SURENDRANATH LAW COLLEGE

PRACTICAL PAPER NUMBER: IV

REGISTRATION NUMBER – 423-1212-0150-17
UNIVERSITY ROLL NUMBER – L02/LLBH/192185
COLLEGE ROLL – 168; SECTION – B
YEAR & SEMESTER: 5TH YEAR, 10TH SEMESTER

SUBMITTED BY – RAKTIMA PANDIT

Before

[HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]

[PETITION / APPLICATION / CASE] NUMBER _______ / [2024]

FILED UNDER [ARTICLE 136] OF

[THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA]

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:

[ARIF] [PETITIONER]

versus

[1. The State of Kashyapuram

[RESPONDENT]
2. The Union of Jambudweepam]

MEMORIAL for [PETITIONER ]

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents
Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................... II

Index of Authorities ................................................................................................................ IV

Index of Abbreviations ........................................................................................................... VI

Statement of Jurisdiction........................................................................................................ VII

Statement of Facts ................................................................................................................. VIII

Issues Raised ............................................................................................................................. X

Summary of Arguments .......................................................................................................... XI

Arguments Advanced................................................................................................................. 1

FOR ISSUE 1: WHETHER ARIF'S SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF JAMBUDWEEPAM? ............................................... 1

I. Key points about Article 136 .......................................................................................... 1

II. JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION ................................................................................ 2

III. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................... 2

ISSUE 2: WHETHER SECTION 124A OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE IS

CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID AND CONSISTENT WITH THE FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION UNDER THE
JAMBUDWEEPAM CONSTITUTION? .................................................................................. 4

IV. Rule ............................................................................................................................. 4

V. Application .................................................................................................................. 5

PAGE | II
MEMORIAL for [PETITIONER] INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
 A. Historical and Legal Context ................................................................................... 5

VI. Judicial Interpretation .................................................................................................. 5

VII. Rulings Post Kedar Nath Judgment ............................................................................ 6

VIII. CURRENT MISAPPLICATION ............................................................................ 7

IX. The terms in Section 124A are hit by the fundamental right to freedom of speech
and expression contained in 19(1)(a) as none of these terms find mention in the exceptional
areas demarcated in Article 19 (2). ........................................................................................ 7

X. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................... 8

FOR ISSUE 3: Whether the provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
particularly Section 3(1)(r), are being misused, leading to violations of fundamental rights
and harassment of individuals? .................................................................................................. 9

XI. Rule ............................................................................................................................. 9

XII. Misuse of the SC/ST Act............................................................................................. 9

XIII. Statistical Evidence of Misuse ............................................................................... 10

XIV. Supreme Court Judgement, [Review of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act Case],
2018 10

XV. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................... 11

Prayer for Relief ....................................................................................................................... 12

PAGE | III
MEMORIAL for [PETITIONER] INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

AK Roy v. Union of India 1982 1 SCC 271 .............................................................................. 8

Balak Ram v. State of U.P., AIR 1974 SC 2165 ....................................................................... 2

Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab, (1995) 3 SCC 214 ............................................................... 7

Common Cause and Anr. v. Union of India (2016) 15 SCC 269 .............................................. 8

Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra, : 2018(6) SCC 454= 2018 AIR
(Supreme Court) 1498.......................................................................................................... 10

Dukhmochan Pandey v. State of Bihar, (1997) 8 SCC 405 ....................................................... 2

Harakchand Ratanchand Banthia v. Union of India AIR 1961 SC 293..................................... 8

Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, 2020(10) SCC 710 ....................................................... 9

Jones v. State, 2004 SCC Online Mad 922 : 2004 CriLJ 2755 .................................................. 9

K.A. Abbas v Union of India 1970 2 SCC 780 ......................................................................... 8

Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab 1994 3 SCC 569 ...................................................................... 8

Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955 ............................................................. 5

Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, AIR 2000 SC 2587 ......................................................... 2, 3

Meena v. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 7 SCC 21 ..................................................................... 3

Meena v. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 7 SCC 21 : 2000 CrLJ 2273 ........................................ 2

Narad Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh (SC), 2019 AIR (Supreme Court) 2288= 2019 INSC 675
.............................................................................................................................................. 10

Nihal Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 26 .................................................................. 2, 3

Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 149 ................................................................ 6

