IN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT

___________________________________________________________________________
C.A. No.: ______/2016
Petition filed under Art, 32
Of the Constitution of India, 1950.
(Granted leave to appeal)
___________________________________________________________________________
NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, DELHAN

PETITIONER
V.

UNION OF INDIPI

RESPONDENT

___________________________________________________________________________
On Submission to the Honble Chief Justice & Other
Companion Judges of the Supreme Court of Indipi.
__________________________________________________________________
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

INDEX
S.NO. Content

Page(s)

1. THE LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

II OF XIV

2. THE INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

IV OF XIV

3. BOOKS, STATUORY COMPILATIONS

V OF XIV

4. WEB SOURCES, INTERNET ARTICLES

V OF XIV

5. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

VI OF XIV

6. SYNOPSIS OF FACTS

VII,VIII OF

XIV
7. ISSUES

IX OF

XIV
8. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
9. PLEADINGS

X,XI OF XIV
XII,XIII

OF XIV
10. PRAYER

XIV OF

XIV

- MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER -

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
S.NO. Abbreviations Details
1.
2.

IPC-Indipi Penal Code.

ILRI- International Legal Research Institute.

3.

NLU-National Law University.

- MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER -

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
TABLE OF CASES:
S. No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

6.

CASES
Tehalka Scam Case
Sanskar Marathe vs The State of Maharashtra 2015
Gujarat Riots Case 2001
Muzzafarnagar Riots 2013.
NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION,CHHATTISGARH
REPORT-(NANDINI SUNDAR AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF
CHHATTISGARH)
Mr. Venkatesh Nayak vs Central Reserve Police Force on 14 February,
2014,Jeevan Reddy Committee.
Mr. Venkatesh Nayak vs Central Reserve Police Force on 14 February,
2014,Jeevan Reddy Committee.

BOOKS:

- MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER -

PAGE No.
Page 12 of 14
Page 12 of 14
Page 13 of 14
Page 13 of 14
Page 13 of 14

Page 13 of 14

1. MP JAIN Constititutional Law.

2. KD GAUR Criminal Law.
3. Criminal Manual.-I.P.C.(Universal Publications Law House).
STATUTORY COMPILATIONS:
1. The Code of Civil Procedure,1908
2. The Constitution of India, 1950.
3. The Indian Penal Code, 1860.

WEB SOURCES:
1. www.scconline.com
2. www.indlaw.com
INTERNET ARTICLES:
1. Live Law-www.livelaw.in/cartoonarticlescases
2. India Kanoon-www.indiakanoon.org
3. Live law-Telecast of Media-www.livelaw.in/mediaoutcomes
4. National Human Rights Commission-www.nhrc.in

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

- MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER -

The Appellants have approached this Honble Supreme Court of Indipi through suit filed under
art 32 of The Constitution of Indipi , 1950.

ART 32 READS AS UNDER:

32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part:
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the
rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in
the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may
be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 ) and ( 2 ),
Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its
jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause ( 2 )
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for
by this Constitution

- MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER -

SYNOPSIS OF FACTS
1. The International Legal Research Institute (ILRI) is a Research centric institute in the
Country of Indipi. The civil and criminal laws of Indipi are similar to the laws of India. The
ILRI is involved in research relating to the policies of the Government and their
implementation at the grass root level.
2. Arijit Vaishya, a student of IV year of National Law University, Delhan submitted his
research paper on the topic The Armed Forces Special Power Act, 1967: A boon or a tool of
Injustice? The Armed Forces Special Power Act, 1967 is an Act of Parliament of Indipi
enacted to enable certain special powers to be conferred upon members of the armed forces
in disturbed areas such as in the State of Moniru. Moniru is a state in Indipi which suffers
from extreme naxalite problems and thus the Indipi Army is under constant instruction to
maintain law and order in the State. In a number of instances, the Indipi Army has been
criticized on the allegations that the Army has been involved in a number of human rights
violations against the residents of Moniru state.
3. Veer Bhandari -Another student of III year of the same University, NLU DELHAN,
submitted a poster in the Conference the topic of which wasState Rule or Army Rule: the State
of Moniru.
4.Both were arrested by Delhan Police ,there was one video clip by Mr. Pranit Roy a media
representative. There was telecast of that clip on all news channels.
5. The initial hearing began in Delhan Sessions Court on November 22, 2015 on the issue of
admission of the case. The Prosecution lawyer argued that the statements made by Accused
no.1, Arijit and the poster made by Accused no. 2 were made with an intention to excite
hatred against the democratically elected Government in Indipi and were intended to also
uproot the democratic setup of India. The Defence lawyer argued that the statements and
poster were covered under the freedom given under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of
Indipi.

- MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER -

6. The Court did not agree with the arguments of the Defence lawyer and on the grounds
that the right under Article 19(1)(a) is subject to the reasonable restriction of the interests of
sovereignty and integrity of India and incitement to an offence admitted the case for trial.
Surprised with the decision of the Delhan Sessions Court.
7. National Law University, Delhan filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court of Indipi on
December 5, 2015.petitioner has filed the writ petition challenging the constitution validity of
Section 124Athe Indipi Penal Code, 1860-IPC on the ground that it is violative of Article 19(1)
(a) and Article19 (2) and thus ultra-vires the Constitution. The Court has admitted the petition.

- MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER -

ISSUES
1

WHETHER RESTRICTIONS CAN BE IMPOSED UPON THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH

AND EXPRESSION OF ANY INDIVIDUAL OR A GROUP?

WHETHER THERE WAS ANY CHECK OF THE VIDEO CLIP OF ARIJITS

PRESENTATION AND VEER BHANDARI POSTER PRESENTED BY MR.PRANIT
ROY?

WHETHER THERE IS ANY OFFENCE STATING THE LOOPHOLES OR THE

ISSUES,WHERE THE GOVERNMENT LACKS IN PUBLIC WELFARE?
4 .

WHETHER THE RESTRICTION WAS PUT ON THE TELECAST OF THE

VIDEO CLIP OF ARIJIT AND VEER BHANDARI BY THE MINISTRY OF

BROADCASTING, GOVERNMENT OF INDIPI,IF THERE IS ANY INTENTION TO
EXCITE HATRED AGAINST THE DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED GOVERNMENT
IN INDIPI AND WERE INTENDED TO ALSO UPROOT THE DEMOCRATIC SETUP
OF INDIPI?
5 .

WHETHER THERE WAS ANY CHECK OR ENQUIRY OF ARMY

OPERATIONS GOING ON IN THE STATE OF MONIRU AGAINST NAXALITES?

- MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER -

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.
1.WHETHER RESTRICTIONS CAN BE IMPOSED UPON THE FREEDOM OF
SPEECH AND EXPRESSION OF ANY INDIVIDUAL OR A GROUP?
It is given in the case and facts that it was a conference at ILRI, this institute organizes these
type of seminars and conferences to provide a platform to intellectuals to share their
knowledge and research in areas of Public Law. When this is the platform for discussion the
topic related to human rights violation in naxalite areas can be done , this a platform for
discussion of Government policies, achievements and backdrops also. If the person is telling
about the problem of that area it should be carefully listened and solution must be searched for
the problem.
2.WHETHER THERE WAS ANY CHECK OF THE VIDEO CLIP OF ARIJITS
PRESENTATION AND VEER BHANDARI POSTER PRESENTED BY MR.PRANIT
ROY?
It is given in the case and facts that Mr.Pranit Roy a media representative attending the
Conference as a Media Representative from Daily News Indipi (a leading news channel in
Indipi), made a video of Arijits presentation. The headlines for the news said that it was a case
of Sedition and the Government should take appropriate action against such students who are not
loyal to their country and Army. The news also showed the poster drawn by Veer and alleged
similar charges against him. The video could be fake and editing may be done by the media to
show this issue to increase their TRP rate.
3.WHETHER THERE IS ANY OFFENCE STATING THE LOOPHOLES OR THE
ISSUES,WHERE THE GOVERNMENT LACKS IN PUBLIC WELFARE THROUGH
SPEECHES AND POSTERS?
There is nothing wrong in discussing or telling the issues of Government where it lacks in the
development of society, safeguard of public, safeguard of women etc in various forms.

- MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER -

4.WHETHER THE RESTRICTION WAS PUT ON THE TELECAST OF THE

VIDEO CLIP OF ARIJIT AND VEER BHANDARI BY THE MINISTRY OF
BROADCASTING, GOVERNMENT OF INDIPI,IF THERE IS ANY INTENTION TO
EXCITE HATRED AGAINST THE DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED GOVERNMENT
IN INDIPI AND WERE INTENDED TO ALSO UPROOT THE DEMOCRATIC SETUP
OF INDIPI?
If there is any content in the video because of which ay intention to excite hatred against the
democratically elected Government of the country or is there anything in the video through
which democratic setup of nation can be harmed, than this video which the whole nation is
watching through electronic media and press, the Government should order to stop the telecast
of this video.
5.WHETHER THERE WAS ANY CHECK OR ENQUIRY OF ARMY OPERATIONS
GOING ON IN THE STATE OF MONIRU AGAINST NAXALITES?
The Government should set up an Enquiry Commission to verify and check that whether Human
Rights violation is there in the State of Moniru by the Army or not. This Enquiry Commission,
its investigation report will also help in this case. It will provide that actual report.

- MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER -

PLEADINGS
1.WHETHER RESTRICTIONS CAN BE IMPOSED UPON THE FREEDOM OF
SPEECH AND EXPRESSION OF ANY INDIVIDUAL OR A GROUP?
It is humbly submitted before the Honourable Court the Article of the Constitution states that1.1. Freedom of Speech and Expression
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitiution of Indipi includes the right to express ones views and
opinions at any issue through any medium, e.g. by words of mouth, writing, printing, picture,
film, movie, etc. It thus includes the freedom of communication and the right to propagate or
publish opinion.
2.WHETHER THERE WAS ANY CHECK OF THE VIDEO CLIP OF ARIJITS
PRESENTATION AND VEER BHANDARI POSTER PRESENTED BY MR.PRANIT
ROY?
2.1.It is further submitted before the Honourable Court that in one case the court ordered
Checking of video clip and its originality.1
3.WHETHER THERE IS ANY OFFENCE STATING THE LOOPHOLES OR THE
ISSUES,WHERE THE GOVERNMENT LACKS IN PUBLIC WELFARE THROUGH
SPEECHES AND POSTERS?
It is humbly submiited before the Honourable Court that3.1. No offence in Discussion of Public Problems raising their issues in society and policies for
their welfare where Government Lacks.
3.2. Cartoons or caricatures are visual representations, words or signs which are supposed to
have an element of wit, humour or sarcasm. Having seen the seven cartoons in question drawn
by the third respondent, it is difficult to find any element of wit or humour or sarcasm. Freedom
of expression which is legitimate and constitutionally protected, cannot be held to ransom by an

1 Tehalka Scam

- MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER -

intolerant group of people. Open criticism of Government policies and operations is not a ground
for restricting expression.2
4.WHETHER THE RESTRICTION WAS PUT ON THE TELECAST OF THE
VIDEO CLIP OF ARIJIT AND VEER BHANDARI BY THE MINISTRY OF
BROADCASTING, GOVERNMENT OF INDIPI,IF THERE IS ANY INTENTION TO
EXCITE HATRED AGAINST THE DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED GOVERNMENT
IN INDIPI AND WERE INTENDED TO ALSO UPROOT THE DEMOCRATIC SETUP
OF INDIPI?
4.1It is further submitted before the Honourable Court there are many incidents related to
telecast of news etc. Court stays the telecast of videos on all news channels because of those
videos more law and order can be disturbed, the particular society could get anger and do
something offensive, provide harm to the public and Security of the state.3
4.2. Supreme Court stayed the proceedings initiated by the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly
on a privilege notice against editorial management and journalists of two channels belonging to
TV Today group in connection with a sting operation on riots.4
5.WHETHER THERE WAS ANY CHECK OR ENQUIRY OF ARMY OPERATIONS
GOING ON IN THE STATE OF MONIRU AGAINST NAXALITES?
5.1. It is humbly submitted before the Honourable Court for the Set up of Enquiry Commission
in the State of Moniru regarding Village area naxalite problems, human rights violation5 ,army
operations and human rights violation by army or any other defence forces.6

2 Sanskar Marathe vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 17 March, 2015

3 Gujarat Riots Godhra 2002
4 Muzzafarnagar Riots 2013
5 NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION,CHHATTISGARH REPORT-(NANDINI
SUNDAR AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH)
6 Mr. Venkatesh Nayak vs Central Reserve Police Force on 14 February, 2014,Jeevan Reddy
Committee.

- MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER -

- MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER -

- PLEADINGS -

Page | 1
PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, reasons given and authorities
cited, this Honble Court may be pleased to:
1. SET ASIDE the impugned orders of the Honble Delhan Sessions Court.
2. ORDER that proper check and originality of video and quality must be done.
3. ADJUDGE that Article 19(1)(a) provides freedom of speech and expression
4. DECLARE that there is no harm in discussing about Government policies, public issues.
5. DECLARE that Arijit and Veer Bhandari are not accused.
6. ORDER to stop the telecast of video in media news channels if any content is there which
provides a single harm to the nation and its democracy, security etc
7. DECLARE that Article 19(2) is not incitement to offence.Freedom of speech cannot be
made effectively circumscribed as any subject can be precluded from public discussion
making it an offence.
8. ORDER that the Enquiry commission must be set up to check the Army Operations and
Violation of Human Rights by the Army in the naxalite affected Moniru State.
And any other relief that this Honble Court may be pleased to grant in the interest of justice,
equity and good conscience.

AND FOR THIS THE PETITIONER SHALL FOREVER PRAY.

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER

- MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER -