-
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA L ASCENT (NATIONAL) MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 14
i
TEAM CODE- NME-195
IN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF UNION OF INDIA
WRIT JURISDICTION
W. P. No.___/2014
UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
In the matter of Articles 14, 19(1) (g) and 21,
Of the Constitution of India
BABA HEDONESH AND OTHERS
.............................PETITIONER
V.
UNION OF INDIA..............................RESPONDENT
Before submission to the Honble Chief Justice and his
companion Justices of the Supreme Court of India
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS
-
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA L ASCENT (NATIONAL) MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 14
i
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
L I S T O F A B B R E V I A T I O N S . iii
I N D E X O F A U T H O R I T I E S iv
Acts and Legislations
...................................................................................................
iv
Books
...........................................................................................................................
iv
Articles and Essays
........................................................................................................v
Law dictionaries and Lexicon
......................................................................................
vi
List of Cases
.................................................................................................................
vi
Legal Database
............................................................................................................
vii
S T A T E M E N T O F J U R I S D I C T I O N .... viii
S U M M A R Y O F F A C T S
.........................................................................................
ix
I S S U E S R A I S E D
......................................................................................................x
S U M M A R Y O F A R G U M E N T S
.............................................................................1
I. WHETHER THE WRIT IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT
A.Maintainability of a Writ under Article 32 of the Constitution
.................................2
II. WHETHER SECTION 66A OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY IS VALID
OR NOT
A. Violation of Article 19(1)(a)(Freedom of Speech&
Expression) of Constitution ....4
B. Violation of Article 14(Right to Equality) & Article
21(Right to life) of
Constitution
.................................................................................................................6
-
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA L ASCENT (NATIONAL) MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 14
ii
III. WHETHER SECTION 69A OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY IS
VALID OR NOT
A. Violation of Article 19(1)(a)(Freedom of Speech &
Expression) ............................8
IV. WHETHER ARREST UNDER SECTION 153A & 295A OF IPC IS
VALID
OR NOT
A. Arrest under section 153A is illegal & Arbitrary under
Article 19(2) of Indian
Constitution
...............................................................................................................11
B. Arrest under section 153A is illegal & Arbitrary under
Article 25 of Indian
Constitution
...............................................................................................................13
V. WHETHER CENTRL GOVERNMENT HAS WRONGFULLY EXCERCISED
ITS DISCRETION BY IMPLICATING ANANDIS ARBITRARILY &
FRIVOLOUSLY UNDER NDPS ACT, 1985
P R A Y E R 18
-
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA L ASCENT (NATIONAL) MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 14
iii
L I S T O F A B B R E V I A T I O N S
Abbreviation Full form
AIR All India Reporter
Bom Bombay
Cal Calcutta
Co. Company
& And
Del Delhi
Ed Edition
Guj Gujarat
HC High Court
Honble Honorable
Kar Karnataka
Ker Kerala
Ltd Limited
Mad Madras
M.P Madhya Pradesh
NDPS Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substance
Ori Orissa
Ors Others
PIL Public Interest Litigation
p. Page
Raj Rajasthan
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Reporter
UOI Union of India
UP Uttar Pradesh
Vol. Volume
-
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA L ASCENT (NATIONAL) MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 14
iv
I N D E X O F A U T H O R I T I E S
ACTS AND LEGISLATIONS
I. The Constitution of India, 1950.
II. Indian Penal Code, 1860.
III. Information Technology Act, 2008.
IV. Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS
I. Convention On Psychotropic Substances, 1971
II. ICCPR- International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights
III. Single Convention On Narcotic Drugs, 1961
IV. United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic In
Narcotic Drugs And
Psychotropic Substances, 1988
BOOKS
I. BasuDurga Das, Shorter Constitution of India, Thirteenth
Edition, 2003, Wadhwa
and Company, Nagpur.
II. BasuDurga Das, Constitution of India, Volume 1, 2, 3, 6 and
7 Thirteenth Edition,
2003, Wadhwa and Company, Nagpur.
III. Seervai H. M., Constitutional Law of India, Volumes 1, 2
and 3, Fourth Edition
2007, Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd.
IV. BasuDurga Das, Administrative Law, Sixth Edition, 2004,
Kamal Law House,
Kolkata.
V. Bhat P. Ishwara, Fundamental Rights, 2004 Edition, Eastern
Law House.
VI. Binmore Kin, Natural Justice, Sixth Edition, 2004 Oxford
University Press,
Newyork
VII. De D.J., The Constitution of India, 2002, Asia Law
House
VIII. Hansarias B.L, Writ Jurisdiction, Third Edition 2005,
Universal Law Publishing
Co. Pvt Ltd.
IX. Hidayatullah M, Constitutional Law of India, Vol. 1, BCIT
with Arnold Heinemann
Publishers (India) Pvt. Ltd.
-
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA L ASCENT (NATIONAL) MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 14
v
X. Jain, M.P, Indian Constitutional Law, Sixth Edition 2011,
WadhwaButterworths,
Nagpur.
XI. Justice. Banerjee P.B, Write Remedies, 5th Edition 2010,
Lexis
NexisButterworthsWadhwa, Nagpur.
XII. P.M. Bakshi, The Constitution of India, Eleventh Edition
2011, Universal Law
Publishing Co., New Delhi.
XIII. ShuklaV.N.,Constitution of India, Tenth Edition 2004,
Eastern Book Company.
XIV. Pillais PSA, Criminal Law, Eleventh Edition 2012,
LexisNexis
ButterworthsWadhwa, Nagpur.
XV. Gaur K.D., Commentary on the Indian Penal Code, Second
Edition, Oxford and
IBH Publishing Company.
XVI. Gupta Apar, Commentary on Information Technology Act,
Second Edition,
LexisNexis.
ARTICLES AND ESSAYS
I. Clark, Walter Houston. Chemical Ecstasy: Psychedelic Drugs
and Religion. New
York:Sheed and Ward, 1969.
