Campbell Bay Petitioner Memorial

39th All India Moot Court Competition, AGLC
TEAM CODE: CAMPBELL BAY
39th All India Moot Court Competition in commemoration of Golden Jubilee of Dr.
Ambedkar Government Law College, 2022
BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF VENGADAM
WRIT JURISDICTION
W.P. NO. 4536/2021
Vallum Kavu Devasom …….Petitioner
Vs.
Union of Vengadam …….Respondent
W.P. NO. 3456/2021

Vallum Craft Association ……. Petitioner
Vs.
Union of Vengadam …….Respondent
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION

SLP. NO. 6453/2021
Mr XYZ …….Petitioner
Vs.
State of Satva …….Respondent
SLP. NO.6352/2021
Adv. Mathur Nath …….Petitioner
Vs.
State of Ahali …….Respondent
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF VENGADAM
-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER-
-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER- 1|Page

TABLE OF CONTENTS
S. No. Contents Page No.
1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3
2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4
3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 7
4. STATEMENT OF FACTS 8
5. STATEMENT OF ISSUES 10
6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 11
7. WRITTEN PLEEDINGS
1. ISSUE – 1 12
2. ISSUE – 2 18
3. ISSUE – 3 24
4. ISSUE – 4 28
8. PRAYER 35

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
& AND
¶ PARAGRAPH
Adv. ADVOCATE
AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER
Anr. ANOTHER
Art. ARTICLE
Assn. ASSOCIATION
Corpn. CORPORATION
FIR FIRST INFORMATION REPORT
Govt. GOVERNMENT
HC HIGH COURT
Hon’ble HONOURABLE
No. NUMBER
NGO NON GOVERNMENTAL

ORGANISATION
Ors. OTHERS
Pg. PAGE
SC SUPREME COURT
SCC SUPREME COURT CASES
SLP SPECIAL LEAVE PETETION
u/s UNDER SECTION
V. VERSUS
WP WRIT PETETION

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
A. LIST OF CASES
1. Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam V. State of T.N, (2016) 2 SCC 725.
2. Indian Young Lawyers Association V. The State of Kerala, 2018 SCC Online
SC 1690.
3. A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu V. State of A.P, (1996) 9 SCC 548.
4. Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments Madras V. Sri Lakshmindra
Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Matt, 1954 AIR 282.
5. S.P. Mittal V. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 51.
6. C.N. Eswara Iyer V. Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable
Endowment Board, (2011) 4 CTC 710.
7. The Commissioner V. L T Swamiar of Srirur Mutt, 1954 SCR 1005.
8. Commissioner of Police and others V. Acharya Jagadishwarananda
Avadhuta and other, 2004 SCC OnLine SC 310.
9. Seshammal V. State of T.N, (1972) 2 SCC 11.
10. N. Adithayan V. Travancore Devaswom Board and others, 2002 SCC OnLine
SC 945.
11. Haji Ali Dargah Trust V. Noorjehan Safia Niaz, 2016 SCC OnLine SC 1199.
12. John Vallamattom v. Union of India, (2003) 6 SCC 611.
13. Free Church of Scotland vs Lord Overtoun 1904 AC 515(HL).
14. Gurleen Kaur v. State of Punjab, 2009 SCC Online P&H 6132.
15. R V. Big M.Drug Mart Limited, 1986 LRC Const332.
16. West Virginia State Board V. Barnatte, 310 U.S 586.
17. Everson V. Board of Education, 330 US 1.
18. Engel V. Vital, 1962 SCC OnLine US SC 117.
19. Sushil Kumar V. Union of India, [1997] 5 SCC 536.
20. A.L. Kalra V. The Project & Equipment Corporation of India Limited,
[1984] 3 SCR 646.
21. Ajay Hasia's V. Khalid Mujib, [1981] 2 SCR 79.
22. Venkateshwara Theatre V. State of AP, 1993 AIR 1947.
23. Punjab National Bank V. Astamija Dash, 2008 III LLJ 584 (SC).

24. Shayara Bano V. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1.

25. Olga Tellis V. Bombay Municipal Corpn, (1985) 3 SCC 545.
26. State of Himachal Pradesh V. Umed Ram Sharma, 1986 (1) Scale 182.
27. Narendra Kumar V. Union of India, AIR 1960 SC 430.
28. Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar, (1996) 5 SCC 125.
29. Pradeep Krishen V. Union of India, (1996) 8 SCC 599.
30. Rustom Cavasjee Cooper V. Union of India, 1970 AIR 564.
31. Vivek Velankar V. The State of Maharashtra And Ors, 2019 SCC OnLine
8471.
32. Justice K.S Puttaswamy V. Union of India, AIR 2017 SC 4161.
33. CPIO V. Subhash Chandra Aggarwal, (2019) SCC OnLine SC 1459.
34. Modern Dental College and Research Centre V. State of Madhya Pradesh
and Ors, (2016) 7 SCC 353
35. Anuradha Bhasin V. Union of India, AIR 2020 SC 1308.
36. Prafulla Kumar Das and others V. State of Orissa and others, (2003) 11 SCC
614.
37. Chinaman Rao V. The state of Madhya Pradesh, 1951 AIR 118.
38. K N Mehra V. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1957 SC 369.
39. Govindha Majhi V. Arobinda Kar, AIR 1950 Ori 106.
40. Chandi Kumar Das Karmakar V. Abanidhar Roy, AIR 1965 SC 585.
41. S.M. Yaqub and Ors. V. T. N. Basu and Anr, 1949 CriLJ 299.
42. Life Insurance Corporation of India V. Manubhai D. Shah,1992) 3 SCC 637.
43. Secy., Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Govt. of India V. Cricket
Assn. of Bengal, (1995) 2 SCC 161.
44. Devidas Ramachandra Tuljapurkar V. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 6 SCC
1.
45. Shreya Singal V. Union of India,
46. Grayned V. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972)
47. Superintendent, Central Prison, Fatehgarh V. Dr Ram Manohar Lohia, AIR
1955 All 193.
48. Balwant Singh V. State of Punjab, 1994 SCC, Supl. (2) 67 JT 1994 (2) 30.
49. Romesh Thapar V. the State of Madras, [1950] S.C.R. 594.
50. Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. V. Union of India, 1985 1
SCC 641.

51. Maneka Gandhi V. Union of India, 1978 AIR 597.

52. Rangarajan V. P. Jagjivan Ram, (1989) 2 SCC 574.
53. Ram Manohar Lohia V. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 740.
54. S.S. Cheena V. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, (2010) 12 SCC 190.
55. Kedar Nath Singh V. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955.
56. Vinod Dua V. Union of India, 2021 SCC Online SC 414.
57. Gurjatinder Pal Singh V. State of Punjab, (2009) 3 RCR (Cri) 224.
58. Balwant Singh V. State of Punjab, AIR 1995 SC 1785.
59. Geeta Mehrotra V. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 10 SCC 741.
60. State of Haryana V. Bhajanlal, 1992 SCC (Cri) 426.
61. M.A.A. Annamalai V. State of Karnataka, (2010) 8 SCC 524.
62. Sharda Prasad Sinha V. State of Bihar, AIR 1977 SC 1754.
63. Smt. Nagawwa V. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, AIR 1976 SC 1947.
64. Gian Singh vs State of Punjab, 2012 SCC (10) 303.
B. LIST OF LAWS AND STATUTES
1. The Constitution of India, 1949
2. The Indian Penal Code, 1860
3. