, wrongs, negligence or omissions of
duties of managers appointed by the court of wards was rejected because these officers of the
government acted in exercise of statutory powers.

This doctrine of immunity, for acts done in the exercise of sovereign functions, was applied
by the Calcutta High Court in Nobin Chander Dey v. Secretary of State 13. The plaintiff, in
this case, contended that the Government had made a contract with him for the issue of a
license for the sale of ganja and had committed a breach of the contract. The High Court held
that upon the evidence, no breach of contract had been proved. Secondly, even if there was a
contract, the act had been done in exercise of sovereign power and was thus not actionable.

10
Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v. The State Of Uttar Pradesh 1965 AIR 1039, 1965 SCR (1) 375
11
Shivabhajan v. Secretary of State, ILR 28 Bom 314

18 |

MEMORIAL for
 1ST MCA-CCLG NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION,
12
Secretary of State v. Srigobinda Chaudhari, AIR 1932 Cal 834
13
Nobin Chunder Dey vs The Secretary of State (1876) ILR 1 Cal 12

19 |

MEMORIAL for
 1ST MCA-CCLG NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

In State of M.P. v. Chironji Lal14 a new question came before the court relating to the
payment of damages for the loss caused by the lathi-charge of the police in a situation where
it was unauthorized and unwarranted by law. It was alleged that the police resorted to lathi-
charge willfully and without any reasonable cause and thus damaged the plaintiff’s property.
The claim was rejected on the ground that the function of the state to regulate processions and
to maintain law and order is a sovereign function.

Through the above case laws, it can be concluded that any wrong committed by a public
official while allegedly exercising its legislative duties in the field of sovereign functions
such as income collection etc, the state cannot be held responsible for the same.

The police officials who came in were also acting in exercise of statutory powers, even
though they could intervene only after tension had started flaring. This means that the State
would not be liable for their actions since they are in exercise of sovereign functions, that is
maintaining peace. Thus, when an official performs an act in exercise of statutory powers,
then the aggrieved person has no remedy against the state because, since the official is acting
under the statute his action is not subject to the control of the state. Hence, the principle of
vicarious liability will not apply.

[2.2] THE STATE IS NOT LIABLE FOR THE ACTIONS OF PRIVATE

INDIVIDUALS

For the State to be vicariously liable, he following constituents must be present –

(1) There must be a relationship of a certain kind.

(2) The wrongful act must be related to the relationship in a certain way.
(3) The wrong has been done within the course of employment.

14
State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Chironji Lal, AIR 1981 MP 65

20 |

MEMORIAL for
 1ST MCA-CCLG NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

The violent acts performed by the supporters of Kaleen Tripathi are not the responsibility of
the state since they were individuals who had joined the rally to support the Minister but were
not under the employment of the State or the Government. There is no relationship of State
and Servant between them, hence their actions cannot be deemed to be State actions. The
supporters were each private individuals and hence their wrongful act does not make the State
liable. Since there is no activity on the part of the state which will make the state responsible,
the state cannot be held liable in such cases. The liability lies on the individuals who were
responsible for the wrongful act, because they were not under any kind of employment or
orders from the state, neither was the act done in the service of the State.

Liability of the State must be distinguished from the liability of the individual officers. So far
as the liability of the individual officers is concerned, if they have acted outside the scope of
their powers or have acted illegally, they are liable to the same extent as any other private
citizen would be. An officer acting in discharge of his duty without bias or mal fides could
not be held personally liable for the loss caused to the other person. However, such acts have
to be done in pursuance of his official duty and they must not be ultra vires his powers.

In order to strengthen the concept of public accountability the court in Common Cause A
Registered Society (Petrol Pumps Matter) v. Union of India15 held that it is high time that
public servants should be held personally liable for their functions as public servants. Thus,
for abusing the process of court public servant was held responsible and liable to pay the cost
out of his own pocket. The principle thus developed is that a public servant dealing with
public property in oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional manner would be liable to pay
exemplary damages as compensation to the government, which is ‘by the people’.

In Lucknow Development Authority v M. K. Gupta 16, the Court asked as to who should pay
the compensation for the harassment and agony to the victim? Where the suffering was due to
mal fide or capricious act of public servant, such a public servant would be made to pay for it.
Although the Court spoke in connection with the Consumer Protection Act, if this principle is
to be extended to liability for wrongful acts in general, it would doubtless provide an
effective deterrent against mal fide and capricious acts of public servants.

15
Common Cause (A Regd. Society) vs. Union of India and Anr. (2018) 5 SCC 1, AIR 2018 SC 1665
16
Lucknow development authority vs M.k. Gupta AIR 1994 SC 787

21 |

MEMORIAL for
 1ST MCA-CCLG NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

The Judge further ordered that when a complaint was entitled to compensation, because of
the suffering caused by a mal fide or oppressive or capricious act of a public servant,
the Commission under the Consumer Protection Act should direct the department concerned
to pay such compensation from the public fund immediately but to recover the same from
those who are responsible for such unpardonable behaviour by dividing it proportionately
among them when they were more than one.

Therefore, it is humbly submitted before the court that for the acts of violence that had
occurred, the victims have to be given compensation. But it is from the private individuals
who had participated in the action that the compensation would be received, and not from the
State. The State has absolutely no responsibility for the actions of these individuals because
neither are they Servants of the State, nor had they done the wrongful act in service to the
State.

