I

TEAM CODE R10

BEFORE,

THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DILI

CIVIL APPEAL No. ****/2018 and W.P.

(C) No. ****/2018

In the case concerning

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Inherent powers

Of High Court, Defamation 499 IPC

1860, Sedition 124(B) IPC 1870

In the matter of

Krishna Kumar…………………………………………………………………………….Plantiff

v.

Union of Chanakya…………………………………………………………………….Respondent

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 II

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TEAM CODE R10...........................................................................................................................................I

TABLE OF CONTENTS...................................................................................................................................II
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.............................................................................................................................III
LIST OF AUTHORITIES.................................................................................................................................IV
LIST OF AUTHORITIES.................................................................................................................................IV
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION....................................................................................................................V
STATEMENT OF FACTS................................................................................................................................VI
ISSUES RAISED..........................................................................................................................................VIII
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.......................................................................................................................IX
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED............................................................................................................................1
1. WHETHER THE QUASHING OF FIR IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER SECTION 482 OF CrPC....................1
1.1. Powers of High Court to Quash FIR..........................................................................................1
1.2. Contentions of the speech.......................................................................................................2
1.3. Provisions of section 482 of CrPC.............................................................................................2
2. WHETHER THE SPEECH DELIVERED BY KRISHNA KUMAR IS SEDITIOUS IN NATURE.........................4
2.1. Ingredients of Sedition..................................................................................................................4
2.2. Article 19(1) is not an absolute right.............................................................................................5
3. )  WHETHER THERE WERE DEFAMATORY CONTENTS IN THE SPEECH OF KRISHNA KUMAR.............7
3.1.         That it fulfills the essentials of defamation............................................................................8
3.2.          That it is violative of the right to life.....................................................................................9
3.3.         That there needs to be reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression..9
3.4.         That it does not come under the ambit of the exceptions mentioned................................10
PRAYER......................................................................................................................................................12

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 III

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
¶ PARAGRAPH
¶¶ PARAGRAPHS
AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER
CAL COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW
CJ CRIMINAL JUSTICE
CrLJ CRIMINAL LAW JOURNAL
Cr.P.C. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Dr. DOCTOR
FIR FIRST INFORMATION REPORT
Ibid IBIDEM
i.e. THAT IS
IPC INDIAN PENAL CODE
ISP INDIAN SECULAR PARTY
JNU JUSTICE NATIONAL UNIVERSITY
Ors. OTHERS
S. SECTION
SC SUPREME COURT
SCC SUPREME COURT CASES
SCR SUPREME COURT REPORTS
Supp. SUPPLEMENTARY
v. VERSUS

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 IV

LIST OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Acharya Maharajshri Narendra Prasadji Anandprasadji Maharaj and Ors. v. The State of Gujarat and Ors.
(1975) 1 SCC 11....................................................................................................................................10
Charu Khurana and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors...................................................................................9
kedarnathsingh vs state of Bihar 1962 AIR 955, 1962 SCR Supl. (2) 769...................................................5
Mohammad Naim, AIR 1964 SC 703..........................................................................................................1
NiharenduDuttMajumdar And Ors. vs Emperor..........................................................................................6
Ram Jethmalani and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors (2011) 8 SCC 1..........................................................9
RomeshThapar vs State of Madras 1950 AIR 124, 1950 SCR 594..............................................................6
Standard Chartered Bank v. Vinay Kumar Sood‟, 2010 CrlLJ 1277...........................................................2
State of Haryana v. BhajanLal (1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335)...........................................................................2
Subramaniam Swamy v. Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 221...........................................................................7

Books

RatanlalDhirajlal “Commentary on the Indian Penal Code” 15th Edition 2001..........................2, 5

Statutes

INDIAN CONSTITUTION, art. 19, clause 2....................................................................................................9

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 V

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The respondents have appeared before the Hon’ble High Court of Dili in response to the petition
filed by the petitioner for the quashing of FIR under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Respondent humbly submits to the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. The present
memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments for the respondent in the present
case.

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 VI

STATEMENT OF FACTS
Background

Chanakya is a multilingual state rich in cultural diversity. The constitution of Chanakya

promotes justice, equality, fraternity, unity and integrity among the citizens. The Fundamental
Rights are the soul of the Constitution yet it comes with certain reasonable restriction to maintain
a balance between social and individual interest. Though Chanakya is a state with diverse
tradition and culture the feeling of nationalism still drives the sentiments of its citizens.

Major religious groups of Chanakya

The state of Chanakya is divided into two religious sects i.e. Sanatan and Mahmud, both the
religions possessed distinct custom and practices and the state was dominated by the religion
Sanatan and the religion Mahmud is in minority. At times the traditional practices followed by
both the religion were in contrast to each other.

Law on beef ban

Cow slaughter was one of the several practices which were followed by the Mahmud and the
Sanatan religion strictly prohibited the practice of cow slaughtering. Recently, the state of Uttam
Pradesh passed a law on beef ban i.e. Consumption of Beef (Prohibition) Act ,2018. This leads to
a great protest in the country. Instead of continuous criticism the parliament passed the bill in the
Lok Sabha which was yet to be passed by the Rajya Sabha.

Justice National University

The Justice National University is a University which is located in the capital of Chanakya i.e.
Dili. The student body of the University has been very active towards political scenario of the
nation and the socio-political environment of the University has been affecting the Socio-
political environment of the nation to a very large extent.

The President of the students’ Union of JNU is Krishna Kumar with an influencing personality.
He maintains very close link with the major faces of the opposition party i.e. Indian Secular

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 VII

Party (ISP). Krishna Kumar has a distinct aura with the powerful method of delivering rhetoric
speeches.

Speech of Krishna Kumar

Krishna Kumar called a public gathering outside the JNU campus to protest and criticize against
the idea of the beef ban. He addressed the crowd with his persuasive speech in which he
questions the authenticity of secularism. In his rhetoric speech he mentions a personal comment
on Prime Minister that the prime minister who is unable to handle his family is talking about
handling the whole nation of Chanakya. He considers the prime minister as a failure in his
personal fronts. The beef ban law is piercing the soul of the Constitution. The only motive of this
assembly and Krishna Kumar’s speech is to compel the government to put a halt on such law.

Public disorder in Dili

After hearing the speech of Krishna Kumar, a voice penetrated the silence by a outrageous
slogan “CHANAKYA TERE TUKDE HONGE, MILKE RAHIGI AZAADI”. There was an
outburst in the crowd depicting the hatred and disaffection towards the government resulting in
disturbing the public order of Dili.

Dispute

Krishna Kumar was arrested as the FIR is logged against him for Sedition and Defamation.
Then Krishna Kumar went to High Court under section 482 of Cr.P.C. for the quashing of FIR
on the grounds that he is merely exercising his Fundamental Right.

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 VIII

ISSUES RAISED
-I-

Whether the petition for quashing of FIR is maintainable in Dili High Court.

-II-

Whether the speech delivered by the Krishna Kumar was seditious.

-III-

Whether the speech delivered by Krishna Kumar had defamatory content.

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 IX

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

The petition for quashing of FIR is not maintainable in the court of law as the grounds of sedition
can be witnessed in the speech of Krishna Kumar. Taking the plea of Right to Freedom of
Speech and Expression under Article 19(1) will not suffice the quashing of the FIR as it also
comes with the reasonable restriction under Article 19(2) of the constitution to maintain the
security, decency and morality of the state.

There is case of sedition as the speech of Krishna Kumar incited hatred and dissatisfaction
towards the government amongst the people and that can be clearly seen by the slogan raised.
The public become outrageous and the public order was disturbed after the speech, to maintain
the public order the police force was called and also there was a threat to the security of state as
socio political scenario of JNU affects the political scenario of the state at the large extent.

