Pleading Drafting & Conveyencing Assignment.doc

PLEADING, DRAFTING & CONVENYENCING ASSIGNMENT

Dr. SHAKUNTALA MISRA NATIONAL REHABILITATION UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW

AN ASSIGNMENT ON PLEADING, DRAFTING & CONVEYENCING

UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF Prof. ALANKAR SIR

SUBMITTED TO

SUBMITTED BY

Mr. Alankar Sir

GAURAV PANDEY

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR

B.COM.LLB (Hons.)

FACULTY OF LAW D.S.M.N.R.U

7 SEMESTER (2018-19) D.S.M.N.R.U

1|Page PLEADINGS AND DRAFTINGS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS

TH

PLEADING, DRAFTING & CONVENYENCING ASSIGNMENT

IN THE MATTERS OF: DHARMANAND POVER AND LAVEESTA KETALVAD (APPELLANTS)

V. UNION OF INDIA AND GENTLEMANIAN SWAMY (RESPONDENTS)

2|Page PLEADINGS AND DRAFTINGS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS

PLEADING, DRAFTING & CONVENYENCING ASSIGNMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………………………………………………………5 QUESTIONS PRESENTED……………………………………………………………………..6 STATEMENTS OF FACTS………………………………………………………………........7-8 SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS……………………………………………………………......9-10 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED………………………………………………..........................11-19 ISSUE: I: WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT? …………………………………..………………..12-15 A. JURISDICTION

OF

SC CAN ALWAYS BE INVOKED UNDER ARTICLE 136 WHEN

A

QUESTION OF LAW OF GENERAL PUBLIC IMPORTANCE ARISES………………….…12-13 1.1 That the issue involves question of law of general public importance and hence, entitled to be maintainable………………………………………………….……13 B. THE ISSUE INVOLVES SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW…………………………….13-14 C. SUPREME COURT HAS DISCRETIONARY POWERS TO DO JUSTICE…………………14-15 3.1 Jurisdiction under Article 136 cannot be barred by Statute………………….14-15 3.2 Equitable Relief………………………………………………………………….15 ISSUE: II:

WHETHER

SECTION 124A OF

THE INDIAN

PENAL CODE, 1860,

CONSTITUTES AN UNREASONABLE RESTRICTION ON THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION

UNDER

ARTICLE19(1)(a)

OF

THE

CONSTITUTIONOF 16-19

INDIA?.................................................................................................................................

A.

SECTION

124A OF THE

INDIAN PENAL CODE CONSTITUTES

AN

UNREASONABLE

RESTRICTION ON THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION…………………......16-17 1.1 Constitutional Validity of Section 124A………………………………...……16-17 B. REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS ARE ALREADY PRESENT IN THE CONSTITUTION…17-18 2.1 Reasonable Restriction………………………………………………………...…18 3|Page PLEADINGS AND DRAFTINGS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS

PLEADING, DRAFTING & CONVENYENCING ASSIGNMENT {Table of Contents}

C. IT IS AGAINST DEMOCRACY, JUSTICE, FREEDOM AND LIBERTY……………...…18-19 PRAYER………………………………………………………………………………………20

4|Page PLEADINGS AND DRAFTINGS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS

PLEADING, DRAFTING & CONVENYENCING ASSIGNMENT {Statements of Jurisdiction}

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION {STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION} THE APPELLANTS HAS APPROACHED THIS HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

INVOKING

ITS

JURISDICTION

UNDER

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950

5|Page PLEADINGS AND DRAFTINGS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS

ARTICLE

136

OF

THE

PLEADING, DRAFTING & CONVENYENCING ASSIGNMENT {Questions Presented}

QUESTIONS PRESENTED {QUESTIONS PRESENTED} ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

ISSUE 2: WHETHER SECTION 124A OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860, CONSTITUTES AN UNREASONABLE RESTRICTION ON THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION UNDER ARTICLE 19(1) (a) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA?

6|Page PLEADINGS AND DRAFTINGS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS

PLEADING, DRAFTING & CONVENYENCING ASSIGNMENT {Statement of Facts}

STATEMENT OF FACTS {STATEMENTS OF FACTS} DHARMANAND POVER v. UNION OF INDIA (SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO. 1996/2016) I Kamlalal Nohru University (“KNU”) is an elite educational institution located in Delhi, India, that offers, inter alia, post-graduate courses in the liberal arts. There were two political parties by which students were attached. Championist Party of India – Farcist (“CPI-F”), a left-leaning political party with communism as its core ideology and the other one is Desh Jalao Party (“DJP”), a right-wing political party with a pro-Hindutva agenda. Sanwariya Kumar a CPI-F affiliated PhD scholar was elected as the president of the KNU student’s council for the academic year 2016-2017. Since 1984, the year of the hanging of Taqbool Jatt, a Kashmiri separatist leader. Certain students at KNU conduct a rally to condemn the occupation of certain parts of the territory of Kashmir by the Republic of India. Various slogans were raised against the tyranny of the Indian State on February 9, 2016. The slogans were initially about “Azadi”, but the tenor of the slogans soon changed to anti-India chants. It is alleged that slogans to the effect of “death to India”, “we will wage war against this tyrannical state till it crumbles” and “we will avenge the murder of Taqbool” were raised. The police arrested Sanwariya Kumar, Kabmar Khalid and Kamiban Bhattacharya on charges of sedition under section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘Section 124A’). II Dharmanand Pover filed a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, arguing that, Firstly, the crime of sedition within the meaning of Section 124A constituted an unreasonable restriction on the right to freedom of speech and expression set out in Article 19 of the Constitution of India and Secondly, Article 19 protects the freedom of the individual to disagree with state policy and dissent against actions of the state. The court disagrees with the submission of Mr. Pover and observed that “The thoughts reflected in the slogans raised by some of the students of KNU who organized and participated in that programme cannot be claimed to be protected as fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. I consider this as a kind of infection from which such students are suffering which needs to be controlled/cured before it becomes an epidemic. 7|Page PLEADINGS AND DRAFTINGS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS

PLEADING, DRAFTING & CONVENYENCING ASSIGNMENT {Statement of Facts}

Whenever some infection is spread in a limb, effort is made to cure the same by giving antibiotics orally and if that does not work, by following second line of treatment. Sometimes it may require surgical intervention also. However, if the infection results in infecting the limb to the extent that it becomes gangrene, amputation is only treatment” GENTLEMANIAN SWAMY v. LAVEESTA KETALVAD (SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO. 1997/2016) III Gentlemanian Swamy is a Member of Parliament with a strong pro-Hindutva ideology. He enjoys mass support from Random Self-Helping Sods (‘RSS’). To propagate his ideology of Hindu superiority, Gentlemanian also runs a flourishing CD business through his whollyowned company, I Love Trump Limited, targeting minority communities with explicit threats of mass murder and sexual violence. Laveesta Ketalvad, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a ban on the production and sale of CDs by I Love Trump Limited. She argued that the CDs were provocative and sought to create discord between communities, within the meaning of section 153A of the IPC, 1860. IV 0000

Gentlemanian argued that the right to carry on any trade or occupation under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. The 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. The High Court observed, “The respondent is wellknown to the world as a mischief monger. A bare perusal of the literature distributed by him reveals his evil intentions to heighten animosity and distrust between communities. He advocates for the killing of all non-Hindus if they do not accept their Hindu ancestry. Such a man must not be allowed to air his venomous thoughts to the gullible youth of this great nation. Accordingly, we find that an outright ban on the production and distribution of CDs by I Love Trump Limited is a reasonable restriction on the respondent’s right to carry out any trade or occupation”. Both matters were mentioned before the Chief Justice of India on an urgent basis, who was pleased to order the registry to club these matters and list them for hearing. 8|Page PLEADINGS AND DRAFTINGS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS

PLEADING, DRAFTING & CONVENYENCING ASSIGNMENT {Summary of Pleadings}

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

9|Page PLEADINGS AND DRAFTINGS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS

PLEADING, DRAFTING & CONVENYENCING ASSIGNMENT {Summary of Pleadings}

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS {SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS} ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT? It is humbly submitted that the Special Petition filed by the appellant against the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi is maintainable under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Firstly, as in the present case question of law of general public importance arises which needs to be given urgent attention in order to do justice. Secondly, the issue also involves substantial question of law, Supreme Court [hereinafter as SC] being the custodial of the Constitution needs to interfere in the present case. Thirdly, that the SC enjoys discretionary powers in order to decide and to do justice, equity and good conscience as it is not only Court of law but also a Court of equity. ISSUE 2: WHETHER SECTION 124A OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860, CONSTITUTES AN UNREASONABLE RESTRICTION ON THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION UNDER ARTICLE 19(1) (a) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA? It is humbly submitted that s.124A of IPC, constitutes an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India. Firstly, section 124A constitutes an unreasonable restriction on Article 19(1) (a), and the action of the state u/s 124A is arbitrary and it constrains the principle of freedom framed under the Preamble to the Constitution. Secondly, those reasonable restrictions are already present in the Constitution itself. Thirdly, as stated in the preamble of the Constitution that India is a democratic country so, anything against the Government cannot be stated as Sedition. .

10 | P a g e PLEADINGS AND DRAFTINGS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS

PLEADING, DRAFTING & CONVENYENCING ASSIGNMENT {Arguments Advanced}

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

11 | P a g e PLEADINGS AND DRAFTINGS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS

PLEADING, DRAFTING & CONVENYENCING ASSIGNMENT {Arguments Advanced}

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED {ARGUMENTS ADVANCED} I. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT? (¶1.) It is humbly submitted that the Special Petition filed by the appellant against the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi is maintainable under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. As in the present case question of law of general public importance arises which needs to be given urgent attention in order to do justice [A]. It is humbly submitted that the issue also involves substantial question of law, Supreme Court [hereinafter as SC] being the custodial of the Constitution needs to interfere in the present case [B]. It is humbly submitted to the kind perusal of this jurisdiction that the SC enjoys discretionary powers in order to decide and to do justice, equity and good conscience as it is not only Court of law but also a Court of equity [C]. [A].

JURISDICTION OF SC CAN ALWAYS BE INVOKED UNDER ARTICLE 136 WHEN A QUESTION OF LAW OF GENERAL PUBLIC IMPORTANCE ARISES

(¶2.) It is humbly submitted that the jurisdiction conferred under Art. 136 on the SC are 1

corrective one not a restrictive one . It is humbly submitted that the SC have residuary power, 2

it is extraordinary in its amplitude, its limits, when it chases injustice, is the sky itself . As in the present case question of law of general public importance arises and in order to settle that 3

this case has been listed on an urgent basis for hearing. It is humbly submitted that a duty is enjoined upon the SC to exercise its power by setting right the illegality in the judgments is well-settled that illegality must not be allowed to be perpetrated and failure by the SC to 4

interfere with the same would amount to allowing the illegality to be perpetrated . It is humbly submitted that in the present case, issue involves matter of general public importance and hence, entitled to be maintainable.

1 2 3 4

Haryana State Industrial Corpn. v. Cork Mfg. Co. (2007) 8 SCC 359 (SC) Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai , (2003) 12 SCC 395 ¶ 10 Fact Sheet Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2003) 11 SCC 241 (SC)

12 | P a g e PLEADINGS AND DRAFTINGS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS

PLEADING, DRAFTING & CONVENYENCING ASSIGNMENT

{Arguments Advanced} 1.1 That the issue involves question of law of general public importance and hence, entitled to be maintainable (¶3.) It is humbly submitted that SC retains an inherent power and jurisdiction for dealing with any extraordinary situation in the larger interest of administration of justice and preventing manifest injustice being done. The power is required to be exercised only in 5

exceptional circumstances for furthering the ends of justice . It is humbly submitted that in the present case an unreasonable restrictions is being imposed on the fundamental rights of Students of KNU and on Gentlemanian Swamy. It is humbly submitted that Special Leave would be granted from a second appellant decision only where the judgment raises issues of 6

law of general public importance . (¶4.) It is humbly submitted that in the present case it is only alleged that Sanwariya Kumar, Kambar Khalid and Kamiban Bhattacharaya were involved in anti-national activities and on the other side Gentlemanian Swamy popularity in one community is considered to be a threat. It is humbly submitted to the kind perusal of this jurisdiction that this case involves issue of law of general public importance and shall be administered on a quick note in order to preserve the Sole of the Constitution. [B].

THE ISSUE INVOLVES SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW

(¶5.) It is humbly submitted that ‘substantial question of law’ means an important question as to the interpretation of law, special leave petition is always maintainable when there is “involvement of substantial question of law and manifest injustice of grave nature and 7

consequence . It is humbly submitted that the SC holds a different view as expressed in 8

Chunni Lal Mehta v. Century Spinning and Mfg. Co. J. Mudholkar observed that “proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial would, in our opinion, be whether it is of general public importance, or whether it is directly or substantially affects the rights of the parties and so whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by this court or by privy council or by federal court or is

5 6 7 8

Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujrat, (2004) 5 SCC 353 Balakrishna v. Rmaswami (1965), AIR 195 (SC) Pritam Singh v. State, AIR 1950 SC 169 AIR 1962 SC 1314

13 | P a g e PLEADINGS AND DRAFTINGS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS

PLEADING, DRAFTING & CONVENYENCING ASSIGNMENT

{Arguments Advanced} not free from difficulty or calls of discussion for alternative views” (¶6.) It is humbly submitted that the SC found the HC to have erred in not framing a substantial question of law and in interfering on a pure question of fact and declared the same impermissible but in the peculiar circumstances of the case declined to interfere, directing the 9

plaintiff to be adequately compensated by the respondent by way of damages . It is humbly submitted that in the present case substantial question of law arises as the rights of the parties 10

are affected and a question of law of public importance arises . (¶7.) It is humbly submitted that grave injustice has been done by putting unreasonable restrictions on the rights of the Appellant. It is humbly submitted that the court reiterated that “circumspection and circumscription must induce the court to interfere with the decision under challenge only if the extraordinary flaws or grave injustice or other recognized grounds 11

are made out . Therefore, the council humbly submits that the issue involves Substantial Question of Law and is maintainable. [C].

SUPREME COURT HAS DISCRETIONARY POWERS TO DO JUSTICE

(¶8.) It is humbly submitted that Art. 136 confer discretionary power to SC to grant special leave in order to do justice. It is unlimited power which cannot be curtailed by statutes. It is humbly submitted that the discretionary power is vested in SC under Art. 136 is not subject to 12

any limitation, the Court has imposed certain limitations upon its own powers . 3.1 Jurisdiction under Article 136 cannot be barred by Statute (¶9.) It is humbly submitted that the extraordinary power conferred by Article 136 cannot be taken away by any legislation sort of constitutional amendment. Conclusiveness or finality given by a Statute to any decision of a court or tribunal cannot deter the SC from exercising

9

Tahera Khatoon v. Salambin Mohammad, (1992) 2 SCC 635. Also See Raghunath G. Panhale v. Chaganlal Sundarji, (1999) 8 SCC 1 10 Fact Sheet

11 12

Shivanand Gaurishankar Baswanti v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills, (2008) 13 SCC 323 Laxman v. Keshavrao, AIR 1993 SC 2596.

14 | P a g e PLEADINGS AND DRAFTINGS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS

PLEADING, DRAFTING & CONVENYENCING ASSIGNMENT

{Arguments Advanced} 13

this jurisdiction . It is not restricted even by the appellate provisions enumerated under the 14

Cr.P.C. or any other statute . 3.2Equitable Relief (¶10.) It is humbly submitted that the Supreme Court cannot deny a relief to a party if he is entitled to it purely on equitable considerations though not under law. Supreme Court is not 15

only a court of law but also a court of equity . It is humbly submitted that SC being the court of equity it also follows the principles of natural justice. It is also submitted that SC is 16

entitled to do ‘complete justice’ . (¶11.) Therefore, it is humbly submitted by the appellant that the special leave petition filed would be maintainable.

13 14

Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commr. Of I.T., (1995) 1 SCR 941 (949) Chandrakant Patil v. State, (1983) 3 SCC 38.See also Jamshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai, (2004) 3 SCC 214 15 Chandra Bansi Singh v. State of Bihar, (1984) 4 SCC 316, 323

16

Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan Pappu Ydav, AIR 2005 SC 972 (para 32)

15 | P a g e PLEADINGS AND DRAFTINGS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS

PLEADING, DRAFTING & CONVENYENCING ASSIGNMENT

{Arguments Advanced} II. WHETHER SECTION 124A OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860, CONSTITUTES AN UNREASONABLE RESTRICTION ON THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH

AND

EXPRESSION

UNDER

ATICLE

19(1)

(a)

OF

THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA? (¶12.) It is humbly submitted s124A of IPC, constitutes an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India. As section 124A constitutes an unreasonable restriction on Article 19(1) (a), and the action of the state u/s 124A is arbitrary and it constrains the principle of freedom framed under the Preamble to the Constitution. [A]. It is humbly submitted that reasonable restrictions are already present in the Constitution itself [B]. It is humbly submitted that as stated in the preamble of the Constitution that India is a democratic country so, anything against the Government cannot be stated as Sedition[C]. [A].SECTION 124A OF INDIAN PENAL CODE CONSTITUTES AN UNREASONABLE RESTRICTION ON THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION (¶13.) It is humbly submitted that section 124A of Indian Penal Code, 1860, [hereinafter as IPC] constitutes an unreasonable restriction on the right of freedom of speech and expression. 17

It is truly said that it is mother of all other liberties . It is humbly submitted that right to freedom of speech and expression is defined as “the right to express one’s convictions and opinions freely, by word of mouth, written, printing, picture or any other mode. A democratic government attaches great importance to this freedom because without this freedom the 18

appeal to reason, which is the basis of democracy, cannot be made ”. 1.1 Constitutional Validity of Section 124A 19

(¶14.) It is humbly contented that section goes against the letter of spirit of Art. 19(a) (1) . India is now a sovereign democratic state. Government may go and be caused to go without the foundations of the state to be impaired. A law of sedition thought necessary during a period of foreign rule has become inappropriate by the nature of change which has come

17 18 19

Report of the Second Press Comm., Vol. I, 34-35. Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Prof. Manubhai Shah, AIR 1993 SC 171 : (1992) 3 SCC 637 Tara Singh Gopichand v. State, AIR 1951 East Punjab 27

16 | P a g e PLEADINGS AND DRAFTINGS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS

PLEADING, DRAFTING & CONVENYENCING ASSIGNMENT

{Arguments Advanced} 20

21

about . It is humbly submitted that in the case of Ram Nadan v. State of Uttar Pradesh , it was held that section 124A imposed restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression not in the interest of general public and thereby infringed the fundamental right of freedom of speech. It, therefore, declared section 124A as ultra vires to the constitution as it cannot be 22

saved by the expression ‘in the interest of public order’ . It is humbly submitted that it is useless to incorporate section 124A as all the reasonable restrictions which are needed to be imposed are present in the provisions relating to right of speech and expression. (¶15.) It is humbly submitted that initially the slogans were ‘Azadi’ which is not against the right of the freedom of speech and expression and it is only alleged that slogans soon changed to anti-India chants no evidences has been found which supports the allegations

23

.

24

It is humbly submitted that mere criticism or even ridicule of the Government is no offence . It is to be noted that sedition is not mentioned in clause (2) of Article 19 as one of the grounds on which restriction on freedom of speech and expression may be imposed. [B].

REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS ARE ALREADY PRESENT IN THE CONSTITUTION

(¶16.) It is humbly submitted that Article 19(2) put a reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression. It is humbly submitted that the reasonable restriction which is determined by the Legislature is not final or conclusive, it is subjected to the supervision of 25

the court , when the reasonable restriction is also subjected to supervision then there is no need to incorporate section 124A which puts unreasonable restriction. No freedom can be 26

completely absolute or completely unrestricted . Exercise of legislative power in this respect 27

by the State can be subjected to judicial review . (¶17.) It is humbly submitted that the fundamental rights declared by the various sub-clauses of clause (1) cannot be curtailed on any ground outside the relevant provisions of clauses (2)

20 21 22

Ibid, p 29

24 25 26 27

Niharendra v. Emperor, AIR 1942 FC 22 Chintamanrao v. State of M.P., 1950 SCR 759 : AIR 1951 SC 118 See Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union of India, (2012) 4 SCC 399

AIR 1959 All 101, (1959) Cr LJ 128 (All) (FB)

However, the Patna High Court in Debi Soren v. State AIR 1954 Pat 254, held section 124A is intravires to the Constitution as the expression ‘in the interest of public order’ appearing in Art. 19(2) of the constitution is wide enough to encompass in it the provisions of section 124A . 23 ¶ 2 of the fact sheet

N.K. Bajpai v. Union of India, (2012) 4 SCC 653 (665). Also See Mohammed Ajmal Mohammed Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2012 SC 3565 (3662).

17 | P a g e PLEADINGS AND DRAFTINGS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS

PLEADING, DRAFTING & CONVENYENCING ASSIGNMENT {Arguments Advanced} 28

– (6) . It is humbly submitted that the Court must strike down any law which imposes a restriction upon the freedom of speech and expression

29

unless it falls within any of the

30

grounds specified in Clause (2) of Art. 19 . 2.1 Reasonable Restriction (¶18.) It is humbly submitted that though the court starts with the assumption that the Legislature is the best judge of what it is good for its community by whose suffrage it comes into existence

31

, the ultimate responsibility of determining the reasonableness of the

restriction, from the point of view of the interests of the general public, rests with the Court 32

and the Court cannot shrink this solemn duty cast on it by the constitution . [C].

IT IS AGAINST DEMOCRACY, JUSTICE, FREEDOM AND LIBERTY

(¶19.) It is humbly submitted that section 124A of the IPC is contrary to the principles stated in the preamble. It is submitted that the court observed that section 124A had no place in the 33

new democratic set up . Freedom of speech and expression is the bulwark of democratic Government. It is to be noticed that freedom is essential for the proper functioning of the democratic process. The freedom of speech and expression is regarded as the first condition 34

of liberty . (¶20.) It is humbly submitted that in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India BHAGWATI,

J.,

35

,

emphasized on the significance of the freedom of speech and expression as

“Democracy is based essentially on free debate and open discussion, for that is only corrective of the government action in a democratic setup. If Democracy means government of the people by the people, it is obvious that every citizen must be entitled to participate in the democratic process and in order to enable him to intelligently exercise his right of making a choice, free and general discussion of public matter is absolutely essential”.

28 29 30

Ghosh O.K. v. Joseph E.X., AIR 1963 SC 812 (814) : Supp. 1 SCR 789

32 33 34 35

Hanif Quareshi Mohd. V. State of Bihar, AIR 1958 SC 731 : 1959 SCR 629 Tara Singh Gopichand v. State, AIR 1951 East Punjab 27 Report of the Second Press Comm., Vol. I, 34-35 AIR 1978 SC 597 : (1978) 1 SCC 248

Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 1166 (1172) : 1962 Supp. (3) SCR 369.

Ghosh O.K. v. Joseph E.X., AIR 1963 SC 812 (814) : Supp. 1 SCR 789; Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 1166 (1172) : 1962 Supp. (3) SCR 369. 31 Pathumma v. State of Kerala, AIR 1978 SC 771 (para 14 et seq)

18 | P a g e PLEADINGS AND DRAFTINGS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS

PLEADING, DRAFTING & CONVENYENCING ASSIGNMENT {Arguments Advanced} 36

(¶21.) It is humbly submitted that in 1927, in Whitney v. California , LOUIS BRANDEIS,

J.,

made a classic statement on the freedom of speech in the context of the U.S. Constitution as “Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the State was to make men free to develop their faculties... They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be secret of liberty. They believed that the freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth, that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile… That public discussion is a political duty, and this should be fundamental principle of the American Government”. (¶22.) It is humbly submitted that “It is the purpose of the first Amendment to preserve an uninhibited market place ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market whether it be by the government itself or a 37

private licensee ” (¶23.) Therefore, it is humbly submitted that Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code Constitutes an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of speech and expression.

36 37

247 U.S. 214 Associated Press v. U.S., 326 US 1

19 | P a g e PLEADINGS AND DRAFTINGS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS

PLEADING, DRAFTING & CONVENYENCING ASSIGNMENT Prayer

PRAYER {PRAYER} Wherefore it is prayed, in light of issues raised, arguments advanced, and authorities cited, that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to: 1. Declare that Special Leave Petition filed by the Appellant is Maintainable under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. 2. Declare that Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, constitutes an unreasonable restriction on the Freedom of Speech and Expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. And Pass any other Order, Direction or Relief that it may deem fit in the Best Interests Justice, Fairness, Equity and Good Conscience. For this Act of Kindness, the Appellants Shall Duty Bound Forever Pray.

20 | P a g e PLEADINGS AND DRAFTINGS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS