Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
The offence of sedition is provided under section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 :
otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite
disaffection towards, the Government established by law in [India], shall be punished with [im-
prisonment for life], to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to
· Adil under the section stated above cannot be held liable as for committing such an
offence it is essential to create incitement amonst the public(insert footnote) which adil
neither committed nor did he had intentions to do so. Being unsatisfied by the way his
community was being treated or the problems which they faced , the applleant excercised
his right to freedom of speech and expression ( provided to each and every individual
under both ICCPR and UDHR ) through his blog and voiced his opinions on social topics
of the country he was residing in, which does not constitutes sedition.
In this context , Article 19 of ICCPR (International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights) and
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to
seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally,
in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
Likewise Article 19 of UDHR also states :
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold
opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any
· The applleant received numerous amount of threats after publishing the blog and felt an
unsafe enviroment around him which also infringed his right guaranted under Art. 21 of
Protection of life and personal liberty : No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty
The right to live is not mere a physical right but includes within its ambit right to live with
human dignity (maneka) , right to reputation (kiran bedi) and so forth which were moreover
SUBPOINTS
In reference to the case of Shreya Singal v. Union Of India , the Supreme cort clearly drew
distinction between "Avocacy" and "incitement", in which only incitement can be punished. In
the present case, the applleant merely wrote a blog without any intention to create disturbance in
the country. Neither did he incite the public in any manner nor his actions were such as to
indicate that he wanted to create incitement amongst the public, which is moreover evident in his
testimony that his motive was just to make his community aware about their rights and nowhere
did he manipulate anything or anyone. He nowhere in his blog mentioned or targeted a particular
· As stated in the statement of facts, it clearly indicates that what the applleant had written
was his mere opinion on real time stories and he didn’t have any intention to provoke
· Adil in his testimony clearly stated the main reason behind writing this blog was to draw
the attention of the government towards the issue that he portrayed in his blog and to make
people of Abibi aware about their fundamental rights which are given by the Constitution
of Abibi.
· The moot proposition in its 7th point stated that the site created by Adil titled “My Rights,
My Voice”. The title in itself clearly indicates his active participation towards the
protection of rights.
· Earlier he was writing about the rights of women and child labors and after that now he
wrote for muslim community. So, this clearly shows he didn’t have any intention to
· Since it is clearly stated in the moot proposition that Adil never received so much traffic
on his earlier written blogs, it is sufficient to prove that he didn’t have any knowledge that
blog in question will go viral and moreover shows that there was no mes rea to perform
such an act.
· The only intention that the applleant had behind writing this blog was to highlight or point
out the current scenerio of what is happening in the country and make people of Abibi
· All the cases which the applleant mentioned in his blog were real time stories which in
itself shows that he did not manipulate or misrepresent any fact to form anything
· The word ‘Secular’ is mentioned in Abibi's constitution which means one that protects all
religions equally. The applleant aimed for equality in the country and demanded justice for
his community which according to him was lacking and so in the blog he for the purpose
of highlighting few words, altered the preamble of the constitution to show that these
fundamental rights which are moreover the basic structures of Abibi's constitution are not
· The level of incitement that was created amongst the public was never expected by the
applleant and would have never received traffic if the news channels and other media
platforms would not have kept the blog in the spotlight and make it viral. If the govt. had
taken proper measures and took appropriate steps then these riots and mass level
destruction could have never occurred and thus, the applleant can not be made liable under
124A of IPC.