PAGE | IV
MEMORIAL for [PETITIONER] INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Rahim Beg v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 343 .......................................................... 2

Shreya Singhal v. Union of India [(2015) 5 SCC 1 ................................................................... 8

State of MP v. Baldev AIR 1961 SC 293 .................................................................................. 8

State of Uttar Pradesh v. Babul Nath, (1994) 6 SCC 29 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 1585 ...................... 2

11

The Status of Policing in India Report 2019: Police Adequacy and Working Conditions, 2019
(conducted together by Common Cause and Lokniti-Centre for developing Societies....... 10

PAGE | V
MEMORIAL for [PETITIONER] INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
 INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATION FULLFORM
AIR All India Reporter
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
CrLJ Criminal Law Journal
SCR Supreme Court Reports
MANU Manupatra
LR Law Review
WR Weekly Review
Punj Punjab-Haryana
Cal Calcutta
Hon'ble Honourable
v. Versus
Art. Article
Sec. Section

PAGE | VI
MEMORIAL for [PETITIONER] INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner, invokes the special leave jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
Jambudweepam under Article 136 of the Constitution of Jambudweepam to hear his appeal
against the judgments and orders passed by the High Court of Kashyapuram and the Sessions
Court.

Article 136(1) of the Constitution of Jambudweepam is pari materia with the Constitution of
India.

I. Article 136 in Constitution of India

A. 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 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 Petitioner submits that the present case involves substantial questions of law concerning
the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of Jambudweepam, particularly the
right to freedom of speech and expression, and the right to life and personal liberty. The
Petitioner further submits that the impugned judgments of the High Court of Kashyapuram
and the Sessions Court have resulted in a gross miscarriage of justice, warranting the
intervention of this Hon'ble Court.

Therefore, the Petitioner humbly submits that this Hon'ble Court has the jurisdiction to
entertain the present Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of
Jambudweepam and pass appropriate orders to secure the ends of justice.

PAGE | VII
MEMORIAL for [PETITIONER] STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Kashyapuram is a state in the country of Jambudweepam, which has a long history of

caste-based discrimination, communal tensions, and alleged atrocities against the Scheduled
Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) communities. The state is governed by a coalition of
political parties, some of which have been accused of having close ties with dominant caste
groups and overlooking the concerns of the marginalized communities.

2. Arif, a 28-year-old student from a general caste background, has been the president of the
'Kashyapuram Liberation Front' (KLF) for the past 5 years. The KLF is a political
organization that has been at the forefront of the movement demanding greater autonomy and
self-governance for the state of Kashyapuram, which they believe has been systematically
marginalized and exploited by the Jambudweepam government.

3. Arif's family belongs to the Syed community, one of the dominant caste groups in
Kashyapuram. However, Arif has been vocal in his criticism of the caste-based
powerstructures and has positioned himself as a champion of the rights of the marginalized
communities.

4. The Jambudweepam government has been accused of using various tactics, such as
surveillance, intimidation, and arbitrary arrests, to suppress the KLF's activities and the
broader autonomy movement in Kashyapuram.

5. On 15th March 2023, the KLF organized a massive protest rally in the capital city of
Kashyapuram to mark the 10th anniversary of a series of violent clashes between the police
and the protesters that had led to the death of several demonstrators. The rally was attended
by over 50,000 people, including members of various social and political organizations
supporting the autonomy cause.

6. In his speech to the crowd, Arif accused the Jambudweepam government of oppressing the
people of Kashyapuram and treating them as "second-class citizens" due to their distinct
cultural and linguistic identity. He called for immediate action to address the grievances of
the Kashyapuram people and threatened to escalate the protest if their demands were not met.

7. During the protest, tensions escalated when a group of protesters began hurling stones and
other objects at the police forces deployed to maintain law and order. In the ensuing chaos,
Arif got into a heated altercation with Ramesh, a police constable from the SC community,
who alleged that Arif used derogatory, casteist slurs against him.

8. The police, citing the need to control the unruly mob, resorted to a lathi-charge (baton
charge) to disperse the protesters. This led to injuries on both sides, with several protesters
and police personnel sustaining minor injuries.

9. Following the incident, the police filed an FIR (First Information Report) against Arif
under Section 124A (sedition) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for his inflammatory speeches
PAGE | VIII
MEMORIAL for [PETITIONER] STATEMENT OF FACTS
and under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act based on Ramesh's
complaint.