II. Clark, Walter Houston. The psychedelics and religion. In:
Bernard Aaronson
andHumphry Osmond (eds.), Psychedelics: The Uses and
Implications of
HallucinogenicDrugs. London: Hogarth Press, 1971.
III. Dobkin de Rios, M. Hallucinogens: Cross-Cultural
Perspectives. Albuquerque,
NM:
IV. Freedom of Speech: Justifications and Restriction, 2008
Jerusalem, Israel
Democracy Institute
V. Mathai Anahita, Media Freedom and Article 19, 2013, ORF Issue
Brief.
VI. Randall Benzanson, The many Faces of government Speech, Iowa
Law Review,
2001
VII. Richard Wright, The Principles of Justice, 2010 Notre Dame
Law Review
VIII. Setephn J. Hayman, Righting the Balance: An Inquiry into
the limits of Freedom of
Speech and Expression,1999, Boston Law Review
IX. Stephen,Freedom of Expression and public Order, 2011,Working
Paper
Series.University of New Mexico Press, 1984.
-
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA L ASCENT (NATIONAL) MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 14
vi
LAW DICTIONARIES/ LEXICONS
I. Aiyer, Ramanatha P., Advanced Law Lexicon, Third Edition,
2005, Wadhwa,
Nagpur.
II. Garner Bryan A., Blacks Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition
2002.
III. Sethi R.P., Supreme Court on Words and Phrases, 2004,
Ashoka Law House.
CASES REFERRED
1. A K Roy vs Union of IndiaAIR 1982(1) SCC 271
2. Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri v. State of Gujarat AIR 2000 SCW
375
3. Ajay Hasia . Khalid Mujib, AIR 1981 SC 487
4. AzizulHaqkausarNaquvi v/s State of U.P., AIR 1980 ALL 149
5. Balwant Singh v. State of PunjabAIR 1995 SC 1785
6. Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of Andhra PradeshAIR (1997) 7 SC
127 (1978) CrLR
178 (184-185) Maharastra
7. Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya PradeshAIR 1950 SCR 759
8. D.R.I. Vs Raj Kumar Mehta CRL.A. 275/1998
9. D.S. Nakara v. U.O.I,AIR 1983 SC 130.
10. Department of Customs v Hemant Kumar 194(2012)DLT738
11. Dr. N.B. Khare v. State of DelhiAIR 1950 SCR 519
12. E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555;
13. K.A. Abbas v. Union of IndiaAIR 1971 SCR (2) 446.
14. Kanu Biswas v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1972 SC 1656
15. Karnail Singh v. State of Rajasthan : 2000CriLJ4635 ;
16. Lalai Singh v. State of Up, 1971, CrLj 1773
17. Life Insurance Corpn of India v. Manubhai D. Shah 1992) 3
SCC 637.
18. Life Insurance Corpn of India v. Manubhai D. Shah (1992) 3
SCC 637
19. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 594
20. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597
21. ManzarSayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 5 SCC 1
22. Mithu v. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 473: (1983) 2 SCC
278.
23. Om Prakash v. Emperor, AIR 1948 Nag, 199
-
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA L ASCENT (NATIONAL) MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 14
vii
24. Prahlad Krishna vs. State of BombayAIR 1952 Bom 1, (1951) 53
BOMLR 717,
ILR 1952 Bom 134
25. R.C. Cooper v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 564.
26. R.D. Shetty v. Airport Authority, AIR 1979 SC 1628
27. Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav vs CBI
2010(2)ACR1779(SC)
28. RamjilalModi v. State of U.P., AIR 1957 SC 620
29. Ramlalpuri v/s State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1971 MP 152
30. RomeshThapper v. State of Madras,
31. S Khushboo v. Kanniammal , AIR (2010) 5 SCC 600
32. S.P. Mittal v. Union Of India, AIR 1983 SC 1
33. Shiv Bahadur v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1953) SCR 1188: AIR
1953 SC 394.
34. State of Andhra Pradesh &anr. v/s GoverdhanalpittiAIR
2003 SC 1941
35. State of Bihar v. Shailbala Devi, AIR 1952 SC 329
36. State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh : 1994CriLJ3702
37. State Of Punjab vs Baldev Singh 1999(2)ACR1694(SC)
38. SujatoBhadro v. State of Bengal ,AIR(2005)3 CALLT 436 HC
LEGAL DATABASES
1. Manupatra
2. SCC Online
3. Westlaw
4. Hein Online
-
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA L ASCENT (NATIONAL) MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 14
viii
S T A T E M E N T O F J U R I S D I C T I O N
The Petitioner humbly approaches the original jurisdiction
Supreme Court of Indiain
pursuance to Article 32 of the constitution and submits to the
writ jurisdiction of the
Honourable Supreme Court of India Invoked under Article 32
Concerning Violation of
Fundamental Rights.
Article 32(1): Remedies for enforcement of rights
(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
warrantoand 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.
-
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA L ASCENT (NATIONAL) MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 14
ix
S U M M A R Y O F F A C T S
Baba Hedonesh Anandam is a self-styled guru who has amassed
quite a bit of following
lately. His popularity with the educated classes, especially the
young and well heeled. He had
all the things which a person wants in life and one day
renounced the world after realizing the
true meaning of life after consuming psilocybin mushrooms- hat
event is now embedded in
the popular imagination as the Night of the Light. And ever
since, he claims to live but to
show others the light.
In furtherance of the said endeavor he has written and
self-published an e-book which,
essentially, proposes that in order to attain to what he calls
the true life one has to
repeatedly experience altered states of consciousness induced by
naturally occurring
hallucinogens such as psilocybin mushrooms. In due course one
will see the light and from
then on will begin a life of pure delight. The book also
interrogates the very foundations of
the majority religion, subjecting its scripture, mythology and
iconography to a trenchant
critique.
