TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF ABBREVATIONS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

 CASES
 BOOKS
 ACTS

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

STATEMENT OF FACTS

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

 TABLE OF ABBREVATIONS

& And

AIR All India Reporter

AISO All Indiva Student Organisation

Anr. Another

Art. Article

Co. Company

DSU Democratic Students Union

HC High Court

Hon’ble Honourable

IPC Indian Penal Code

IPP Indiva Peoples Party

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

No. Number

Ors. Others

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

Sec. Section

U/Sec Under Section

V. Versus
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

1. Kedarnath v. State of Bihar [AIR 1962 SC 955]

2. King Emperor v. Sadashiv Narayan Bhalerao [1947]
3. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India [(2013) 12 SCC 73]
4. Kanhaiya Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi [(2016) 227 DLT 612]
5. Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh [AIR 1997 SC 3438]
6. A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras [AIR 1950 SC 27]
7. Snyder v. Phelp [562 U.S. 443 (2011)]
8. Gompers v. Buck’s Stove & Range Co. [221 U.S 418(1911)]
9. Nazir Khan & Ors. v. State of Delhi [AIR 2003 SC 4427]
10. Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi [AIR 1950 SC 129]
11. Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras [AIR 1950 SC 124]

BOOKS

1. BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY

2. M. P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
3. P. M. BAKSHI, THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
4. K. D. GAUR, COMMENTARY ON INDIAN PENAL CODE

ACTS

1. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950

2. THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

 Indiva is a small developing country with Bangistan, being its neighbouring country.
In the last few months, many instances of freedom of speech and expression has come
into light.

1) A criminal case was filed against Kamla Mehta, an actor-politician (member of the
opposition party) for her comment on social media. Minister Mohan Singh said that
“Going to Bangistan is like going to hell.”, on which she commented that, “There is
nothing like that. People there are just like us. They treated us well.” After which
Kamla Mehta challenged the constitutionality of sec. 19(1)(a) before the SC.
2) During a debate conducted by Lamnesty International, an NGO, which talked about
human rights violation by the Indiva Army on the people of Vienna, the ruling party –
IPP was criticised for its inaction. And by the end, the debate got heated and some
anti-Indiva slogans were heard.
3) Even after the refusal from the university, the DSU held protests on the campus;
regarding the hanging of Faizal Khan (convicted for terror attack on the Parliament).
During which many anti-Indiva slogans and slogans to overthrow the govt. were
raised. A complaint was filed against the President of DSU, Raju Kumar (charges of
sedition). But the investigations by the disciplinary committee held that the slogans
were raised by a group of outsiders wearing masks.
4) AISO, a student body associated with IPP was responsible for filing complaint against
Raju Kumar and Lamnesty International (u/s 124-A of IPC)

 Kamla Mehta, Lamnesty International and Raju Kumar filed a PIL challenging the
validity of Sec. 124-A as being violative of Arts. 19(1)(a) and 21.
 Issues palced before a Special Bench of the SC of Indiva to decide.
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

I. WHETHER SECTION 124-A OF IPC INFRINGES FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION ENSHRINED UNDER
ARTICLE 19(1)(a) OF THE CONSTITUTION?

II. WHETHER SECTION 124-A OF IPC INFRINGES FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

TO LIFE AND LIBERTY ENSHRINED UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE
CONSTITUTION?
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
ADVANCED ARGUMENTS
PRAYER FOR RELIEF