22 |

MEMORIAL for
 1ST MCA-CCLG NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

ISSUE 3: WHETHER SECTION 124-A OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE VIS-À-VIS

ARTICLE 19(1)(A) OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION IS CONSTITUTIONALLY
VALID OR NOT?
The counsel for the respondent humbly submits before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that
Section 124 A of the Indian Penal Code reads 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 (India), shall be punished with (imprisonment for life), to which fine may be added,
or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added,
or with fine”.

[3.1] BARE ESSENTIAL FOR SEDITION IS THE INTENTION OF THE PERSON

TO INCITE FEELING OF HATRED IN MINDS OF LISTENERS

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 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.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Section 124A of IPC in
the case of Kedar Nath Singh V. State of Bihar17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has then
clearly interpreted the Section 124A along with the explanations, wherein it held that only
such activities that are intended or have a tendency to create public disorder or disturbance of
public peace by resort of violence will trigger invocation of Section 124A. The Apex Court
stated that out of six grounds listed in Article 19(2), the ‘security of the state’ should be taken
as a possible ground to support the constitutionality of the Section 124A of the IPC and in
this way the Supreme Court of India narrowed the scope of sedition by stating that
‘incitement of violence or public disorder’ should be there to apply sedition.

23 |

MEMORIAL for
 1ST MCA-CCLG NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION,
17
Kedarnath v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 955.

24 |

MEMORIAL for
 1ST MCA-CCLG NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

The Hon’ble Court further held that: the explanations provided to Section 124A makes it
clear that criticism of public measure or comments 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 important to note that all fundamental rights are
not absolute in nature because they can be controlled and are subject to reasonable
restrictions for the protection of general welfare. On various occasions Supreme Court has
held that Fundamental rights are not absolute one such being the case of Justice K.S.
Puttuswamy v. Union of India18, where the Supreme Court held that Right to Privacy is not
an absolute right.

[3.2] CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY VIS-À-VIS ARTICLE 19(1)(A)

Article 19 is protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech and expression. But
reasonable restriction for public welfare can also be applied here.

If the newspaper People’s voice would have published the information gathered regarding the
incident a disaffection towards the prevailing government would have been seen and public
order would have been disturbed and hatred towards the government would have grown too.

It is very reasonable for a common man as well to realise that such statements if published
would have the potential to incite the common public against the government.

Also, the Hon’ble Madras High Court in V.G Row v. State of Madras19 that it is not possible
to think only in abstract. Several circumstances must be taken into consideration i.e.,

(i) The purpose of the Act,

(ii) The conditions prevailing in the country at that time,

(iii) The duration of the restrictions, and

(iv) its nature and the extent.

Looking at the facts it is clear that if the news would have been published the public would
have been incited against the state and these acts have been clearly done with the intention to
incite people and hence, they would have committed the act of sedition.

25 |

MEMORIAL for
 1ST MCA-CCLG NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION,
18
Justice K.S. Puttuswamy v. Union of India: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 833 Of 2013.
19
V.G. Row v. State of Madras (1952) AIR 196.

26 |

MEMORIAL for
 1ST MCA-CCLG NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

In Ramji Lai Modi v. State of U.P.20, the Court held that the expression in the interest of has
extended the scope of public order because a law may not have been designed to directly
maintain public order and yet it may have enacted in the interest of public order. Therefore, a
law penalizing such activities having tendency to cause public disorder as an offence cannot
but to be held a law imposing reasonable restrictions. The actions towards People’s magazine
can be justified with the help of this judgement too. The activities of People’s magazine had
the potential to cause public disorder and public disorder is a reasonable restriction which
under Article 19(2) which can be applied over Article 19(1)(a). This judgement has been
followed in Amish Devgan v. Union of India and Ors21. too.

In Kharak Singh v. State of U.P.and Ors 22., it was held that Regulations did not constitute an
infringement of any of the freedoms guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution, and even if
they were, they had been framed in the interests of the General public and public order and to
enable the police to discharge its ditty in a more efficient manner, and hence were reasonable
restrictions as mentioned under Article 19(2) 23
on that freedom. This precedence again
strengthens our argument that the restriction that was imposed was to maintain public order
and hence it was reasonable.

With the help of various precedents and articles mentioned under the law we can say that
Article 124-A vis-à-vis Article 19(1)(a) is constitutionally valid.

20
Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P.(1957) AIR 620, 1957 SCR 860.
21
Amish Devgan v. Union of India and Ors.: Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 160 of 2020.
22
Kharak Singh v. State of U.P (1963) AIR 1295, 1964 SCR (1) 332.
23
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.

27 |

MEMORIAL for
 1ST MCA-CCLG NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION,

-PRAYER-
It is hereinafter most humbly prayed before the Hon’ble court that in light of the issues
raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the counsel on the behalf of the respondent
humbly prays that the Hon’ble Court be pleased to adjudge and declare that:
1) The petition to be dismissed since it is not maintainable as writ petitions can only be
invoked in Supreme Court under Article 32 if there is a violation of fundamental right
and according to Constitution of India remedies can be asked for violation of
fundamental rights from State only if the violation was done by any state authority
and not any private individual.
2) The state should not be held liable for the acts and omissions by the Minister, his
supporters and the authorities.
3) The constitutionality of Sedition is intact and hence the petition should be quashed.

The court may also be pleased to pass any other order, which this Hon’ble Court may deem
fit in the light of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.
All of which is respectfully affirmed and submitted.

SD/- -Counsels on Behalf

of Respondent-

28 |

MEMORIAL for