10. Arif's bail application was rejected by the Sessions Court, which cited the gravity of the
charges and the risk of Arif fleeing or engaging in further unlawful activities. His subsequent
writ petition before the High Court of Kashyapuram, challenging the constitutional validity of
the charged provisions, was also dismissed, with the court noting the need to maintain public
order and the rule of law in the volatile political environment of the state.

11. Arif's counsel has argued that the government is using the sedition and the SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act as tools to suppress legitimate dissent and criticism of the
ruling establishment. They contend that the charges against Arif are politically motivated,
aimed at silencing a prominent voice of the autonomy movement.

12. The Jambudweepam government, on the other hand, maintains that the strict enforcement
of these laws is necessary to prevent the escalation of communal tensions and to protect the
rights and dignity of the marginalized communities in Kashyapuram.

13. Arif's supporters have organized several peaceful protests and candlelight vigils in
various parts of Kashyapuram, demanding his release and the withdrawal of the charges
against him. These demonstrations have been met with a heavy-handed police response,
further fueling the tensions in the state.

14. The media coverage of the Arif case has been polarized, with some outlets portraying him
as a champion of the people's rights and others painting him as a threat to public order and
national security. This has added to the already charged political atmosphere in
Kashyapuram.

15. Undeterred, Arif filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court of
Jambudweepam, asserting that the provisions under which he has been charged violate his
fundamental rights to freedom of speech and expression, and life and personal liberty. Arif's
counsel has also raised concerns about the alleged misuse of the SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, arguing that it is often invoked arbitrarily and without proper scrutiny,
leading to numerous instances of false accusations and harassment of innocent individuals.

PAGE | IX
MEMORIAL for [PETITIONER] STATEMENT OF FACTS
 ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether Arif's Special Leave Petition is maintainable before the Supreme Court of
Jambudweepam?

2. Whether Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code is constitutionally valid and
consistent with the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under the
Jambudweepam Constitution?

3. Whether the provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, particularly

Section 3(1)(r), are being misused, leading to violations of fundamental rights and
harassment of individuals?

PAGE | X
MEMORIAL for [PETITIONER] ISSUES RAISED
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether Arif's Special Leave Petition is maintainable before the Supreme Court of
Jambudweepam?

It is humbly submitted by the counsels before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Special
Leave Petition filed by the Petitioner, Arif, is maintainable under Article 136 of the
Constitution of Jambudweepam. The present case involves substantial questions of law
concerning the Petitioner's fundamental rights, which the lower courts have failed to
adequately address, resulting in a grave miscarriage of justice. The Petitioner relies on the
broad and discretionary power conferred upon this Court under Article 136 to argue that the
present case merits the intervention of the Supreme Court to remedy the gross failure of
justice.

2. Whether Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code is constitutionally valid and
consistent with the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under the
Jambudweepam Constitution?

It is humbly submitted by the counsels before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that Section 124A
of the Indian Penal Code should be declared unconstitutional, as it violates the fundamental
right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and does not fall within the
reasonable restrictions allowed under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. The provision's
misuse and its detrimental impact on free speech necessitate its abrogation to preserve the
democratic spirit and uphold the constitutional liberties of the citizens of Jambudweepam.

3. Whether the provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, particularly

Section 3(1)(r), are being misused, leading to violations of fundamental rights and
harassment of individuals?

It is humbly submitted by the counsels before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act raise significant concerns about the potential misuse of the
Act's provisions. The Court should carefully consider the facts and circumstances of the case,
the intention behind the alleged insults or intimidation, and the presence of impartial
witnesses to determine whether the complaint meets the stringent requirements of the Act.
The SC/ST Act, while serving a crucial purpose in protecting the rights and dignity of
marginalized communities, should not be allowed to be misused as a tool for persecution or
suppression of legitimate dissent.

PAGE | XI
MEMORIAL for [PETITIONER ] SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

FOR ISSUE 1: WHETHER ARIF'S SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS

MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF JAMBUDWEEPAM?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed
by Arif is maintainable before the Supreme Court of Jambudweepam under Article 136 of the
Constitution.

1. Article 136 of the Indian Constitution grants the Supreme Court the power to grant
special leave to appeal against 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. This article is often referred to as the "Special Leave Petition" (SLP) provision.

I.KEY POINTS ABOUT ARTICLE 136

i. Discretionary power: The power granted to the Supreme Court under this article is
discretionary in nature. The court may grant special leave to appeal if it is satisfied
that the case involves a substantial question of law or if it believes that grave injustice
has been done.
ii. Wide scope: The scope of Article 136 is very wide. It allows the Supreme Court to
grant special leave to appeal against any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or
order passed by any court or tribunal in India.
iii. Appellate jurisdiction: Article 136 is an exception to the general rule that the Supreme
Court has only appellate jurisdiction over High Courts. It allows the Supreme Court to
hear appeals from any court or tribunal, including subordinate courts and tribunals.
iv. No right to appeal: Article 136 does not confer a right to appeal; rather, it is a
discretionary power vested in the Supreme Court.

PAGE | 1
MEMORIAL for [PETITIONER] ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 v. Preserving justice: The primary purpose of Article 136 is to ensure that justice is done
and to prevent any miscarriage of justice that may occur due to technical or
procedural limitations in the regular appeal process.

In summary, Article 136 is a powerful tool in the hands of the Supreme Court to ensure that
justice is served and to correct any errors or injustices that may have occurred in the lower
courts or tribunals.

II. JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION

2. The power conferred upon the Supreme Court under Article 136 is plenary and
residuary in nature, as held in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala1. This power is
untrammeled and can be exercised outside the purview of ordinary law to meet the pressing
demands of justice. The Supreme Court has characterized this power as incapable of being
confined to definitional bounds and subject only to the discussion and good sense of justice
of the judges.

4. The Supreme Court may go behind the findings of fact arrived at by the courts below
if the trial is vitiated by illegality or irregularity of procedure, if it "shocks the conscience of
the Court," or if substantial and grave injustice has been done by disregard to the forms of
legal process or violation of the principles of natural justice, as held in several cases.2

III. CONCLUSION

In conclusion, it is most respectfully submitted before this Hon'ble Supreme Court of

Jambudweepam that the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by Arif is maintainable under
Article 136 of the Constitution. The power conferred upon this Court by Article 136 is
plenary, residuary, and untrammeled in nature, capable of being exercised outside the

1
Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, AIR 2000 SC 2587
2
Nihal Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 26; Rahim Beg v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 343;
Balak Ram v. State of U.P., AIR 1974 SC 2165; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Babul Nath, (1994) 6 SCC 29 : 1994
SCC (Cri) 1585; Dukhmochan Pandey v. State of Bihar, (1997) 8 SCC 405; Meena v. State of Maharashtra,
(2000) 7 SCC 21 : 2000 CrLJ 2273
PAGE | 2
MEMORIAL for [PETITIONER] ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
purview of ordinary law to meet the pressing demands of justice, as held in Kunhayammed
v. State of Kerala3, and Narpat Singh v. Jaipur Development Authority4.

Furthermore, this Court may go behind the findings of fact arrived at by the courts below if
the trial is vitiated by illegality, irregularity of procedure, or if substantial and grave injustice
has been done, as held in numerous cases, including Nihal Singh v. State of Punjab5, and
Meena v. State of Maharashtra6.

In the present case, Arif's SLP raises substantial questions of law concerning the
constitutional validity of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code and the alleged misuse of
the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The lower courts have failed to adequately address
these issues, resulting in a gross failure of justice. The charges against Arif appear to be
politically motivated and aimed at suppressing legitimate dissent and criticism of the ruling
establishment.

It is humbly submitted that the dismissal of Arif's bail application and writ petition by the
lower courts, despite the grave Constitutional questions involved, shocks the conscience of
this Court and occasioned a gross failure of justice. The impugned judgments of the lower
courts are thus unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside.

3
Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, AIR 2000 SC 2587
4
Narpat Singh v. Jaipur Development Authority, AIR 2002 SC 2036
5
Nihal Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 26
6
Meena v. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 7 SCC 21
PAGE | 3
MEMORIAL for [PETITIONER] ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE 2: WHETHER SECTION 124A OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE IS
CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID AND CONSISTENT WITH THE FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION UNDER THE
JAMBUDWEEPAM CONSTITUTION?

This issue concerns the constitutional validity of Section 124A (sedition) of the Indian Penal
Code (IPC) in light of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed
under the Jambudweepam Constitution. The Petitioner, argues that Section 124A is being
misused to stifle legitimate dissent and criticism against the government, thus violating his
fundamental rights.

IV.RULE

1.1 Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India (applicable to Jambudweepam)

guarantees the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.

1.2 However, Article 19(2) allows for reasonable restrictions on this right 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 offense.

1.3 Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code defines sedition as any action, by words,
signs, or visible representation, which attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or
attempts to excite disaffection towards the government established by law.

1.4 Section 124A of the IPC defines sedition and prescribes punishment for any action
that brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite
disaffection towards the government established by law. The constitutionality of this
provision has been upheld by the Supreme Court of India in several landmark cases, most
PAGE | 4
MEMORIAL for [PETITIONER] ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
notably in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar7. However, the scope of this provision has
been significantly narrowed to only include acts that involve incitement to violence or have a
tendency to create public disorder.

V.APPLICATION

A. Historical and Legal Context

2. The origins of Section 124A date back to the colonial era, where it was used primarily to
suppress freedom movements and any form of dissent against the British rule. Post-
independence, this provision has often been criticized for its potential to curb free speech.

It is submitted that during a parliamentary debate on freedom of speech in 1951, Jawaharlal

Nehru said, “Take again Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code. Now as far as I am
concerned that particular Section is highly objectionable and obnoxious and it should have no
place in any body of laws that we might pass. The sooner we get rid of it the better.” It is
submitted that the use of sedition to silence the critics of the government including human
rights activists, journalists and intellectuals was a regular practice before Independence and
has continued till date.

VI. JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION

Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar8

3.1 This case is the cornerstone of the judicial interpretation of Section 124A. The
Supreme Court upheld the provision's constitutionality but restricted its application to acts
that either incite violence or have the potential to create public disorder. The Court
emphasized that mere disaffection or criticism of the government does not constitute sedition
unless it incites violence.

7
Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955.
8
Id.
PAGE | 5
MEMORIAL for [PETITIONER] ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
3.2 As per this judgement only those acts, which involve incitement to violence or
violence constitute a seditious act. In the various cases that have been filed in the recent
years, the charges of sedition against the accused have failed to stand up to judicial scrutiny.
The petitioner is therefore seeking a strict compliance of the Constitutional Bench judgment
of this Hon’ble Court in Kedar Nath in which for the very first-time scope of sedition as a
penal offence was laid down and it was held that the gist of the offence of sedition is
“incitement to violence” or the “tendency or the intention to create public disorder”.

3.3 It was added that merely creating disaffection or creating feelings of enmity in certain
people was not good enough or else it would violate the fundamental right of free speech
under Article 19(1)(a).

3.4 However, more than fifty years after Kedarnath judgment, the provision under Section
124A is being allowed to be put to use irrespective of whether or not the alleged act or words
are, in fact, seditious acts, or words constituting a “tendency to cause public disorder or
incitement to violence”. In carrying out arrests and slapping charges, the police and the
governments have rarely, if ever, respected this restriction. Successive governments have
blatantly used Section 124A to stifle the voice of dissent and to further their political goals.

VII. RULINGS POST KEDAR NATH JUDGMENT

4. After the pronouncement in the case of Kedar Nath Singh by the Supreme Court,
public disorder has been considered to be a necessary ingredient of Section 124-A of IPC by
the courts. The courts have been categorical in expressing that every criticism of the
government does not amount to sedition and the real intent of the speech must be considered
before imputing seditious intent to an act.

4.1 The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar9, held
that in order to constitute an offence of conspiracy and sedition, it is not necessary that the
accused himself should author the seditious material or should have actually attempted
hatred, contempt or disaffection.

9
Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 149
PAGE | 6
MEMORIAL for [PETITIONER] ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 4.2 Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab10: the Supreme Court held that mere casual raising
of slogans a few times against the State without any overt act, which neither evoked any
response nor any reaction from anyone in the public, does not attract the provisions of
Section 124-A of IPC.

VIII.CURRENT MISAPPLICATION

5. It is submitted that according to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) Report,
2014 as many as 47 sedition cases were reported in 2014 alone, across nine Indian states.
Many of these cases did not involve violence or incitement to violence, which is a pre-
requisite for a sedition charge. It is submitted that as per the NCRB figures total of 58
persons were arrested in connection with these cases, but the government has managed only
one conviction.