An empirical study conducted under the aegis of the Johns
Hopkins School of Medicine,
Baltimore, USA claiming that mystical experiences during
psilocybin sessions would lead to
enduring increases in Openness. The construct of Openness
encompasses aesthetic
appreciation and sensitivity, imagination and fantasy, and broad
minded tolerance of others
viewpoints and values.
Hedonesh announces the establishment of the newest religion of
the world: Anandam. An
acolyte is established in hills where people they grow and eat
mushrooms, which is now
regarded as sacred. Initially the Government pays no heed,
perhaps considering him as just
another baba but, soon enough, the government realizes the need
to plug the brain drain.
To begin with, Hedoneshs book which used to be freely available
for download from his
official website is blocked by recourse to section 69A of the IT
Act, 2000. He is, then,
arrested for allegedly violating section 66A of the IT Act, 2000
and sections 153(A) and
295(A) of the Penal Code (The Anandis at the premises are
arrested and the mushroom fields
burnt. The arrested Anandis are charged under sections 25A and
27 of the NDPS, Act, 1985.
Bail applications of the arrestees are summarily rejected. After
his followers are charged
under section 27, Hedonesh is slapped with an additional charge
under section29 of the same
act.
-
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA L ASCENT (NATIONAL) MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 14
x
I S S U E S R A I S E D
1. WHETHER THE WRIT IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT
2. WHETHER SECTION 66A OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2008
IS
VALID OR NOT
3. WHETHER SECTION 69A OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2008
IS
VALID OR NOT.
4. WHETHER ARREST UNDER SECTION 153A & 295A OF INDIAN
PENAL
CODE,1860 IS VALID OR NOT
5. WHETHER CENTRL GOVERNMENT HAS WRONGFULLY EXCERCISED
ITS DISCRETION BY IMPLICATING ANANDIS ARBITRARILY &
FRIVOLOUSLY UNDER NDPS ACT, 1985
-
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA L ASCENT (NATIONAL) MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 14
1
S U M M A R Y O F A R G U M E N T S
1. WHETHER THE WRIT IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT
The writ is maintainable under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India as there are violations
of Fundamental Rights, namely, 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 which are
protected under the Part-III of
the Constitution.
2. WHETHER SECTION 66A OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2008
IS
VALID OR NOT
It is respectfully stated that Section 66A of the Information
Technology Act,2000 provides a
maximum of three years punishment for due to, inter-alia,
annoyance or inconvenience
being caused by online speech or writing. It is respectfully
submitted that such
criminalisation of speech over the internet communication is
contrary to Articles 14, 19 and
21, because it poses unreasonable restriction under Article 19
(1) (2) of the Constitution of
India and that a significant proportion of the offences in
Section 66A do not even fall within
the permissible categories of restriction in Article 19 (2).That
all terms constituting an
offence under Section 66 A of the IT Act have not been defined
either under the IT Act, 2000
or under the General Clauses Act or under any other legislation
and thus susceptible to abuse
and consequentially violative of Article 14 and 21 of the
Constitution.
3. WHETHER SECTION 69A OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY IS VALID OR
NOT
It is humbly submitted before the Honble bench that blocking of
Baba Hedoneshs book
under Section 69A of Information Technology act is not justified
as the said action is
arbitrary and blocking hit under this section is in turn
violating his freedom of speech and
expression
4. WHETHER ARREST UNDER SECTION 153A & 295A OF INDIAN
PENAL
CODE,1860 IS VALID OR NOT
It is contended that arrest made under these two sections are
not valid and arbitrary in nature
because it is not only violating his Freedom of Speech&
Expression but also Freedom of
religion which allows him to practice and propagate the religion
in its own way.
-
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA L ASCENT (NATIONAL) MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 14
2
5. WHETHER CENTRL GOVERNMENT HAS WRONGFULLY EXCERCISED
ITS DISCRETION BY IMPLICATING ANANDIS ARBITRARILY &
FRIVOLOUSLY UNDER NDPS ACT, 1985
It is humbly submitted that Government has violated Article 14
and Article 21 of The
Constitution of India by arbitrarily arresting Baba and Anandis
and Government has
also exceeded its power under NDPS Act,1985.
-
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA L ASCENT (NATIONAL) MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 14
3
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
I . W H E T H E R W R I T P E T I T I O N I S M A I N T A I N A
B L E O R N O T
It is humbly submitted before this Honble Court that the
petition filed under Article 32 of the
Constitution of Indiais maintainable. The same shall be
substantiated by the foregoing
arguments.
A. Maintainability of a Writ under Article 32 of the
Constitution.
Further, Article 32 can only be invoked when there is an
infringement of a fundamental right.
The Supreme Court laid emphasis on this aspect of Article 32 in
the case of Hindi Hitrashak
Samiti v. UOI.1
Where an enactment, as soon as it comes into force, affects the
Fundamental Rights of a
person or class of persons by its very terms, and without any
further overt act being done, the
person prejudicially affected is entitled immediately to invoke
Art. 32, and get a declaration
as to the invalidity of the impugned Act.2
Therefore, it is humbly submitted before this Honble Court that
since, the action taken by
government violates fundamental rights ensured under Part III of
the Constitution,
specifically Article 19 (1)(g) and Article 21, which shall be
elaborated in the following
arguments, it is hence submitted that Article 32 can be invoked
in the instant case.
1 Hindi HitrashakSamiti v. UOI, AIR 1990 SC 851; Held, It is
well-settled that, the jurisdiction conferred on the Supreme Court
under Art.32 is an important and integral part of the Indian
Constitution but violation of a
Fundamental Right is the sine qua non for seeking enforcement of
those rights by the Supreme Court. In order
to establish the violation of Fundamental Right, the Court has
to consider the direct and inevitable
consequences of the action which is sought to be remedied or the
guarantee of which is sought to be enforced; See also, A.K. Gopalan
v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27, Ramjilal v. I.T.O., AIR 1952 SC
97, Laxmanappa
v. Union of India, AIR 1955 SC 3 (4), Bhagwandas v. Union of
India, AIR 1956 SC 175, Daryao v. State of
U.P., AIR 1961SC 1457, UjjamBai v. State of U.P., AIR 1962 SC
1621, Fertilizer Corpn. Kamgar Union v.
Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 344, BandhuaMuktiMorcha v. Union of
India, AIR 1984 SC 802. 2Kochunni, K.K. v. State of Maharashtra,
AIR 1959 SC 725.
-
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA L ASCENT (NATIONAL) MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 14
4
I I . W H E T H E R S E C T I O N 6 6 A O F I N F O R M A T I O
N T E C H N O L O G Y A C T ,
2 0 0 8 I S V A L I D O R N O T .
It is humbly submitted before the Honble bench that the arrest
of the Petitioner under section
66A of Information Technology act is not valid, as the said
arrest is arbitrary in nature and in
return is violating article 19 of Indian Constitution3 i.e.
Freedom of Speech & Expression.
It is respectfully stated that Section 66A of the Information
Technology Act,2000 provides a
maximum of three years punishment for due to, inter-alia,
annoyance or inconvenience
being caused by online speech or writing. It is respectfully
submitted that such
criminalisation of speech over the internet communication is
contrary to Articles 14, 19 and
21, because it poses unreasonable restriction under Article 19
(1) (2) of the Constitution of
India and that a significant proportion of the offences in
Section 66A do not even fall within
the permissible categories of restriction in Article 19 (2).
That all terms constituting an
offence under Section 66 A of the IT Act have not been defined
either under the IT Act, 2000
or under the General Clauses Act or under any other legislation
and thus susceptible to abuse
and consequentially violative of Article 14 and 21 of the
Constitution.
A. Violation of Article 19(1)(a) (Freedom of Speech &
Expression):
In the instant case government has arrested4 Baba Hedonesh under
section 66A5 alleging that
he used his e-book as a medium to create enmity and ill- will
between people of different
communities and therefore is booked under this section. It is
humbly submitted that in the
present case Babe Hedonesh is an enlightened man who is trying
to propagate his religion in
his way. It cannot be inferred under any circumstances that Baba
had intentions to promote
hatred and ill-will amongst people as alleged by the government
but was freely propagating
his views and arresting him for the same is equivalent to
violation of his Freedom of Speech
and Expression under article 19 of Indian Constitution. Freedom
of Speech and Expression
means right to express ones own conviction and opinion freely by
words of mouth, writing,
3 Article 19(1)(a) says that all citizens shall have the right
to freedom of speech & expression 4 Moot Problem, Page 2, Para
3 5Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication
service, etc- Any person who sends, by
means of a computer resource or a communication device,-(a) any
information that is grossly offensive or has
menacing character; or(b) any information which he knows to be
false, but for the purpose of causing
annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury,
criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, or ill will,
persistently makes by making use of such computer resource or a
communication device,(c) any electronic mail
or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance
or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead
the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to three years and with fine. Explanation: For
the purposes of this section, terms Electronic mail and Electronic
Mail Message means a message or information created or transmitted
or received on a computer, computer system, computer resource or
communication device including attachments in text, image,
audio, video and any other electronic record, which may be
transmitted with the message
-
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA L ASCENT (NATIONAL) MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 14
5
printing, pictures or any other mode. It thus includes the
expression of ones ideas through
any communication medium or visible representation, such as,
gestures, signs and the like6.
Explaining the scope of the freedom, the court said, the words
freedom of speech and
expression must be broadly construed to include the freedom to
circulate ones view by
words of mouth or in writing or through audio visual
instrumentalities7. Similarly in the
present case baba has expressed his own views on religion with
no intention of causing any
harm to society as his basic aim was to enlighten his people as
his whole aim of writing the
book was that people can experience True Life8.
Under clause (2) of Article 19, reasonable restrictions can be
imposed on freedom of speech
and expression in the interest of security of the state. In
Romesh Thapper v. State of Madras9
the Supreme Court has occasion to interpret the meaning of the
words security of the state.
The court said that there are different grades of offences
against public order. Every public
disorder cannot amount to be regarded as threatening the
security of the state. The term
security of the state refers only serious and aggravated forms
of public disorder. E.g.
rebellion, waging war against state, insurrection and not
ordinary breaches of public order
part of an individual which incite to or encourage the
commission of violent crimes such as,
murder are matters which would undermine the security of the
state10.
Supreme Court said that public order is an expression of wide
connotation and signifies
that state of tranquility which prevails among the members of
political society as a result of
internal regulation enforced by the government which they have
established11. Anything that
disturbs public tranquility or public peace disturbs public
order12Our Supreme Court held as
early as in 1950 in Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya Pradesh13
that it will be the states
burden to show that a prima facie abridgement of an Article 19
right is constitutionally
permissible under the relevant restrictions clause. In other
words, the presumption will be in
favour of the lawfulness of speech, until it is directly
rebutted by the state. The
constitutionality of the restriction consists, in the main, of
its ability to satisfy the test of
reasonableness of the restriction. Simply, it must balance
social control by the state with
citizens fundamental rights. Although there are no absolute
standards against which a
6RomeshThapper v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124; Life
Insurance Corpn of India v. Manubhai D. Shah
(1992) 3 SCC 637. 7 Life Insurance Corpn of India v. Manubhai D.
Shah (1992) 3 SCC 637 8 Moot Problem, page 1, para 1 9 AIR 1950 SC
124 10 State of Bihar v. Shailbala Devi, AIR 1952 SC 329
11RomeshThapper v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124 12 Om Prakash
v. Emperor, AIR 1948 Nag, 199 13 Chintaman Rao v. State of Madhya
Pradesh AIR 1950 SCR 759
-
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA L ASCENT (NATIONAL) MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 14
6
restriction will be tested, there are several broad guidelines.
There has to be reasonableness
which would refer to substantive as well as procedural elements
of the restriction (Dr. N.B.
Khare v. State of Delhi14). Further, Chintaman Rao held that the
term reasonable implied
intelligent care and deliberation as opposed to unfair,
arbitrary or excessive action.
Similarly, vagueness of a restriction can be grounds for
defeating it (K.A. Abbas v. Union of
India15). Consequently, the third requirement is that reasonable
restrictions must necessarily
be Article 14 compliant, while the fourth is that of specificity
and proportionality.
B. Violation of Article 14 (Right to Equality)& Article 21
(Right to Life):
Article 14 provides for right to equality. In the case of E.P.
Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu16
court said, Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and
dimensions and it cannot be
imprisoned within traditional and doctrinaire limits. Similar
observation regarding
arbitrariness was made in the case of International Airport
Authority17 and D.S. Nakara v.
U.O.I18 where the particular provision was arbitrary in nature
and is violating Article 14 of
the Constitution as it has no reasonable grounds and therefore
the said provision was struck
off. As happened in the case of Mithu v. State of Punjab19
Similar observation was made in
the case of Ajay Hasia . Khalid Mujib.20
That the vague and wide terms employed in Section 66A of the
amended Information
Technology Act, 2000 are incapable of being judged on objective
standards and are
susceptible to wanton abuse and hence are violative of Articles
14, 19 & 21 of the
Constitution of India. Seen in the context of the law of the
land decided by this Honble
Court in A K Roy vs Union of India21, it may be submitted that
Section 66A of the amended
Information Technology Act, 2000 is capable of wanton abuse and
further capable of being
extended cavalierly in such a manner as to allow the deprivation
of the personal liberty of
people, which per se would be a flagrant violation of the
principle of fairness and justness of
procedure that is implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution of
India22.
14Dr. N.B. Khare v. State of Delhi AIR 1950 SCR 519 15K.A. Abbas
v. Union of India AIR 1971 SCR (2) 446. 16 E.P. Royappa v. State of
Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR
1978 SC
597; R.D. Shetty v. Airport Authority, AIR 1979 SC 1628 17 R.D.
Shetty v. Airport Authority, AIR 1979 SC 1628 18D.S. Nakara v.
U.O.I, AIR 1983 SC 130. 19Mithu v. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC
473: (1983) 2 SCC 278. 20Ajay Hasia . Khalid Mujib, AIR 1981 SC
487. 21 A K Roy vs Union of India AIR 1982(1) SCC 271 22 No person
shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according
to procedures established by law
-
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA L ASCENT (NATIONAL) MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 14
7
The whole purpose of representative democracy is precisely the
idea that the truth does
not come to us pre-defined and pre-packaged, and we must adhere
to it but rather, that we
create our own truths by engaging in free and open public
debate, a debate that might often be
heated, sharp and yes, offensive. As Judge Easterbrook wrote in
American Booksellers v
Hudnut:
The power to limit speech on the ground that truth has not yet
prevailed and is not likely to
prevail implies the power to declare truth. And as our Court
echoed three years ago,
in Khushboo23: in a democracy, people can choose to either
defend or question the existing
social mores an expression of opinion in favor of non-dogmatic
and non-
conventional morality has to be tolerated as the same cannot be
a ground to penalize the
author
In the present no defence under article 19 (2) of the
constitution can take place as no action
of Baba Hedonesh was done with the malicious intention to
promote any-kind of ill- will
amongst the people. On the contrary he was working for a Nobel
cause of enlightening
people and showing them the path of true life.
It is humbly submitted that the action taken by government is
completely arbitrary in nature
as it is violating article 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Article 21 of the constitution
talks about the principles of natural justice that the law must
be just fair and reasonable
law24 unlike in the present case where there is clear violation
of article 21 as government has
acted arbitrary and has taken undue advantage of his power. As
it was held in Maneka
Gandhi v. Union of India25 a law depriving a person of personal
liberty has not only to
stand the test of Art. 21 but it must stand the test of Art 19
and Art 14 of the constitution26.
Therefore it is humbly submitted that the arrest of Baba
Hedonesh under section 66A is
unconstitutional as Section 66A of IT Act is extremely vague,
wide, all pervasive, confusing,
incongruent and ambiguous, and violates the Fundamental Rights
of the citizen under
Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and has all
the possibility of being
misused and abused which is very evident in the present
case.
23S Khushboo v. Kanniammal , AIR (2010) 5 SCC 600 24Maneka
Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 594 25Maneka Gandhi v. Union
of India, AIR 1978 SC 597. 26R.C. Cooper v. Union of India, AIR
1970 SC 564.
-
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA L ASCENT (NATIONAL) MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 14
8
I I I . W H E T H E R S E C T I O N 6 9 A O F I N F O R M A T I
O N T E C H N O L O G Y A C T ,
2 0 0 8 I S V A L I D O R N O T .
It is humbly submitted before the Honble bench that blocking of
Baba Hedoneshs book
under Section 69A of Information Technology act is not justified
as the said action is
arbitrary and blocking hit under this section is in turn
violating his freedom of speech and
expression27.
Section 69 A of the Information technology act says:
Power to issue directions for blocking for public access of any
information throughany
computer resource-:
1. Where the Central Government or any of its officer specially
authorized by it in this
behalf is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do
in the interest of
sovereignty and integrity of India, defense of India, security
of the State, friendly
relations with foreign states or public order or for preventing
incitement to the
commission of any cognizable offence relating to above, it may
subject to the
provisions of sub-sections (2) for reasons to be recorded in
writing, by order direct
any agency of the Government or intermediary to block access by
the public or cause
to be blocked for access by public any information generated,
transmitted, received,
stored or hosted in any computer resource.
2. The procedure and safeguards subject to which such blocking
for access by the public
may be carried out shall be such as may be prescribed.
3. The intermediary who fails to comply with the direction
issued under sub-section (1)
shall be punished with an imprisonment for a term which may
extend to seven years
and also be liable to fine.
A. Violation of Article 19(1)(a)(Freedom of Speech &
Expression):
Government has alleged that baba through his books is trying to
create differences between
two groups of people, it is further submitted that the e-book
written by baba hedonesh
constitutes his thoughts and reasoning and therefore is not
creating any differences amongst
the people. Freedom of Speech and Expression means right to
express ones own conviction
and opinion freely by words of mouth, writing, printing,
pictures or any other mode. It thus
27 Article 19(1)(a) says that all citizens shall have the right
to freedom of speech & expression
-
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA L ASCENT (NATIONAL) MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 14
9
includes the expression of ones ideas through any communication
medium or visible
representation, such as, gestures, signs and the like28
Supreme Court said that public order is an expression of wide
connotation and signifies
that state of tranquility which prevails among the members of
political society as a result of
internal regulation enforced by the government which they have
established29. Anything that
disturbs public tranquility or public peace disturbs public
order30. The test for determining
whether an act affects law and order or public order is to see
whether the act leads to the
disturbances of the current life of the community so as to
amount to a disturbance of the
public order or whether it affects merely an individual being
the tranquility of the society
undisturbed31.
It is further submitted that in the present case there has been
no evidence to prove that the
book was written with an intention to create between public or
cause any disturbance in the
public order of same. Baba Hedonesh is a guru who has written
the book so that the people
can read the book and improve their life, as they can understand
the meaning of True life32
The Section 69A of the Information Technology Act negates the
law laid down in Life
Insurance Corporation of India & Union of India &Anr.
vs. Prof Manubhai D. Shah &
Cinemart Foundation AIR 1993 SC 171, wherein the Court held the
freedom of speech to be
a basic human right in the following words:
Speech is God's gift to mankind. Through speech a human being
conveys his thoughts,
sentiments and feelings to others. Freedom of speech and
expression is thus a natural right
which a human being acquires on birth. It is, therefore, a basic
human right. "Everyone has
the right to freedom of opinion and expression; the right
includes freedom to hold opinions
without interference and to seek and receive and impart
information and ideas through any
media and regardless of frontiers" proclaims the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights
(1948). The People of India declared in the Preamble of the
Constitution which they gave
unto themselves their resolve to secure to all citizens liberty
of thought and expression. The
words 'freedom of speech and expression' must, therefore, be
broadly construed to include
the freedom to circulate one's views by words of mouth or in
writing or through audio-visual
instrumentalities. It, therefore, includes the right to
propagate one's views through the print
media or through any other communication channel e.g. the radio
and the television. Every
28RomeshThapper v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124; Life
Insurance Corpn of India v. Manubhai D. Shah
(1992) 3 SCC 637. 29RomeshThapper v. State of Madras, AIR 1950
SC 124 30 Om Prakash v. Emperor, AIR 1948 Nag, 199 31Kanu Biswas v.
State of West Bengal, AIR 1972 SC 1656 32 Moot Problem, page 1,
para 2
-
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA L ASCENT (NATIONAL) MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 14
10
citizen of this free country, therefore, has the right to air
his or her views through the printing
and/or the electronic media subject of course to permissible
restrictions imposed under
Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
Therefore it is humbly submitted before the Honble court that
blocking of e-book under
section 69 A of IT act is not justified as it is not hampering
with any sort of security or public
order of the society.
-
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA L ASCENT (NATIONAL) MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 14
11
I V . W H E T H E R A R R E S T M A D E U N D E R S E C T I O N
1 5 3 A & 2 9 5 A O F
I N D I A N P E N A L C O D E , 1 8 6 0 I S V A L I D O R N O T
.
It is humbly submitted that the arrest of baba hedonesh under
section 153A and 295A of
Indian Penal Code is not justified and is completely arbitrary
in nature.
A. Arrest under Section 153A Illegal & Arbitrary under
article 19(1)(a) of Indian
Constitution.
The purpose of the Section 153 A is to punish persons who
indulge in wanton vilification or
attacks upon the religion, race, and place of birth, residence,
language etc. of any particular
group or class or upon the founders and prophets of a religion.
The jurisdiction of this
Section is widened so as to make promotion of disharmony, enmity
or feelings of hatred or
ill-will between different religious, racial, language or
regional groups or castes or
communities punishable.
Section 153A encompasses:
The act of promoting enmity between different groups on grounds
of religion, race,
place of birth, residence, language, caste, community or any
other group.
Acts prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different
groups or castes or
communities, if the acts disturb public tranquility.
Acts causing fear or alarm or a feeling of insecurity among
members of any religious,
racial, language or regional group or caste or community by use
of criminal force or
violence against them.
It is respectfully submitted that government has arrested baba
alleging that he through his
books has been creating enmity on the basis of religion and thus
disturbing peace of the
society. E-book contains various thoughts and opinions of baba
whose basic aim is to
enlighten33 his people and not to create any differences among
them.
As it was held by the court in one of it judgment:
That fair and rational criticism tenet, couched in temperate or
restrained languages will not
make the criticism fall within the ambit of the section34.
If the words spoken or written are couched in temperate,
dignified and mild language and do
not have the tendency to insult the feeling on the deepest
religious convictions of any section
of people Section 153 A is not attracted35. Similar observation
can be made in the case where
the words of Baba Hedonesh do not have the ability to insult the
religious sentiments of any
33 Moot problem, page 1, para 2 34Lalai Singh v. State of UP,
1971, CrLj 1773 35Azizul Haqkausar Naquvi v/s State of U.P., AIR
1980 ALL 149
-
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA L ASCENT (NATIONAL) MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 14
12
community and he has just kept his view point which cannot be
curtailed as it his right under
Article 19 of the Indian Constitution36. As it was said in the
case of Balwant Singh v. State of
Punjab37 apex court ruled that the intention to cause disorder
or incite people to violence is
the sine qua non of the offence under section 153A and the mens
rea has to be proved in
order to succeed. Similar observation was made in the case of
Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of
Andhra Pradesh38 that Mens Rea is necessary ingredient under
section 153A of IPC.
