Download Sedition Laws and the Death of Free Speech in India and more Schemes and Mind Maps Astronomy in PDF only on Docsity!
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO. 1996/
DHARMANAND POVER V. UNION OF INDIA
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO. 1997/
GENTLEMANIAN SWAMY V. LAVEESTA KETALVAD
LEX OMNIA MOOT COURT - 2016
IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ON SUBMISSION TO THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
~ MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELANTS ~
TC- 04
TABLE OF CONTENTS
II. S. 124-A OF THE IPC, 1860, CONSTITUTES AN UNREASONABLE RESTRICTION ON THE
- LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................................
- INDEX OF AUTHORITIES..................................................................................................
- STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION....................................................................................
- STATEMENT OF FACTS...................................................................................................
- STATEMENT OF ISSUES..................................................................................................
- SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.........................................................................................
- ARGUMENTS ADVANCED..............................................................................................
- SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO. 1996/
- COURT OF INDIA................................................................................................................... I. THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME
- APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT.................................................................................................
- SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW.....................................................................................
- OF JUSTICE”........................................................................................................................... 3. DECISION OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI HAS CAUSED “GREAT MISCARRIAGE
- INDIA...................................................................................................................................................................... FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION UNDER ART. 19 (1) (A) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
- FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IS THE CORNERSTONE OF A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY.........................
- THE STATE IS THE ULTIMATE GUARANTOR OF THE PRINCIPLE OF PLURALISM..........................
- KEDAR NATH SINGH IS AN AMBIVALENT JUDGEMENT TRAPPING INNOCENTS...........................
- ON THE PART OF INDIAN JUDICIARY............................................................................................................. 3.1 JUDGEMENT GIVEN BY THE HON’BLE COURT IN KEDARNATH SINGH’S CASE IS A FAILURE
- S. 124A CONFERS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND UNFETTERED POWER TO THE STATE.................
- THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT OF NON-ARBITRARINESS IS NOT MET.............................
- INDIAN CONSTITUTION AND ITS UNIVERSALISTIC INTERPRETATION.............................................
- INTERNATIONAL LAW AND CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION....................................................
- 124-A..................................................................................................................................................................... 8. THERE ARE OTHER SECTIONS IN IPC WHICH COMPLETES THE PURPOSE & OBJECTIVE OF S.
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATIONS EXPANSIONS
& AND
¶ PARAGRAPH
¶¶ PARAGRAPHS
A.P. ANDHRA PRADESH
AC/ APP. CASE APPEAL CASES
AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER
ART. ARTICLE
BOM. BOMBAY
CAL CALCUTTA
CJ CHIEF JUSTICE
CO. CORPORATION
CO. COMPANY
CPIF CHAMPIONIST PARTY OF INDIA-
FARCIST
CR LR CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
CRI LJ/ CR LJ CRIMINAL LAW JOURNAL
CRI. CRIMINAL
DEL DELHI
DY. DEPUTY
ED. EDITION
ETC ET-CETERA
FIR FIRST INFORMATION REPORT
GOVT. GOVERNMENT
GOVT. GOVERNMENT
H.P. HIMACHAL PRADESH
HC HIGH COURT
HON’BLE HONOURABLE
HP HIMACHAL PRADESH
HP HIMACHAL PRADESH
IACHR INTER AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN
RIGHTS
ILR INDIAN LAW REPORTS
IPC INDIAN PENAL CODE
J & K JAMMU AND KASHMIR
JMC JAMNAGAR MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION
JT JOINT TRIBUNAL
KANT. KARNATAKA
KER. KERALA
KNU KAMALALAL NOHRU UNIVERSITY
L. LAW
LD. LEARNED
LTD. LIMITED
M.P. MADHYA PRADESH
MDMK MARUMALARCHI DRAVIDA
MUNNETRA KAZHAGAM
N.C.T. NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY
NCT NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY
NO. NUMBER
ORI. ORISSA
ORS. OTHERS
P & H PUNJAB AND HARYANA
P./ PG. PAGE
PUNJ. PUNJAB
PVT. PRIVATE
RAJ. RAJASTHAN
REV. REVIEW
S. SECTION
SC SUPREME COURT
SCC SUPREME COURT CASES
SEB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
SLP SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
SL. NO. INDIAN SUPREME COURT CASES
PG.
NO.
- Acharya Maharajshri Narendra Prasad Ji Angad Prasad Ji Maharaj v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1974 SC 2098
- Aeltemesh v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 1768 28
- Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, (1981) 1 SCC 722 36
- All India Bank Employees Association v. National Industrial Tribunal & Ors., (1962) 3 SCR 269
- Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra, (1999) 1 SCC 759 32
- Bachan Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 898 32
- Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajjapa & Ors., (1978) 2 SCC 213
- Bennett Coleman v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 106 32, 37
- Centre for Public Interest Litigation and Ors. v. UOI, (2012) 3 SCC 1 32
- Chain Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1973 SC 2677 21
- Chandra Bhavan Boarding and Lodging Bangalore v. The State of Mysore & Anr., (1969) 3 SCC 84
- Chintaman Rao v. State of M.P., (1950) SCR 759 22
- D.V Shanmughan v. State of A.P, AIR 1997 SC 2583 21
- Dharam Dutt and others v. Union of India and others, (2004) ISCC 712 38
- Dwarka Prasad v. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 224 22
- E. P. Royappa v. State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr, (1974) 4 SCC 3 28, 36
- Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar v. UOI & Others, AIR 1981 SC 344 35
- Ghodra Electricity Co. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1975 SC 32 37
- In re Special Courts Bill, AIR 1979 SC 478 36
- Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (1996) 3 SCC 212 32
- J. V. Gokar & Co. (P) Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Sales-tax (inspection), (1960) 2 SCR 852
- J.K. Industries Limited Etc. v. The Chief Inspector Of Factories, (1996) 6 SCC 665
- Kasturi v. State of J&K, AIR 1980 SC 1992 28
- Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955 25
- Kerala SEB v. Kurien E. Kalathil, AIR 2000 SC 2573 21
- Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461 22
- Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., AIR 1963 SC 1295 32
- Kumar Shantilal Gosalia v. Gangadhar Narsingdas Agarwal & Ors., (1981) 4 SCC 226
- M.M Gupta v. State of J & K, (1982) 3 SCC 41 21
- Mahajan v. J.M.C., (1991) 3 SCC 91 28
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 28, 32, 36
- Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1980 SC 1789 32
- Ministry of Information & Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal & Anr., AIR 1995 SC 1236
- Modern Dental College & Res. Cen. v. State Of M.P., (2016) 7 SCC 353 22
- Municipal Committee, Amritsar v. State of Punjab, AIR 1969 SC 1100 37
- Regional Settlement Commissioner, Jaipur & Ors. v. Sunar Das Bhasin, AIR 1963 SC 181
- Pathumma v. State of Kerala, AIR 1978 SC 771 36
- R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1995 SC 264 32
- Raghunath Prasad Singh v. Dy. Commr. of Partabgarh, AIR 1927 PC 110 21
- Ram Chand v. Union Of India, 1994 SCC (1) 44 35
- Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S. R. Tendolar, AIR 1958 SC 538 36
- Rev. Mons. Sebastiao Francisco Xavier Dos Remedios Monterio v. State of Goa, (1969) 3 SCC 419
- Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124 37
- S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 1299 37
- Sachidanand v. State of W.B., AIR 1987 SC 1109 28
- Sakal Papers Ltd. v. Union Of India, AIR 1962 SC 305 37
- Dr. Binayak Sen Pijush Babun Guha v. State of Chhattisgarh, Criminal Appeal No 20. of 2011 & Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 2011 (Chattisgarh High Court, 10/02/2011)
- Ghulam Mohammad Khan v. The Crown, 1950 CrLJ 77 Sind (DB) 24
- Tara Singh v. The State, AIR 1951 E.P. 27 25
- Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 160 Delhi Law Times 277 30
- Himachal Transport Workers’ Union v. Secretary to Govt. of H.P, AIR 1967 HP 21
- D.L. Pureiomba of Lambi v. Chief Commissioner of Manipur, AIR 1960 Manipur 24
- Habibullah v. Gulam Ahmed Baba, 1979 Kashmir Law Journal 309 36
- S. Bhagvathi v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2007) 2 MLJ 526 (SB) 36
- The Commercial And Ahmedabad v. Union Of India & Ors., AIR 1993 Guj. 20
SL. NO. COURT DECISIONS AROUND THE
WORLD
PG.
NO.
- Turner Broadcasting System Inc v. Federal Communications, 512 US 622 (1997, Supreme Court of the US)
- Griswold v. State of Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965, Supreme Court of US) 30
- Profitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242 (1976, Supreme Court of US) 30
- Arnold v. Georgia, 224 S.E.2d 386 (1976, Supreme Court of US) 30
- Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972, Supreme Court of US) 30
- Kovas v. Cooper, 336 U.S. 77 (1949, Supreme Court of US) 29
- Neat R. Wooby v. George Maynard, 430 US 705 (1977, Supreme Court of the US)
- Associated Provincial Picture House v. Wednesbury Corporation, (1948) KB 223, 226 (1948, Court of Appeal of England and Wales)
- Ivcher-Bronstein v. Peru, IACHR Series C No. 74 (Inter-American Court of Human Rights)
- Herrera-Ulloa v. Costa Rica Judgment, [2004] IACHR 3 (Inter-American Court of Human Rights)
- Handyside v. United Kingdom, (5493/72) [1976] ECHR 5, (European Court of Human Rights)
- Informationsverein Lentia & others v. Austria, Application No. 13914/88; 15717/89; 17207/90, (European Court of Human Rights)
SL. NO. INDIAN STATUTE
- The^ Companies^ Act,^2013
- The^ Indian^ Penal^ Code,^1860
- The^ Press (Emergency^ Powers)^ Act,^1931
- The^ Societies^ Registration^ Act,^1860 SL. NO. JOURNALS & REPORTS
PG.
NO.
- Sexual orientation, Gender identity and International Human Rights Law, 47, Practitioners Guide No. 4, International Commission of Jurists
- (^) Inter- American Commission on Human Rights, Annual Report on Human Rights 1994, “Report on the Compatibility Desacato Laws with the American Convention on Human Rights”, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.88., Doc. 9 rev. (1995)
- M.G. Wallace, Constitutionality of Sedition Laws, 6 Virginia L. R. (1920) 24
- (^) Centre for the Study of social Exclusion and Inclusive Policy, National Law School of India University, Bangalore, Overview of Sedition Laws in India, Sedition Laws and the Death of Free Speech in India (2011)
- The National Crime Records Bureau Records, Chap. 21, 2014, available at http://ncrb.nic.in/StatPublications/CII/CII2014/Compendium%202014.pdf
- Rajeev Dhavan, ‘Borrowed Ideas: On the Impact of American Scholarship on Indian Law’, The American Journal of Comparative Law (1985)
- David Barnum, The Clear and Present Danger Test in Anglo-American and European Law, San Diego Journal of International Law (2006)
- Leonard M. Hammer, Reconsidering the Israeli Courts’ Application of Customary International law in the Human Rights Context, ILSA J Int’l & Comp L., (1998)
- James Allan, Grant Huscroft, and Nessa Lynch, The Citation of Overseas Authority in Rights Litigation in New Zealand: How Much Bark? How Much Bite? 11 Otago L. Rev. (2007)
- Anthony J Bellia Jr & Bradford R Clark, The Law of Nations as Constitutional Law, Va. L. Rev. (2012)
- Austen L. Parrish, Storm in a Teacup: The U.S. Supreme Court’s Use of Foreign Law, Uni. Ill. L. Rev. (2007)
- Ernesto Sanchez, A Case Against Judicial Internationalism, Conn. L. Rev. (2005)
SL. NO. BOOKS
PG.
NO.
- Halsbury’s Laws of India (2nd^ ed., 2007) 22
- K.N.C. Pillai & Shabistan Aquil, Law of Sedition, Essays on the Indian Penal Code (2nd^ ed., 2005)
- (^) Durga Das Basu’s, Commentary on the Constitution of India (Justice Y. V. Chandrachud, Justice S.S. Subramani, Justice B.P. Banerjee (8th^ ed., 2007)
- Konrad Zweigert & HeinKotz, Introduction to Comparative law (2nd^ ed.,
SL. NO. MAGAZINES & NEWSPAPERS PG.
NO.
- Kaleeswaram Raj, A Case Against the Sedition Law, Frontline (18/03/2016)
- Times^ News^ Network,^ Gujarat^ High^ Court^ quashes^ sedition^ cases^ against TOI, Times of India (19/04/2012)
- P. Sudhakar, S. Vijay Kumar, Kudankulam, 11 Protestors Held on Sedition Charges, The Hindu (20/03/2012)
- Press Trust of India, Kashmir debate: Amnesty International India booked for ‘sedition’ , Amnesty International, Indian Express (15/08/2016)
SL. NO. WEB RESOURCES
- www.westlaw.india.com^ (WEST^ LAW^ INDIA)
- www.manupatrafast.com^ (MANUPATRA)
- www.judis.nic.in^ (SUPREME^ COURT^ OF^ INDIA^ OFFICIAL)
- www.jstor.org^ (JSTOR)
- www.scconline.com^ (SCC^ ONLINE)
STATEMENT OF FACTS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO. 1996/
BACKGROUND
¶ 1. KNU is an elite educational institution located in Delhi, offering post-graduate courses in the liberal arts. The campus has two political parties, the left-leaning CPI-F, and the right- wing DJP. Verbal spats and physical violence between rival political camps are common. Sanwariya Kumar, the President of KNU Student Council, Kabmar Khalid and Kamiban Bhattacharya are CPI-F affiliated PhD scholars. CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING TO THE FILING OF THE PETITION ¶ 2. At the annual rally conducted on February 9, 2016, various slogans were raised against the tyranny of the Indian state. The slogans were about “Azadi” of the Kashmiri people. However it was alleged by the members of DJP that the slogans also included, “death to India”, “we will wage war against this tyrannical state till it crumbles” and “we will avenge the murder of Taqbool” were raised. Members of DJP called the police. The police arrived at the KNU campus and arrested Sanwariya Kumar, Kabmar Khalid and Kamiban Bhattacharya on charges of sedition under S. 124A of the IPC. The CPI-F affiliated students held several rallies subsequently, and claiming to be defending their freedom of speech and expression. At this time, Dharmanand Pover, agreed to represent the KNU students and filed a writ petition under Art. 226 challenging the constitutionality of S. 124A saying that it violates Art. 19. DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT ¶ 3. The High Court disagreed with Mr. Pover’s submissions and upheld the constitutionality of Section 124A, holding it to be a reasonable restriction on the right to freedom of speech and expression set out in Article 19. APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT ¶ 4. The High Court granted a leave to appeal to Mr. Dharmanand Pover, who moved the Hon’ble SC.
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO.
1997/2016 BACKGROUND
¶ 1. Gentlemanian Swamy is a MP with a strong pro-hindutva ideology. He enjoys mass support from various categories of people, and is known to write negatively about various fellow politicians and members of minority communities. To propagate his ideology of Hindu superiority, he also runs CD business through his wholly-owned company, I Love Trump Limited, which specialises in producing and distributing provocative songs and videos targeting minority communities with explicit threats of mass murder and sexual violence. His CDs are very popular in North India, and his songs and videos are routinely played at meetings of the RSS. CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING TO THE CASE ¶ 2. Laveesta Ketalvad, an advocate specialising in representing victims of communal violence, filed a WP before the Hon’ble HC of Delhi under Art. 226, seeking a ban on the production and sale of CDs by I Love Trump Ltd because they were provocative and sought to create discord between communities, leading to escalated tension and the outbreak of communal riots, and the production and distribution of CDs constituted the crime of promoting enmity between communities within the meaning of S. 153A of the IPC, 1860. APPEAL TO THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT ¶ 3. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi ruled in favour of Laveesta, and held that the ban on production and distribution of CDs was a reasonable restriction on Gentlemanian’s right to carry on any trade or occupation. Hence the present appeal.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO. 1996/
I. THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME
COURT OF INDIA.
We are approaching the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution of India. This Petition of Special Leave constitutes the primary substantial question of law in the form of the disputed constitutionality of section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1890 talking about sedition. Thus, the question of its constitutionality itself is the substantial question of law, and moreover the existence and application of this law has caused great miscarriage of justice which the appellants seek to change with this petition. II. S. 124A OF THE IPC, 1860, CONSTITUTES AN UNREASONABLE RESTRICTION ON THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH & EXPRESSION UNDER ART. 19 (1) (A) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. Firstly, the law of sedition is an imperial law in need of urgent review and removal. It is in blatant contravention to the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Art. 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India. In the name of reasonable restriction it is silencing opinions and is the reflection of a dissent and criticism fearing state. The survival of this imperial law owes it survival to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar which has an archaic and restrictive approach. Secondly, in comparison to constitutional interpretation of sedition laws all over the world it is observed that no other nation is still implementing the age old law that is clearly the epitome of gross human right violations. The universalistic interpretation of the constitution is much needed to interpret the constitutional provisions in light of the modern legal evolution and in appreciation of human right ideals.
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO. 1997/
I. THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME
COURT OF INDIA.
The matter filed by Mr. Gentlemanian Swamy under Art. 136 is not maintainable because there is no substantial question of law present in the case, which is an important prerequisite for the filing of a Special Leave Petition. Also as the judgment of the High Court was correct, there was no grave miscarriage of justice taking place. Thus, the leave of Special Leave should be rejected. II. THE BAN ON THE PRODUCTION OF CDS BY I LOVE TRUMP LTD. IS A REASONABLE RESTRICTION ON THE RIGHT TO PRACTISE ANY PROFESSION, OR TO CARRY ON ANY OCCUPATION, TRADE OR BUSINESS ENSHRINED UNDER ART. 19 (1) (G). That the CDs produced by I Love Trump ltd. specialises in producing and distributing provocative songs and videos targeting minority communities with explicit threats of mass murder and sexual violence, which in itself is violative of the Indian Penal Code. Such an act can cause communal tension and discord in society. Therefore banning the production and distribution of such CDs would be a reasonable restriction under Art. 19(1) (g). Moreover, the right under Art. 19(1) (g) cannot be claimed by a company viz. I Love Trump Ltd. ]
