TEAM CODE: IUJ11

1st IUJ INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

BEFORE
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDICA

IN THE MATTER OF

Democratic Reform Associates & other …………Petitioner

Versus

Union of Indica …………..Respondent

As submitted to the chief justice & other companion judges of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

MEMORANDAM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 TABLE OF CONTENT

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATION

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

4. STATEMENT OF ACT

5. ISSUES RAISED

6. ARGUMENT ADVANCE

7. PRAYER
 LIST OF ABBREVIATION

SC SUPREME COURT
& AND
IPC INDICA PENAL CODE
CRPC CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
U/S UNDER SECTION
HC HIGH COURT
ORS OTHERS
IT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Puttuswamy v. Union of India (WP(Civil)No. 494 of 2012))

Kedarnath v. State of Bihar (1962 AIR 955)
Balchand Jain Vs. State of M.P 1977 AIR 366, 1977 SCR (2) 52
Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra (1995)
Sushil Aggarwal vs State (Nct Of Delhi), 2020
 STATEMENT OF JURIDICTION

THE PETITION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE APPELANT BEFORE THE HON”BLE
COURT VIA SECTION 438(1) CRPC & SEC 124A IPC AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT OF TRIAL COURT & HIGH COURT.

THE PRESENT MEMORANDUM SETS FORTH THE FACTS, CONTENTIONS &

ARGUMENT IN THE PRESENT CASE.
 STATEMENT OF FACT

Union of Indica is a democratic country and as known social media has become a
common platform to share information may it be right or wrong. Same happened in the
country Indica which arose a conflict between the various parties of the said nation.
Things were shared in the social media group discussing about the decisions taken by the
government. This bad to an aggressive argument and criticism of the government and to
the save themselves the government have to ban these activities in the country leading to
which few arrest where made. There were volume protest against the resolution by the
opposite party. And hence charges under sec 124(A) of IPC where laid down on the
persons involved in these groups. The anticipatory bails where also rejected by the trial
court and the high court. The home ministry of the country passed the order in exercise of
the power conferred by the IT act talking about monitoring and decryption of
information.

This kind of order is not in violation of right to privacy guaranteed under article 21 of the
Indican Constitution.
 ISSUE RAISED

ISSUE 1
WEATHER THE RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE HOME MINISTRY WAS
CONSTITUTIONALY VALID AND THE CHARGES OF SEDITION WERE VALID.

ISSUE 2
WEATHER THE REJECTION OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL VALID.
 SUMMARY PLEADING

It is stated that the home ministry of the country passed order in exercise of the power
conferred by the IT Act which talks about monitoring and decryption of information
which we absolutely not in violation of our fundamental right that is right to privacy
guaranteed under article 21 of the indican constitution.

It is stated that the government respects the right to privacy and has no intention of
violating it when WhatsApp is required to reveal the origin of a specific message, such
requirements apply only when the message is required for the Prevention, Investigation,
or Punishment of Very Serious Offenses involving India's sovereignty and integrity,
security, friendly relations with foreign states, or public order,and thus should not be
declared unconstitutional.

It is stated that some members of the Democratic reform association were charged and
arrested u/s section 124A of IPC and they were not granted anticipatory bail by the Trial
court and High court.
It is stated that the petitioner holds the intention to instigate the people and is charged and
got its bail rejected.
 ARGUMENT ADVANCE

ISSUE I:

1. It is humbly submitted before the honourable court that the home ministry of the
country passed order in exercise of the power conferred by the Information
Technology Act which talks about monitoring and decryption of information which
we absolutely see is not in violation of our fundamental right that is right to privacy
guaranteed under article 21 of the indican constitution.

2. It is humbly submitted before the honourable court that the government respects the
right to privacy and has no intention of violating it when WhatsApp is required to
reveal the origin of a specific message, such requirements apply only when the
message is required for the Prevention, Investigation, or Punishment of Very Serious
Offenses involving India's sovereignty and integrity, security, friendly relations with
foreign states, or public order, or incitement to an offence involving the foregoing, or
in relation to rape sexually explicit material or child sexual abuse material.

3. It is humbly submitted before the honourable court that the Indican government
recognises that the "Right to Privacy" is a fundamental right and is committed to
ensuring that its citizens have access to it. “The Government of India is committed to
ensuring the Right of Privacy to all its citizens,” but it is also the government's
responsibility to maintain law and order and ensure national security, and there will
be no impact on the common users,

4. It is humbly submitted before the honourable court that no Fundamental Right,

including the Right to Privacy, is absolute, according to every recognised legal dicta,
and it is susceptible to reasonable restriction. One example of a fair restriction is the
provision in the Intermediary Guidelines about the first source of information. It is in
the public interest to find out who initiated the mischief that led to such a crime and
punish them. We can't dispute that in cases of mob killings and riots, for example,
repeated WhatsApp messages are distributed and recirculated, despite the fact that
 their contents are already in the public domain. As a result, the originator's function
is crucial

5. It is humbly submitted before the honourable court that when the proportionality test
is applied to Rule 4(2) of the Intermediary Guidelines, that test is likewise passed.
The main goal of this test is to see if there is a less effective alternate therapy. The
author of material can only be found if other treatments have proven fruitless,
according to the Intermediary Guidelines, making it a last option approach.
It is critical to note that under Rule 4(2) of the said guidelines, such an order to trace 
the first originator may only be issued for the purposes of preventing, investigating, o
r punishing, among other things, an offence relating to India's sovereignty, integrity, 
or security, public order incitement to an offence relating to rape, sexually explicit m
aterial, or child sexual abuse material.

6. It is humbly submitted before the honourable court that section 124A of the IPC has
its utility in combating anti-national, secessionist and terrorist elements It protects
the elected government from attempts to overthrow the government with violence
and illegal means. The continued existence of the government established by law is
an essential condition of the stability of the State, and if contempt of court invites
penal action, contempt of government should also attract punishment, Many districts
in different states face a Maoist insurgency and rebel groups virtually run a parallel
administration. These groups openly advocate the overthrow of the state government
by revolution in the case of Kedar Nath Singh v State of Bihar,1962 the Supreme
Court has upheld the constitutionality of Section 124-A (sedition) on the basis that
this power was required by the state to protect itself.

7. It is humbly submitted before the honourable court that the Anti-Sedition law is
essential to protect and preserve the stability of the Government and to prevent
speech and expression that aims to cause public disorder. All this is necessary to
ensure that national integrity and security remains intact, there are areas in the
country that face hostile activities and insurgencies created by rebel groups, like the
Maoists. They cause violence and attempt to establish parallel administrations in the
areas. They openly advocate the overthrowing of the government for their personal
interests. These groups must be strictly punished. The Government of India is an
official authority provided for in the Constitution and established by law. Therefore,
there must be restrictions on expressing unnecessary contempt or ridiculing the
Government beyond certain limits. If contempt of court invites penal action, then
contempt of the Government should too.

ISSUE II:

1. It is humbly submitted before the honourable court that some members of the
Democratic reform association were charged and arrested u/s section 124A of IPC
and they were not granted anticipatory bail by the Trial court and High court.
Sec. 438(1): When any person anticipates that he/she may get arrested on an accusation
of having committed a non-bailable offence, he/she may apply to the High Court or
the Court of Session for a direction under this Section. The Court may direct (if it
thinks fit) that in the event of such arrests, he/she shall be released on Bail even before
an arrest is made without subjecting him/her to further restraints.
Sec. 438(2): When the High Court or the Session Court makes a direction under Sec.
438(1), it may lay down certain conditions in the light of the facts of the particular
case, as it may think fit.
It is humbly submitted before the honourable court that the discussion which took place
in the social media platform was intended to instigate the people against the
government, they were not only posting aggressive arguments against the government
but also criticizing the government decisions and disseminating false information
against the government and its policies. The petitioner intended to and have instigated
people against the government and have committed sedition and hence rejection of
their anticipatory bail is absolutely fair.

2. It is humbly submitted before the honourable court that section 438 of the Code
confers on the High Court and the Court of Session, the power to grant `anticipatory
bail' if the applicant has `reason to believe' that he may be arrested on accusation of
having committed a non-bailable offence. The expression `anticipatory bail' has not
been defined in the Code. But as observed in Balchand Jain Vs. State of M.P.,
`anticipatory bail' means `bail in anticipation of arrest'. The expression `anticipatory
bail' is a misnomer inasmuch as it is not as if bail is presently granted by the Court in
anticipation of arrest. When a competent court grants `anticipatory bail', it makes an
order that in the event of arrest, a person shall be released on bail. There is no
question of release on bail unless a person is arrested and, therefore, it is only on
arrest that the order granting anticipatory bail becomes operative. The Court went on
to observe that the power of granting `anticipatory bail' is somewhat extraordinary in
character and it is only in `exceptional cases' where it appears that a person might be
falsely implicated, or a frivolous case might be launched against him, or "there are
reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to
abscond, or otherwise misuse his liberty while on bail" that such power may be
exercised. The power being rather unusual in nature, it is entrusted only to the higher
echelons of judicial service, i.e. a Court of Session and the High Court. Thus, the
ambit of power conferred by Section 438 of the Code was held to be limited

3. It is humbly submitted before the honourable court that In the case of Salauddin
Abdulsamad Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra (1995)  Supreme Court overruled its
earlier judgment and held that “granting of anticipatory Bail should be limited by
time.” also in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs State (Nct Of Delhi), 2020 the court
held that there is nothing in CrPC that indicates the grant of anticipatory Bail should
be time-bound. However, under CrPC, it is discretionary power of the Court
to decide on a case-to-case basis (depending upon the stage at which the Bail
application has moved or prevalence of any peculiar circumstances necessitating to
limit the tenure) and impose a time limit while granting pre-arrest Bail. Also, this
duration primarily does not end after first summoning by the Court and can continue
till the end of the trial period. If any Court wants to limit the Bail, it can attach
special features or circumstances warranting the same.
The Court while granting anticipatory Bail, should examine the
seriousness and gravity of the offence (like nature of the crime, material placed on
records, etc.) to impose any condition on the petitioner, if necessary. The police can
reach the Court seeking permission for arrest in case of breach of such imposed
conditions.

4. It is humbly submitted before the honourable court that Mumbai court in the case of
rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by Urvashi Chunawala, who was
recently booked in a sedition case for allegedly raising "anti- national slogans" in
support of JNU student Sharjeel Imam. Additional sessions judge Prashant Rajvaidya
rejected the interim relief after hearing arguments from both the sides. The court
observed that prima facie the case of Section 124 (sedition) of the Indian Penal Code
(IPC) is made out against her and therefore anticipatory bail cannot be granted

5. It is humbly submitted before the honourable that as the petitioner hold the intention to
instigate the people against the government is charged and got the bail rejected.
 PRAYER:

Wherefore, in light of the issue raised, arguments advanced and authority cited, may this

1. This is being requested to the hon’ble court that to declare the order passed by the
home ministry as constitutional.

2. This is being requested to the hon’ble court that the sedation charges on the petitioner
are fair.

3. This is being requested to the hon’ble court that the petitioner should not be granted
anticipatory bail.

And pass any other order it may deem fit, in the interest of justice, equity and good
conscience.