The defamation primarily concerns with the reputation of a person. Here in this case as the facts
imply the reputation of Prime Minister of country Chanakya has been diminished by Krishna
Kumar, as he commented on the personal life of the Prime Minister and the comment does not
concern about the public good. The criticism should be honest and in public good also it must be
substantiated by the facts and evidences, which is in this case is lacking.

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 1

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. WHETHER THE QUASHING OF FIR IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER

SECTION 482 OF CrPC

1.1. Powers of High Court to Quash FIR

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the petition is not maintainable
because of the fact that the offences made out by the petitioner is not the prima facie act under
the given section for quashing of FIR. Under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the
High court has been given the inherent powers to make such order as may be necessary to give
effect to any order under this code, or to prevent the abuse of the process of the court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
Herein, this section does not include increased power to the High Court. it gives no new powers
but only provides that those which the Court already inherently possessed shall be preserved, and
it is inserted lest it should be considered that the only powers possessed by the court are those
expressly conferred by the code and no inherent power has survived the passing of the court. 1The
instant petition seeking quashing of FIR is not maintainable as the offences as alleged in the FIR
prima facie are being made out. Moreover, the FIR has been lodged and the investigation is
underway, no purpose would be served by quashing the instant FIR. The sole purpose of the
petitioner is to malign and defame the image of respondent. The petitioners have always made
highly defamatory false statements. In the present petition also the petitioners tried to do the
same by addressing the crowd of JNU and using some highly dignified words on Secularism and
then directly pointing upon the personal life and personal lifestyle and choice of the Prime
Minister of Chanakya. As stated in the facts, Krishna Kumar has direct contacts with the
opposition party and he was involved earlier in making defamatory statements and slogans with
respect to the ruling party of the country.

1
Mohammad Naim, AIR 1964 SC 703
 2

1.2. Contentions of the speech

The chain of circumstances established by the respondent in their FIR clearly show the common
intention shared by the petitioner and other accused persons in connivance with each other to
defame and malign respondent’s character.

The speech which was given by the Krishna Kumar was transferred from the words of
Secularism to the personal life of the party leaders. The very displacement of the facts of the
speech states that the intention of the petitioner is very clear and since the petitioner has a very
close connection with the ruling party, this is the most common act which the court can see.

It was further contended that pleadings filed by the petitioner in civil proceedings, can be quoted
out of context and used for filing a complaint for defamation. Any averment made in judicial
records containing defamatory statements, amounts to publication as the judicial records are
public documents. Fifth exception to Section 499 IPC2 is not applicable to the present
proceedings as it is solely based upon the proposition of good faith, which cannot be decided at a
preliminary stage and could only be determined after completion of trial.3 This Court while
exercising its inherent powers cannot quash the complaint only on the basis that the trial will not
result in conviction of the accused persons.

1.3. Provisions of section 482 of CrPC

The Supreme Court of India considered in detail, the provisions of section 482 and the power of
the High Court to quash criminal proceedings or FIR. The Supreme Court summarized the legal
position by laying the following guidelines to be followed by High Courts in exercise of their
inherent powers to quash a criminal complaint:4

1. Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they
are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute

2
Standard Chartered Bank v. Vinay Kumar Sood‟, 2010 CrlLJ 1277
3
Ratanlal Dhirajlal “Commentary on the Indian Penal Code” 15th Edition 2001- immunity to an imputation
expressed in good faith regarding the merits of any case decided by a Court of justice or to the conduct of any
person as a party, witness or agent in any such case
4
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335)
 3

any offence or make out a case against the accused.

2. Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any,
accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation
by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate
within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
3. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support
of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against
the accused.
4. Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute
only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without
an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which, no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the
concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or, where there is a specific provision in the Code or
the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding
is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with
a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
Section 482 Cr.P.C has a very wide scope and is an essential part of statue to meet the end of
justice where injustice can take place but at the same time the said Power is too wide and hence,
it is important for the courts to use it wisely and according to the guidelines laid down by High
Courts and Supreme Court time to time. Section 482 of Cr.P.C has made its space in Cr.P.C in
order to enable the High Courts to provide proper justice and at the same time to curb filing of
fictitious complaints just to avenge personal grudges.
 4

2. WHETHER THE SPEECH DELIVERED BY KRISHNA KUMAR IS

SEDITIOUS IN NATURE.

A question may arise here that whether the remarks of Krishna Kumar were seditious in nature.
This is seen in the case of Kedarnath v state of Bihar.

Here, under Section 124(a) of the IPC states Sedition which says that Whoever, by words, either
spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to
bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the
Government established by law in, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine
may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be
added, or with fine.

Explanation 1.- The expression “disaffection” includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity.
Explanation 2.- Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the Government with a
view to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred,
contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.

Explanation 3.- Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the
Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not
constitute an offence under this section.

2.1. Ingredients of Sedition

The two essential ingredients required to establish the crime of sedition under Section 124A are :

(i) the acts complained of must be intended to have the “effect of subverting the Government” by
violent means; and 

(ii) the acts complained of must be intended, or have a tendency, to create disorder or disturbance
of public peace/ law and order by resort to violence and must incite violence
 5

The offence of sedition is an offence against the State. As understood in England the crime of
sedition fell short of actual treason, and did not involve the actual use of force or violence.

"Sedition is a crime against society. Sedition in itself is a comprehensive term, and it embraces
all those practices, whether by word, deed or writing, which are calculated to disturb the
tranquility of the State, and lead ignorant persons to endeavor to subvert the Government and the
laws of the empire. The objects of sedition generally are to induce discontent and insurrection
and stir up opposition to the Government, and bring the administration of justice into contempt;
and the very tendency of sedition is to incite the people to insurrection and rebellion. Sedition
has been described, as disloyalty in action and the law considers as sedition all those practices
which have for their object to excite discontent or dissatisfaction, to create public disturbance, or
to lead to civil war; to bring into hatred or contempt the Sovereign or the Government, the laws
or constitution of the realm, and generally all endeavors to promote public disorder."5

In light of the apparent misuse of the law of sedition by the Delhi Police in the JNU slogan
shouting incidents, a closer look at the essential ingredients of the crime of sedition under
Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code as clarified by the Supreme Court of India is needed. 

2.2. Article 19(1) is not an absolute right

The Supreme Court noted that Article 19(2) of the Constitution which carves out the right of the
legislature to impose reasonable restrictions on the fundamental right to free speech guaranteed
under Article 19(1) was amended in 1951 to include public order 6. So in this case, the question
before the Supreme Court was as to the constitutionality of s. 124A and s. 505 of the Indian
Penal Code under Article 19(2) with particular reference to security of the State and public order,
both of which find mention in that Article. Article 19(1) connotes the liberty to express one’s
views, opinions and beliefs. Pointing out the significance of 19(1), CJ Patanjali Shastri pointed
out that Article 19(1) is the foundation of the democratic organ without free political discussion
and no public education so essential for the proper functioning of the process of the government
is possible.7
5
Ratanlaland Dhirajlal- the code of criminal procedure- 15th edition 2001
6
Kedarnath singh v state of Bihar 1962 AIR 955, 1962 SCR Supl. (2) 769

7
RomeshThapar vs State of Madras 1950, AIR 124, 1950 SCR 594
 6

In its analysis of Section 124A, the Supreme Court in first noted that the words “Government
established by law" were not a reference to “the person's for the time being engaged in carrying
on the administration" but referred to the Government as the visible symbol of the State. The
Supreme Court clarified that the crime of sedition was a crime against the State and was intended
to protect the very existence of the State. The purpose of the crime of sedition was to prevent the
Government established by law from being subverted because “the continued existence of the
Government established by law is an essential condition of the stability of the State”. 8

However, Article 19(1) has to be read on which reasonable restrictions can be imposed by state
on the citizens. It is not the absolute right and is subjected to some reasonable restrictions. They
are:

1. Public order which came in the 1 st amendment 1951 by the Supreme Court decision in
which he observed that security of state is no synonyms of peace, safety and tranquility. 9
The SC ruled that the speeches which are likely to create enmity and hatred between the
two communities may be treated to create public order problem. Public order is not been
compromised with and if any where public order is violated then it is the offence which is
being made out under Section 124a. Also, in the Federal Court10had interpreted Section
124A in alignment with British law on sedition and held that a tendency to disturb public
order was an essential element of the offence under s. 124A.
2. Also, the incitement to commit an offence is also made under reasonable restrictions as
soon as the speech ended, Krishna Kumar was successful in spreading hatred towards the
govt and instill hatred in the minds of other students and they started reciting the slogans
which are seditious in nature and with against the morality and decency of the Nation.
3. Reasonable restrictions comes when Sovereignty and Integrity of the nation is being
compromised with. It include speaks or published anything against the state which is very
clear from the facts that Krishna Kumar is doing the same thing which is against the
sovereignty and integrity of the nation.

8
Supra note 2
9
Supra note 3
10
Niharendu Dutt Majumdar And Ors. v Emperor, AIR 1939 Cal 703
 7

Therefore, slogan shouting against the State or the Government established by law which is
very clealy intended to have the “effect of subverting the Government” by violent means; and
which is intended to, has the tendency, to create disorder or disturbance of public peace/ law
and order by resort to violence; and which incite violence will be amount to the crime of
sedition under section 124A.

3. )  WHETHER THERE WERE DEFAMATORY CONTENTS IN THE

SPEECH OF KRISHNA KUMAR.
 

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the speech on Krishna Kumar contained
defamatory contents, or there were grounds of defamation under Section 499 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860.

According to section 499 of IPC, whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by
signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person
intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the
reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person.

In the landmark case of Subramaniam Swamy vs Union of India11, the petitioners questioned the
constitutional validity of the laws of defamation, but the Supreme Court emphasized on the
importance of the concepts of constitutional fraternity and fundamental duty, under which every
citizen is expected to respect the dignity of the other. Noting that this is a constitutional duty, the
Court held that it could not conclude that the existence of criminal defamation is obnoxious to
freedom of speech and expression.

11
Subramaniam Swamy v. Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 221
 8

3.1.         That it fulfills the essentials of defamation

Defamation, under Section 499 of the IPC, is defined as follows – “Whoever, by words either
spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any
imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that
such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter
expected, to defame that person.”12

Explanation 1.— It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if the
imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the
feelings of his family or other near relatives.

Explanation 2.— It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or

an association or collection of persons as such.

Explanation 3.— An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may

amount to defamation.

Explanation 4.— No imputation is said to harm a person’s reputation, unless that imputation
directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that
person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers
the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome
state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful.

In the particular case, Krishna Kumar aims to harm the reputation of the Prime Minister, who is
also considered as the head of the state, through words of his speech where he says that the
Prime Minister “could not handle his own family” and calls him “a proof of failure on his
personal fronts”. 13Hence, it can be said that he has committed the offence of defamation.

3.2.          That it is violative of the right to life

12
35 RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (LexisNexis, 2018).
13
¶ 6, Moot Proposition.
 9

Dignity and reputation are inherent qualities an individual needs to fully enjoy his/her life. The
concept of ‘reputation’ was included in the protection of ‘dignity’, which was part of the
constitutionally protected Right to Life. In Charu Khurana and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors 14,
it has been ruled that dignity is the quintessential quality of a personality, for it is a highly
cherished value. Thus perceived, right to honour, dignity and reputation are the basic constituents
of right under Article 21.

It has also been observed that the Right to Life takes precedence over all other rights. In the case
of Ram Jethmalani and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., 15it has been held that the rights of
citizens, to effectively seek the protection of fundamental rights have to be balanced against the
rights of citizens and persons Under Article 21. The latter cannot be sacrificed on the anvil of
fervid desire to find instantaneous solutions to systemic problems through defamation speech, for
it would lead to dangerous circumstances and anarchy may become the order of the day.

3.3.         That there needs to be reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech

and expression

The right to freedom of speech and expression is not absolute in itself, and, therefore, it must be
subjected to reasonable restrictions.  It is common ground that the right is subject to such
reasonable restrictions as would come within the purview of clause (2), which comprises of (a)
security of the State, (b) friendly relations with foreign States, (c) public order, (d) decency or
morality, etc16 It has been held in D.C. Saxena (Dr.) v. Hon'ble The Chief Justice of India 17,
though in a different context, that if maintenance of democracy is the foundation for free speech,
society equally is entitled to regulate freedom of speech or expression by democratic action. The
reason is obvious that society accepts free speech and expression and also puts limits on the right
of the majority.

14
Charu Khurana and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors (2015)1 SCC 192
15
Ram Jethmalani and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors (2011) 8 SCC 1
16
INDIAN CONSTITUTION, art. 19, clause 2.
17
D.C. Saxena (Dr.) v. Hon'ble The Chief Justice of India (1996) 5 SCC 216
 10

“Public interest” must include the interest of the people involved in the acts of expression and it
should be looked at not only from the perspective of the speaker but also the place at which he
speaks, the scenario, the audience, the reaction of the publication, the purpose of the speech and
the place and the forum in which the citizen exercises his freedom of speech and expression.

The Court had further observed that the State has legitimate interest, therefore, to regulate the
freedom of speech and expression which liberty represents the limits of the duty of restraint on
speech or expression not to utter defamatory or libellous speech or expression.

A balance needs to be maintained with regards to exercise of one right over the other. In
Acharya Maharajshri Narendra Prasadji Anandprasadji Maharaj and Ors. v. The State of
Gujarat and Ors.18, it has been observed that a particular fundamental right cannot exist in
isolation in a watertight compartment. One fundamental right of a person may have to co-exist in
harmony with the exercise of another fundamental right by others and also with reasonable and
valid exercise of power by the State in the light of the Directive Principles in the interests of
social welfare as a whole.

Therefore, there needs to be reasonable restrictions on the grounds of morality, decency or public
order on the freedom of speech and expression, and also, one right should not infringe some
other right of an individual, with regards to social welfare. Hence, the petitioner would be liable
for the offence of defamation as the defense of freedom of speech and expression cannot be
taken, and for the interests of social welfare, the right cannot take precedence, in this particular
case.

3.4.         That it does not come under the ambit of the exceptions mentioned

Section 499 of the IPC also cites exceptions. These include “imputation of truth” which is
required for the “public good” and thus has to be published, on the public conduct of government

Acharya Maharajshri Narendra Prasadji Anandprasadji Maharaj and Ors. v. The State of Gujarat and Ors. (1975) 1
18

SCC 11
 11

officials, the conduct of any person touching any public question and merits of the public
performance.19

In the instant case, the plaintiff’s statements in the speech were not in line with the exceptions
cited in section 499 of the IPC as it did not revolve around the imputation of truth for public
good, but only aimed at harming the reputation of the head of the state.

19
35 RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (LexisNexis, 2018)
 12

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the facts stated, issues raised, authorities cited, and arguments
advanced, it is most humbly prayed and implored before the Hon’ble Court that it may be
graciously pleased to adjudge and declare that:

1.) The petition for quashing of FIR is not maintainable in the Dili High Court.
2.) The speech delivered by Krishna Kumar was seditious in nature.
3.) The speech delivered by Krishna Kumar was defamatory contents.

And pass any order as it deems fit in the interest of equity, justice and good conscience.

All of such is most humbly and respectfully submitted.

FOR WHICH THE RESPONDENT SHALL FOREVER PRAY.

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT