TEAM CODE: J54

IN HONORABLE HIGH COURT OF KING’S LANDING

BEFORE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND OTHER PUSINE JUDGES OF THE COURT

THE WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF SEVEN KINGDOMS

IN WRIT PETITION NO: _____ OF 2024

TYRION BAELISH …PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF SEVEN KINGDOMS ….RESPONDENT

INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

TABLE OF CONTENT

INDEX OF AUTHORITES…………………………………………………………….…3-8

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………….…………….9-10

STATEMENT OF FACTS……………………………………………………………….11-12

ISSUE RAISED…………………………………………………………………………….13.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………………………………..14

AGRUMENTS ADVANCED……………………………………….………………………

Issue 1: Whether the government's ban on the painting "The Divine Love" violate the
fundamental right to freedom of expression enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Seven
Kingdoms Constitution?....................................................................................................15-19.

1.1 Balancing rights: Freedom of expression and public order

1.2 Public order vs. Artist merit: striking a balance.
1.3 Respecting religious sensibilities: a foundational duty

Issue 2: Does the content of the painting "The Divine Love" constitute a deliberate and
malicious insult to the religious beliefs of followers of 'Faith of Seven' under Section 295-A
of the SKPC? ……………………………………………………………………………..20-23

2.1 Petitioner has insulted the religious belief of followers of Faith of Seven

2.2 Deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of such class.

2.3 Forfeiture of offending material

PRAYER…………………………………………………………………………………24

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 2

 INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

1. STATUES REFERRED

S.NO STATUTES REFERRED CITED PAGE NO.

1. THE CONSTITUTION OF SEVEN PASSIM

KINGDOMS, 1950

2. SEVEN KINGDOMS PENAL CODE,1860 PASSIM

3. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,1973 PASSIM

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 3

 INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

2. TABLE OF CASES

S.NO NAME OF THE CASES AND CITATION PAGE NO

1. A.R. Sasi vs. State of Kerala; AIRONLINE 2020 KER 245 16

2. Baba Khalil Ahamad vs State; ILR (1960) 2 ALL 113 22

3. 18
Lautsi v. Huron-Superior Catholic District School Board, (2006) 1
SCR 57

4. Malcolm X Estate v. Barnes, (2019) 2d Cir. Docket No. 18-1234 19

5. Niharendu Dutt Majumdar vs. King-Emperor, AIR 1939 16

CALCUTTA 703

22
Poojaya Sri Jagadguru Maate Mahadevi vs Government Of
6.
Karnataka

7. R. Rajagopal v. Tamil Nadu, 1995 AIR 264 15

8. Ram Gopal vs. State of Bihar, AIR1992PAT70 20

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 4

 INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

9. 16
Ramji Lal Modi vs. The State Of U.P ,1957 AIR 620

10. Rangnath Roy vs. State of Bihar, (1997) 2 PLJR 421 18

11. Shergill v. Khaparde (2016) 7 SCC 678 18

12. Shreya Singhal Vs. Union of India; AIR 2015 SUPREME COURT 17
1523

13. Sri Ramachandra Kalahasthi Devasthanam vs. Ramalingam, 21

(2002) 6 SCC 216

Trustees of Safdar Hashmi Memorial Trust v. Government of

14. 21
National Capital Territory of Delhi, (2001) Cr LJ 3689(Del)

3. TREATISES, BOOKS, REPORTS AND DIGESTS

S.NO NAME OF THE TREATISE, BOOK, REPORT AND DIGESTS WITH

THE AUTHOUR OR PUBLISHER

1. DURGA DAS BASSU, THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION, 8TH EDITION

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 5

 INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

2. M P JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 7TH EDITION, 2014,

LEXIS NEXIS

REVIEW OF EMPIRICAL STUDIES ON IMPACT OF RELIGION,

3. RELIGIOSITY AND SPIRITUALITY AS PROTECTIVE FACTORS, BY
ANA C. SALGADO

A BIRD'S EYE VIEW OF THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND

4. EXPRESSION IN INDIA, BY TEJASWINI KAUSHAL

5. CANADIAN CHARTER OF RELIGION AND FREEDOMS

4. IMPORTANT DEFINITIONS

1. “Petitioner” for the purpose of this memorandum shall stand for ‘Tyrion Baelish’.
2. “Respondent” for the purpose of this Memorandum shall stand for ‘Union of Seven
kingdoms’.

5. DYNAMIC LINKS
(OFFICIAL WEBSITES APPROVED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF
INDIA)

1. www.manupatra.com
2. www.scconline.com
3. www.judis.nic (Official website of the Supreme Court of Seven Kingdoms ;
Unreported Judgements)
4. www.westlawindia.com

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 6

 INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

6. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

S.NO ABBREVATIONS FULL FORM

1. AIR ALL INDIA REPORT

2. ALL ALLAHABAD

3. CRLJ CRIMINAL LAW JOURNAL

4. CRPC CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

5. DEL DELHI

6. ILR INDIAN LAW REVIEW

7. PAT PATNA

8. PLJR PATNA LAW JOURNAL REPORTS

9. SCC SUPREME COURT CASES

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 7

 INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

10. SCR SUPREME COURT REPORTER

11. SKPC SEVEN KINGDOMS PENAL CODE

12. U.P UTTAR PRADESH

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 8

 INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioners have approached the Hon’ble High court of Seven Kingdoms under Article
226 of the Constitution of Seven Kingdoms by filing a writ of Mandamus, challenging the
validity of the ban ordered by the State Government. The petitioner humbly submits to the
jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

“226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs

(1)Notwithstanding anything in article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout
the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority,
including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or
writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warrantor
and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III
and for any other purpose.

[(1-A) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any
Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising
jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part,
arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or
authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories."; was inserted after
15th Amendment].

(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government,
authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in
relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the
exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the scat of such Government or authority or the
residence of such person is not within those territories.

(3)Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or
in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause
(1), without—

(a)furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea
for such interim order; and

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 9

 INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

(b)giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court
for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose
favour such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose
of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from
the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where
the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day
afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the
interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the said
next day, stand vacated.

(4)The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the
power conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (2) of article 32.”

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 10

 INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

STATEMENT OF FACTS

I. Background

1. The Seven Kingdoms is a democratic nation with a pluralistic society, where adherents
of all faiths are free to practice their religion. The two primary religions are the
indigenous “Old Gods” and the introduced “Faith of the Seven.”

2. King’s Landing, the birthplace of Plaintiff, is a culturally significant city known for its
association with the “Faith of the Seven.” Notably, it is the resting place of Aegon and
Halaena, a revered saintly couple credited with bringing the “Faith of the Seven” to the
Seven Kingdoms.

II. The Painting and Public Reaction

3. Plaintiff, a renowned painter, created a new artwork titled “The Divine Love.” This
painting depicted the union of Aegon and Halaena.

4. The depiction of Aegon with boyish charm and bluish skin caused outrage among
followers of both religions.

5. Public outcry arose, with protestors demanding Plaintiff’s beheading and accusing him
of threatening the peace of the Seven Kingdoms.

III. Government Action

6. Responding to the public outcry, the Government swiftly imposed a ban on the sale and
exhibition of Plaintiff’s painting, “The Divine Love.”

IV. Legal Action

7. In response to the Government’s ban, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit challenging its legality.

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 11

 INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

V. Point of Contention

8. The central issue in this case is whether the Government’s ban on Plaintiff’s artwork
constitutes an infringement on his right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by the
Seven Kingdoms’ constitution.

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 12

 INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

ISSUES FRAMED

THE RESPONDENT SUBMITS THE FOLLOWING ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION IN

THE PRESENT CASE.

ISSUE 1

Whether the government's ban on the painting "The Divine Love" violate the fundamental
right to freedom of expression enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Seven Kingdoms
Constitution?

ISSUE 2

Does the content of the painting "The Divine Love" constitute a deliberate and malicious
insult to the religious beliefs of followers of 'Faith of Seven' under Section 295-A of the
SKPC?

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 13

 INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1:

WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT'S BAN ON THE PAINTING "THE DIVINE

LOVE" VIOLATE THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF
EXPRESSION ENSHRINED IN ARTICLE 19(1)(A) OF THE SEVEN KINGDOMS
CONSTITUTION?

The government's ban on Tyrion Baelish's painting "The Divine Love" does not violate his
right to freedom of expression because it protects public order, religious sensibilities, and the
right to freedom of religion and also the ban is proportionate to the potential harm caused by
the painting.

ISSUE 2:

DOES THE CONTENT OF THE PAINTING "THE DIVINE LOVE" CONSTITUTE

A DELIBERATE AND MALICIOUS INSULT TO THE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OF
FOLLOWERS OF 'FAITH OF SEVEN' UNDER SECTION 295-A OF THE SKPC?

Tyrion Baelish's painting "The Divine Love" insults the religion of the Faith of the Seven and
was intended to outrage religious feelings as the painting depicts revered figures in a
disrespectful manner and that this violates Section 295-A of the SKPC. the government's ban
on the painting is a valid restriction under Section 95 of the CrPC.

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 14

 INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

It is humbly submitted that,

WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT'S BAN ON THE PAINTING "THE DIVINE

LOVE" VIOLATE THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
ENSHRINED IN ARTICLE 19(1)(A) OF THE SEVEN KINGDOMS CONSTITUTION?

The Union of Seven Kingdoms (hereinafter referred to as the "Respondent") respectfully

submits that Tyrion Baelish's (hereinafter referred to as the "Petitioner") fundamental right to
freedom of expression has not been violated by the government's ban on the painting "The
Divine Love." The Respondent acknowledges the importance of Article 19(1)(a) of the Seven
Kingdoms' Constitution, which guarantees the right to freedom of expression. However, this
right is not absolute and can be reasonably restricted under Article 19(2) for specific reasons,
including public order and morality.

1)BALANCING RIGHTS: FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND PUBLIC OEDER

“In every democracy, there has to be the right balance between freedom of expression, sense
of responsibility and public safety”.

1.1The Respondent's primary argument rests on the delicate balance between freedom of
expression and the government's responsibility to maintain public order. Unrestricted
expression cannot come at the expense of societal peace and stability.

In R. Rajagopal v. Tamil Nadu1, Justice Jeevan Reddy reiterated the indispensability of

freedom of press. In his lucid analysis he points out the jurisprudential desideratum thus:

But what is called for today--in the present times--is a proper balancing of the freedom of press
and said laws consistent with the democratic way of life ordained by the Constitution. Over the
last few decades, press and electronic media have emerged as major factors in our nation’s
life. They are still expanding-and in the process becoming more inquisitive. Our system of
government demands-as do the systems of government of the United States of America and

1
1995 AIR 264

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 15

 INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

United Kingdom-constant vigilance over exercise of governmental power by the press and the
media among others. It is essential for a good Government.

From the above reiteration made by the Justice, it can be clearly concluded that in order to
maintain public order, government can impose restriction on the freedom of expression
guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a).

1.2 Ramji Lal Modi vs. The State Of U.P,2 this landmark case established a clear principle:
restrictions on freedom of speech are permissible when they aim to prevent public disorder.
The Supreme Court of India stated, "The object of the freedoms guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a)
is to enable people to express their views freely on public questions. But this freedom is subject
to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order."

Justice B.K. Mukherjee, delivering the judgment, emphasized, "The right to freedom of speech
and expression... is not an absolute right and it can be reasonably restricted in the interest of
public order."

Niharendu Dutt Majumdar vs. King-Emperor3, this case further emphasized the importance
of public order. The court observed, "The fundamental right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) is
to express one's views freely on public questions. But this Court has consistently held that this
right is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by the legislature in the interest of public
order."

Therefore, from the above two case laws it can be inferred that government has not infringed
the Petitioner’s FR , the government has only placed reasonable restriction to maintain public
order.

1.3 Demonstrating a Clear and Present Danger:

A.R. Sasi vs. State of Kerala4, here, the court upheld a ban on a contentious film, citing the
potential for violence and public disorder. The judgment highlighted the need to balance
freedom of expression with other fundamental rights, stating, "The fundamental right to
freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) is not an absolute right

2
1957 AIR 620
3
AIR 1939 CALCUTTA 703
4
AIRONLINE 2020 KER 245

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 16

 INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

and can be reasonably restricted in the interest of public order, morality or decency or in
relation to contempt of court or defamation or incitement to an offence."

In the present case, the painting clearly demonstrates potential for violence and public disorder.
Therefore, validating the ban.

2. PUBLIC ORDER VS. ARTISTIC MERIT: STRIKING A BALANCE

The Respondent acknowledges the artistic merit of creative expression. However, in this
instance, the potential harm to public order outweighs the artistic value of the painting.

When there is conflict between fundamental rights of two individuals, the principles of
proportionality requires public body decision-makers to consider the individual's
circumstances; choose the least restrictive option; and make a reasoned decision, including why
they consider any restriction on human rights to be justifiable.

2.1 Proportionality Test: The Respondent contends that the ban on "The Divine Love" is a
proportionate response to the potential threat it poses.

2.2 Shreya Singhal Vs. Union of India 5

While upholding free speech rights online, this case also recognized the need for restrictions to
prevent violence. The court stated, "The freedom of speech and expression, of course, is not
absolute and there are restrictions." However, the judgment emphasized proportionality,
suggesting that restrictions should be the least restrictive option available.

Therefore, the action taken by the respondent is necessary to prevent violence and maintain
public order, and no less restrictive measure would be effective.

Shreya Singhal Vs. Union of India ; AIR 2015 SUPREME COURT 1523

5
AIR 2015 SUPREME COURT 1523

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 17

 INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

2.3 Rangnath Roy vs. State of Bihar6

This case highlighted the importance of proportionality in restrictions on expression. The court
stated, "The restrictions... must be reasonable and should be the least restrictive alternative to
achieve the desired end."

3. RESPECTING RELIGIOUS SENSIBILITIES: A FOUNDATIONAL DUTY

The Respondent strongly argues that the government has a foundational duty to respect
religious sensitivities and prevent religious hatred. Tyrion's painting, "The Divine Love,"
directly contradicts a core tenet of the Faith of the Seven, a major religion in the Seven
Kingdoms, causing deep offense to a significant portion of the population. This warrants the
government's action to protect religious peace and social harmony.

3.1 Beyond Tolerance: The Right to Freedom of Religion (Article 25):

• Article 25 of the Seven Kingdom Constitution: The Seven Kingdoms Contitution

likely enshrines the right to freedom of religion under Article 25. This right goes beyond
mere tolerance. It guarantees the right to freely practice, propagate, and manage one's
religious affairs without undue interference.

3.2 Beyond Expression: Protecting the Sanctity of Religious Beliefs:

• Freedom of Expression vs. Religious Beliefs: While freedom of expression is crucial,

it shouldn't come at the expense of deeply held religious beliefs. The painting directly
depicts revered figures in a way that contradicts their faith's doctrines. This isn't just
about respecting opinions; it's about protecting the sanctity of religious beliefs for a
significant population.

3.3 Shergill v. Khaparde7, this case involved a depiction of a Hindu deity in a controversial
manner. The court upheld restrictions on the artwork, highlighting the need to balance freedom
of expression with respect for religious beliefs.

Lautsi v. Huron-Superior Catholic District School Board8, this case involved a student
wearing a religious symbol in a public school. The court acknowledged the importance of
protecting religious freedom while upholding secularism in public institutions.

6
(1997) 2 PLJR 421
7
(2016) 7 SCC 678
8
(2006) 1 SCR 57

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 18

 INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

Malcolm X Estate v. Barnes9, this case involved the copyright protection of a painting
depicting Malcolm X, a revered figure in Islam, with a devil's horn. The court, while upholding
copyright principles, acknowledged the potential for such depictions to cause offense to
religious sensibilities.

3.4 Beyond Public Order: Protecting the Sanctity of Religious Symbols:

The government's role goes beyond maintaining public order. It also has a duty to protect the
sanctity of religious symbols and figures. Religious symbols hold profound meaning for
believers, and their denigration can cause deep emotional distress. The painting's portrayal of
revered figures in a disrespectful manner directly attacks this sanctity.

3.5 Religious Freedom and the Harm Principle:

The harm principle suggests that freedom of expression can be restricted when it causes
significant harm to others. In this case, the painting causes significant harm to the religious
sensibilities of a large population. This harm outweighs the artistic merit of the work, justifying
the government's action.

Thereby it can be concluded that the government has a multifaceted duty to respect religious
sensitivities, protect the right to freedom of religion, and maintain social harmony. While
freedom of expression is important, it shouldn't come at the expense of deeply held religious
beliefs. The painting directly attacks the religious sensibilities of a significant population. The
government's ban, while not ideal, is a proportionate response to prevent significant harm and
uphold fundamental rights.

Therefore, it is humbly contended that the reasonable restriction imposed by the

government under Article 19(2) is not violative of Fundamental Right of the Petitioner
under Article 19(1)(a)

9
(2019) 2d Cir. Docket No. 18-1234

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 19

 INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

DOES THE CONTENT OF THE PAINTING "THE DIVINE LOVE" CONSTITUTE

A DELIBERATE AND MALICIOUS INSULT TO THE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OF
FOLLOWERS OF 'FAITH OF SEVEN' UNDER SECTION 295-A OF THE SKPC?

It is humbly submitted by the Union of Seven Kingdoms[ hereinafter referred to as the

‘Respondent’] that Tyrion Baelish's (hereinafter referred to as the "Petitioner") painting’s
content ‘The Divine Love’ has constituted a deliberate and malicious insult to the religious
beliefs of followers of ‘Faith of Seven’ under Section 295-A of the SKPC , as firstly, Petitioner
has insulted the religion beliefs of followers of Faith of Seven (A); and secondly, he did with
deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of such class (B).

(A)Petitioner has insulted the religion beliefs of followers of Faith of Seven

2.1 ‘The protection guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution is only confined to
freedom of speech and expression and it does not include freedom to insult other religions.’
And as it is a duty of the state to function as a protection of fundamental rights, Section 95 of
CRPC gives power to the Government to forfeit certain publication which is punishable under
Section 295-A.

2.2 The painting depicts revered figures in the Faith of the Seven in a manner that directly
contradicts established religious doctrines. This is a clear act of disrespect towards these figures
and the religious beliefs they represent. In their doctrine, it is clearly mentions that no saints
should be depicted in any form as human-like and that doctrine only Petitioner has violated.

2.3 One of the essential ingredients of the Section 295-A is that to punish a person under this
section, he must have insulted or attempted to insult the religion or religion beliefs of a class
of citizens of Seven Kingdoms. Here, for the very nature of the painting it can been seen that
the petitioner has insulted the religious belief of the ‘Faith of Seven’.

2.3 Ram Gopal vs. State of Bihar10, This case involved a pamphlet deemed offensive to
Hindus. The pamphlet contained derogatory remarks about Hindu deities and questioned their
divinity. The court, while acknowledging freedom of expression, found the content to be

10
AIR1992PAT70

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 20

 INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

deliberately insulting and intended to outrage religious feelings. This case establishes that
expression directly attacking the core tenets or revered figures of a religion can be punishable.

2.4 Sri Ramachandra Kalahasthi Devasthanam vs. Ramalingam11, This case involved a
depiction of the Hindu deity Lord Shiva in a controversial manner. The court, while upholding
the importance of artistic expression, recognized the potential for such depictions to hurt the
religious sentiments of believers. This case highlights how artistic expression that contradicts
established iconography or portrays deities in a disrespectful manner can be seen as offensive.

2.4 Inference can be drawn from the above two case laws that, if there is attack on core religious
belief of a religion it can be punishable under Section 295-A of SKPC.

(B) Deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of such class

2.5 The common law maxim “actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea,” which translates to “the
act is not guilty until the mind is guilty, “Therefore to constitute a offence there should be
connotation of Actus Rea and Mens Rea.

2.6 Section 295-A does not punish every act of insult to religion. It punishes only deliberate
and malicious acts that insult religion or religious beliefs of a class of citizen. Malice is negative
form of bona fide, it has not been defined in SKPC. It donates wicked, perverse and incorrigible
disposition. Where a person wilfully does an act injurious to another without lawful excuse, it
can be said that he has done it maliciously.12

2.7 Malice is a state of mind and very often it is not capable of direct and tangible proof. In
most cases, it has to be inferred from the circumstances having due regard to the setting,
background and connected facts. In the present case, it can infer that since there was already a
doctrine that no saint should be depicted like-Human, knowing of this fact, Petitioner still
painted ‘Divine Love’, it shows that it was deliberate and malice intention of the petitioner to
outrage the religious feelings of Faith of Seven.

11
(2002) 6 SCC 216
12
Trustees of Safdar Hashmi Memorial Trust v. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, (2001) Cr
LJ 3689(Del)

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 21

 INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

2.8 A deliberate malicious act, purportedly outraging the religious feelings, may be verbal,
written or a visual representation. In the present case, the act is done by visual
representation(painting).

2.9 As stated earlier, every criticism or attack on a religious belief, however, does not outrage
the religious feelings. In Baba Khalil Ahamad case 13it was held that writing must be deliberate
and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of a class of citizens of Seven
Kingdoms. In order to establish malice as contemplated by this Section 295A it is necessary to
prove ill-will or enmity against specific person. If an injurious act was done voluntarily without
lawful and just excuse, malice can be presumed. In the case, the acts done by SSD chief Udit
Kumar challenging the khan trio to become Gondhu if they really loved their wife and asking
the public to boycott films starring the khan trio leads to enmity against Gondhu society. It
does not only prove ill-will or hatred against the community but also the public tranquillity is
disturbed. An ordinary reasonable man does not ask the public to stop watching some actor’s
movie because of their hatred with a particular community.

(c ) Forfeiture of offending material

3.0 Section 95, CrPc, gives power to the State Government to forfeit, by notification, any
newspaper , book or document(including any painting , drawing, photography, or any other
viable representation), which, in its opinion, is punishable, inter alia, under section 295A of the
IPC. The notification declaring such forfeiture has to state the grounds of its opinion. The
grounds must be specific. They must have reference to the impact of the matter contained in
the offending publication.

3.1 Poojaya Sri Jagadguru Maate Mahadevi vs Government Of Karnataka, in this case
Mate Mahadevi, her book 'Basavana Vachana Deepti' was banned because she changed
Basavanna’s pen name from ‘Kudalasangama Deva’ to ‘Linga Deva’. Many more books
containing the same “distortion” continue to be sold in the market, Veerashaiva Mahasabha
vice-president BS Sachidananda Murthy said, demanding the state government to seize them
all.

13
ILR (1960) 2 ALL 113

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 22

 INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

“There are at least ten other volumes of Basavanna’s vachanas brought out by Mate Mahadevi
in which she has used the Linga Deva pen name, and they are still available in t he market
despite a ban,” Murthy said. “We are collecting all these books, and we will file cases. We
want the government also to act,” he said while flashing one of Mahadevi’s books brought out
in 2011. “She is diluting Basavanna’s vachanas which will do only harm to the society.”

In 1997, the State Government had ordered a ban and seizure of Basava Vachana Deepti, which
it believed could hurt religious sentiments. The ban was upheld by a three-judge bench of the
Karnataka High Court in June 2003.

3.2 From taking reference from the above stated case, it can be concluded that forfeiture under
Section 95 of CrPC includes Ban, and therefore ban made by the government of Sevens
Kingdoms.

Therefore, it is submitted that the ban made by the government on the petitioner painting is
valid as it is reasonable restriction imposed by the state by the virtue of Section 295A of the
IPC.

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 23

 INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in light of the issue raised, arguments advanced and authorities citied it is
mostly humbly and respectfully requested, that this Hon’ble Supreme Court to adjudge and
declare:

1. The ban made by the Government of Sevene Kingdoms on the grounds of:
a) Section 295-A of SKPC
b) Article 19 of the Constitution of Seven Kingdoms

And pass any other order, decree or judgement which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in
light of justice, equity and good conscience.

For this act of Kindness, the Respondent shall duty bound forever pray.

Place: Union of Seven Kingdoms Respectfully submitted,

Dated: 28th April 2024. Counsel for Respondent

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 24