5.1 However, in spite of the narrowing down of the scope of the sedition law by this
Hon’ble Court and the widening of the freedom of speech and expression to allow for dissent,
governments have routinely invoked Section 124A with an aim to restrict dissent. The
petitioner acknowledges that words which directly provoke violence or which directly
threaten the maintenance of public order may deserve censure. However, that is not what the
misapplication of sedition law seeks to achieve. The present practice of misapplication of
sedition law violates the Kedarnath judgment. It further aims to crush all opposition to the
ruling political party. Its regular use continues to have a chilling effect on the freedom of
speech and expression in the country.

IX. THE TERMS IN SECTION 124A ARE HIT BY THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO FREEDOM
OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION CONTAINED IN 19(1)(A) AS NONE OF THESE TERMS FIND

MENTION IN THE EXCEPTIONAL AREAS DEMARCATED IN ARTICLE 19 (2).

6. None of the terms used in Section 124A such as “disaffection” “hatred” or

10
Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab, (1995) 3 SCC 214
PAGE | 7
MEMORIAL for [PETITIONER] ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
“contempt”, nor the term ‘Sedition’ itself, found any mention in the exceptional areas
demarcated in Article 19 (2). They are, therefore, unconstitutional and violative of Article
19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

6.1 In 2016, in the matter of Common Cause and Anr. v. Union of India11, this Hon’ble
Court passed direction that while dealing with offences under Section 124A of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860, the authorities shall be guided by the principles laid down in the said
matter of Kedar Nath Singh by the Constitution Bench of this Hon’ble Court.

6.2. If the vague and overbroad expressions in 124A are struck down as
unconstitutional, it is not possible to segregate the unconstitutional part from the other
provisions and therefore, the entire Section 124A IPC is liable to be struck down as
unconstitutional.12 The provisions which might have had some relevance during British
times is not relevant today. With the passage of time, India becoming independent and having
its own Constitution and being one of the largest democracies in the world, there is no
relevance of continuing with the provisions of Sedition.

X. CONCLUSION

Therefore, it is submitted that Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code should be declared
unconstitutional, as it violates the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression
under Article 19(1)(a) and does not fall within the reasonable restrictions allowed under
Article 19(2) of the Constitution. The provision's misuse and its detrimental impact on free
speech necessitate its abrogation to preserve the democratic spirit and uphold the
constitutional liberties of the citizens of Jambudweepam.

11
Common Cause and Anr. v. Union of India (2016) 15 SCC 269
12
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India [(2015) 5 SCC 1; State of MP v. Baldev AIR 1961 SC 293; K.A. Abbas v
Union of India 1970 2 SCC 780; Harakchand Ratanchand Banthia v. Union of India AIR 1961 SC 293; AK Roy
v. Union of India 1982 1 SCC 271 and in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab 1994 3 SCC 569
PAGE | 8
MEMORIAL for [PETITIONER] ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
FOR ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF THE SC/ST (PREVENTION OF
ATROCITIES) ACT, PARTICULARLY SECTION 3(1)(R), ARE BEING MISUSED,
LEADING TO VIOLATIONS OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND HARASSMENT
OF INDIVIDUALS?

It is humbly submitted by the counsels before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act raise significant concerns about the potential misuse of the
Act's provisions. The Court should carefully consider the facts and circumstances of the case,
the intention behind the alleged insults or intimidation, and the presence of impartial
witnesses to determine whether the complaint meets the stringent requirements of the Act.

XI. RULE

1. Section 3(1) (r) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, as amended by Act No. 1
of 2016, punishes anyone who "intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to
humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within
public view."

2. The basic ingredients of the offense under Section 3(1) (r) are: (1) intentionally insults
or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe, and (2) in any place within public view.13

XII.MISUSE OF THE SC/ST ACT

1.1 The Madras High Court in Jones v. State14, noted the misuse of the SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against other communities. The Act is intended to
prevent atrocities against SC/ST members, not to settle unrelated disputes. Authorities must

13
Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand, 2020(10) SCC 710.
14
Jones v. State, 2004 SCC Online Mad 922 : 2004 CriLJ 2755.
PAGE | 9
MEMORIAL for [PETITIONER] ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 avoid overzealous enforcement for extraneous reasons, as it can make a good law
unreasonable. They must guard against misuse of their power.

XIII.STATISTICAL EVIDENCE OF MISUSE

2. Data from the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment and the Government of
Maharashtra show offenses registered against various government officials and officers.
Additionally, data from the National Crime Records Bureau for 2016 reveals that out of cases
investigated, 5347 were found false for SC cases and 912 for ST cases. In 2015, out of 15638
cases decided by courts, 11024 resulted in acquittal or discharge, 495 were withdrawn, and
4119 resulted in conviction.

XIV.SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT, [REVIEW OF SC/ST PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES ACT

CASE], 2018

2.1 Supreme Court Judgment, 2018 Though the enactment of the Atrocities Act was the
need of time, it can also not be denied that some of the provisions of the Act had been
misused against innocents. The issue of misuse was raised from years but it took a proper
form in the case of Subhash Kashinath15 in which Supreme looked over the reports of the
cases and agreed to the fact that the provisions of Section 3 (1) (x) and Section 18 have been
misused to file false cases and the act is becoming an instrument of blackmail. The Supreme
Court relied on the facts that there were more registered cases and very less conviction rate
because many amongst the cases were false and even some of them were disposed of without
trials. Even in some cases the accused was acquitted because the charges were not proved
true. According to one more survey, it was figured that 1 in 5 police personals believed that
some of the cases filed under POA Act were false and politically motivated16 or were filed to
take revenge and create rift between the two classes. Hence the Supreme Court said,

3. Narad Patel Judgment (2019)17

This case emphasizes that mere accusations without substantial evidence and public view do

15
Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra, : 2018(6) SCC 454= 2018 AIR (Supreme Court)
1498
16
The Status of Policing in India Report 2019: Police Adequacy and Working Conditions, 2019 (conducted
together by Common Cause and Lokniti-Centre for developing Societies.
17
Narad Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh (SC), 2019 AIR (Supreme Court) 2288= 2019 INSC 675
PAGE | 10
MEMORIAL for [PETITIONER] ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
not justify the application of the SC/ST Act. The court granted the benefit of the doubt to the
accused under the SC/ST Act, highlighting the necessity of evidence for public insult.

XV.CONCLUSION

1. The facts and circumstances surrounding the complaint filed against Arif under
Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act raise significant concerns about
the potential misuse of the Act's provisions. The context of the incident, the politically
charged atmosphere, and the lack of clarity regarding Arif's alleged insults or intimidation
specifically targeting Ramesh on the basis of his caste suggest that the complaint may have
been motivated by extraneous factors.

2. The Supreme Court has consistently cautioned against the arbitrary invocation of the
SC/ST Act and has emphasized the need for careful scrutiny of complaints to prevent misuse
and harassment of innocent individuals. The low conviction rates in cases filed under the Act
further underscore the potential for misuse.

In Arif's case, the allegations under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act lack substantial
evidence of public insult or humiliation with casteist intent. The incident with the police
constable Ramesh did not involve any independent public witnesses or clear casteist remarks.
3(1)(r) against Arif violates his fundamental rights and constitutes an abuse of the law.

3. In light of these factors and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, it is
submitted that the complaint against Arif under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act warrants
close examination to ensure that it is not a result of misuse or arbitrary application of the
Act's provisions.

5. If the Court finds that the complaint lacks merit or has been filed with mala fide
intent, it should not hesitate to quash the proceedings to prevent the harassment of innocent
individuals and uphold the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The SC/ST
Act, while serving a crucial purpose in protecting the rights and dignity of marginalized
communities, should not be allowed to be misused as a tool for persecution or suppression of
legitimate dissent.

PAGE | 11
MEMORIAL for [PETITIONER] ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, in the light of the factual matrix, issues presented for adjudication,
contentions raised and authorities relied upon, it is most humbly prayed, that this
Hon’ble Court may be pleased to;

a) Exercise its discretionary power under Article 136 of the Constitution to admit Arif's
Special Leave Petition;

b) Set aside the impugned judgments of the lower courts;

c) Grant bail to Arif pending the final disposal of this petition;

d) Declare Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code as unconstitutional and violative of the
fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under the Constitution of
Jambudweepam;

e) Issue appropriate guidelines to prevent the misuse of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act and protect the fundamental rights of the citizens; and

Pass any other order or direction that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the interest of justice.

And for this act of kindness, the Petitioner shall, as in duty bound, ever pray.

PAGE | 12
MEMORIAL for [PETITIONER] PRAYER FOR RELIEF