It can be clearly observed in the present case that he had no
intention to create any enmity
between two groups of people but he was just doing his work and
was keeping his views in
front of people. It can be clearly observed that people from all
class and creed were attracted
towards Baba and his teachings and there was no divide which was
made in the society.
In the case of State of Maharashtra v/s
GanpateVasudeoBehena39:
when an impugned article contained healthy and legitimate
criticism of the Islamic religion
and Intended to bring about reformation in that religion in
keeping with the modern world, it
was held that the article was not offensive.
Baba Hedonesh had his own point of view and he never forced any
section of the society to
join his teachings, he kept his view point which he is allowed
to under article 19 of the Indian
Constitution and as it was held by the Supreme Court that-
the effect of utterances of the accused intending to promote
communal enmity or hatred
between different groups must be judged from the standards of
reasonable, strong- minded,
firm courageous men, and not those of weak and vacillating mind,
nor of those who scent
danger in every hostile point of view40.
Explaining the scope of the freedom, the court said, the words
freedom of speech and
expression must be broadly construed to include the freedom to
circulate ones view by
words of mouth or in writing or through audio visual
instrumentalities41. Hence no offence is
committed by Baba.
Therefore it is humbly submitted that Baba Hedoneshs arrest
under section 153 A is invalid
and arbitrary and is also violating his freedom of speech and
expression.
36All citizens shall have the right(a) to freedom of speech and
expression; 37Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1995 SC 1785 38
Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR (1997) 7 SC 127 39
State of Maharashtra v/s Ganpate Vasudeo Behena (1978) CrLR 178
(184-185) Maharastra 40Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra
(2007) 5 SCC 1 41 Life Insurance Corpn of India v. Manubhai D. Shah
(1992) 3 SCC 637
-
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA L ASCENT (NATIONAL) MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 14
13
B. Arrest under Section 295A Illegal & Arbitrary under
article 25 of Indian
Constitituion.
The object of Section 295-A is to punish deliberate and
malicious acts intended to outrage the
religious feelings of any class by insulating its religion or
the religious beliefs. This section
only punishes an aggravated form of insult to religion when it
is perpetrated with deliberate
and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of a
class. Section 295A 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 citizens. Malice is
the negation of bona fides. Where
a person wilfully does an injurious act to another without
lawful excuse, it can be said that he
has done it maliciously42.
As established earlier there was no malicious intention of Baba
to outrage any religious
feelings of any class but instead he was promoting his ways
following which a person can get
enlightened and lives a life of pure delight. Such charges
framed by the government are
frivolous and baseless as they do not have any basis for same.
There have been no report of
any communal disorder but on the contrary people from all the
sections are getting together
because of Baba and his religion. His teachings are bridging the
gap between people and
enlightening them which is completely against the charges framed
by the government. Only
cold, calculated and malicious attack on religious feelings is
punishable under section
295A43.
Section 295-A encompasses:
The accused must insult or attempt to insult the religion or
religious beliefs of any
class of citizens of India.
The said insult must be with a deliberate and malicious
intention of outraging the
religious feelings of the said class of citizens.
The said insult must be by words, either spoken or written, by
signs or by visible
representation or otherwise.
Section 295A requires a deliberate and malicious intention of
outraging the religious feelings
of any class of citizens if a book gives an objective picture
based on historical facts, it will
not come within the mischief of Section 295A IPC44. Supreme
Court ruled that section 295A
is enacted in the interest of the public order, and it penalises
not any and every insult but only
the deliberate and malicious outraging religious feelings of a
class of persons. It punishes
42State of Andhra Pradesh &anr. v/s Goverdhanalpitti AIR
2003 SC 1941 43Ramlalpuri v/s State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1971 MP
152 44Ramlalpuri v/s State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1971 MP 152
-
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA L ASCENT (NATIONAL) MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 14
14
only aggravated form of insult to religion that have tendency to
disrupt the public order and
section of class of persons45.
It is humbly submitted that in the instant case there can be
proved no instance when baba had
tried to promote enmity between two groups of people or has
created any communal disorder.
He is just propagating his views which do not have the intent to
hurt the sentiments of any
person and he has all the right to practice his religion as
India being Secular nation gives
freedom of religion to every citizen under Article 25 of Indian
Constitution46. Under Article
25 (1) a person has a two-fold freedom-
Freedom of conscience
Freedom to profess, practice and propagate religion
Religion is thus essentially a matter of personal faith and
belief and everyone has a right to
propagate his views meaning to spread and publicize his
religious view for the edification of
others47. Similarly in the instant case baba Hedonesh was
propagating his religion and he has
all the right to do the same.
In the Taslima Nasreen Case48, though it contained hard language
against the prophet, there
was no intention of the author to outrage the feelings of Indian
Muslims and as such there
were no communal disorder reported after publication of book
thus section 295A will not be
attracted. Similarly in the case there were no incidents
reported of distrust or communal
disharmony instead people are coming together of all masses
under the head of one religion.
It is therefore humbly submitted before the court that the
arrest made under section 295A is
inapplicable and the arrest is arbitrary thus infringing his
freedom of speech and expression
and also right to profess his religion.
45Ramjilal Modi v. State of U.P., AIR 1957 SC 620 46Freedom of
conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of
religion:
(1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the
other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to
freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and
propagate religion
47S.P. Mittal v. Union Of India, AIR 1983 SC 1 48Sujato Bhadro
v. State of Bengal ,AIR(2005)3 CALLT 436 HC
-
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA L ASCENT (NATIONAL) MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 14
15
V . W H E T H E R C E N T R A L G O V E R N M E N T H A S W R O
N G F U L L Y
E X E R C I S E D I T S D I S C R E T I O N B Y I M P L I C A T
I O N A N A N D I S
A R B I T R A R I L Y & F R I V O L O U S L Y U N D E R N D
P S A C T , 1 9 8 5 .
It is humbly submitted in this Honble court that act done by the
government is completely
arbitrary and therefore violative of Article 14 of Anandis. As
the authority under Section 42
of the NDPS Act,1985 firstly; does not have the power to destroy
the drug or substance and
secondly: It can only detain or arrest the suspected person.
Although in the present case, the
force destroyed the mushroom fields and killed two members of
Anandis.49 Hence making
the states action as arbitrary and unjustifiable and abuse of
the process of law.
In Maneka Gandhi Vs Union of India50 it was held that:
Article 14 of the Constitution is violated by powers and
procedures which in
themselves result in unfairness and arbitrariness. It must be
remembered that our
entire constitutional system is founded in the Rule of Law, and
in any system so
designed it is impossible to conceive of legitimate power which
is arbitrary in
character and travels beyond the bounds of reason
In RamnnaDayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of
India 51"held that
..arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and
equality of treatment. It
requires that State action must not be arbitrary but must be
based on some rational and
relevant, principle, which is non-discriminatory. It must not be
guided by any
extraneous or irrelevant consideration, because that "would be
denial of equality. The
principle of reasonableness and rationality which is legally as
well as philosophically
an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness is
projected by Article 14 and it
must characterise every State action, whether it be under
authority of law or in
exercise of executive power without making of law. The State
must conform to some
standard or norm, which is rational and non-discriminatory'.
49 Page 2 of the Moot problem.
50Maneka Gandhi Vs Union of India 1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2)
621
51RamnnaDayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of
India 1979 AIR 1628, 1979 SCR (3)1014
-
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA L ASCENT (NATIONAL) MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 14
16
It is humbly submitted that there is a violation under Article
21 as the arrest has been an
arbitrary one and bail which is a matter of right has been
denied to Anandis and
Hedonesh. It was held in the Supreme Court judgment Rajesh
Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu
Yadav vs CBI52
"Personal liberty, deprived when bail is refused, is too
precious a value of our
constitutional system recognized under Article 21 that the
crucial power to negate it
is a great trust exercisable, not casually but judicially, with
lively concern for the cost
to the individual and community. To glamorize impressionistic
orders as
discretionary may, on occasions, make a litigative gamble
decisive of a fundamental
right. After all, personal liberty of an accused or convict is
fundamental, suffering
lawful eclipse only in terms of procedure established by
'law'.
India is governed by the Anglo Saxon rules of jurisprudence. One
of the basic principles of
this school of jurisprudence is that an accused is deemed to be
innocent until proved guilty.53
Under Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act54, the burden to
prove that a person has
committed an offence lies on the person or authority accusing
that person of having
committed the offence. In other words, it is the prosecution
which must prove beyond doubt
that an accused has committed the offence of which he is
charged. The accused does not have
to prove his innocence, though he would be required to rebut the
evidence proving his
offence so that he can be found not guilty by the court.
Therefore, denial of bail is a violation
of liberty of Hedonesh and Anandis.
Maneka Gandhi Vs Union of India55: it was held by the Supreme
Court that Article 21 and
Article 19 were not mutually exclusive, they have to exclusively
read together and that
imposed limitation upon law making, the court said that while
prescribing a procedure for
depriving a person of his life or personal liberty, it must
prescribe a procedure which
52Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav vs CBI 2010(2)ACR1779(SC)
53Criminal Jurisprudence, Roman and Anglo-SaxonM. Romero: The North
American Review, Vol. 163, No. 476
(Jul., 1896), pp. 75-90; http://www.jstor.org/stable/25118677
[Last visited on 14.062014]
54 Section 101 of the Evidence Act:-Burden of proof.whoever
desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or
liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts,
must prove that those facts exist."
When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is
said that the burden of proof lies on that person. 55Maneka Gandhi
Vs Union of India 1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621
-
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA L ASCENT (NATIONAL) MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 14
17
is reasonable, fair and just. That means the procedure to
deprive a persons liberty should not
be arbitrary, fanciful, or oppressive. Thus, the Supreme Court
had engineered a revolution in
interpreting the provision of Right to Life and Liberty as
envisaged in Article 21 of the
Constitution of India and expanded the horizons of life and
liberty. It is further submitted that
the fundamental reason of the above mentioned case laws and
principle is that in the present
case they have been violated.
It was held in Department Of Customs vs Hemant Kumar56 that
combined reading of Section
37, section 2(vii) and Section 2(viid) that Section 37 prima
facie is not related to controlled
substances. Also Sections 9A,25A and 29A deal with controlled
substances As the
substance in the issue is a psychotropic substance therefore
rigours of section 37 cannot be
applied and hence bail must be granted.
The State Of Punjab vs Baldev Singh57- the petitioners do not
have any past antecedents
which could prompt drawing of any adverse inference of their
likelihood of indulging in any
offence, if released on bail with strict conditions.
Therefore applying this in our present case the case is not a
fit for the rigors of Section 37
also there is no past record of Hedonesh or Anandis which could
prompt drawing any adverse
interference in the process of investigation. Hence proving the
arrest to be arbitrary and
frivolous.
56Department of Customs v Hemant Kumar 194(2012)DLT738
57 State Of Punjab vs Baldev Singh 1999(2)ACR1694(SC)
-
SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA L ASCENT (NATIONAL) MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 14
18
PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced
and authorities cited, it is
humbly requested that this Honorable Court may be pleased to
adjudge and declare that;
1) The writ of mandamus is maintainable under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India.
2) The arrest made under Section 66A of Information Technology
Act, 2000 is arbitrary
and unconstitutional.
3) The blocking of E-book under Section 69A of Information
Technology Act, 2000 is
arbitrary and unconstitutional
4) The arrest made under Section 153A & 295A of Indian Penal
Code, 1860 is arbitrary
and unconstitutional
5) The arrest made under section 25A, 27 & 29 of NDPS Act,
1985 is arbitrary and
unjustified
And pass any such order, writ or direction as the Honorable
Court deems fit and proper, for
this the Petitioner shall duty bound pray.
ALL OF WHICH IS HUMBLY PRAYED.
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER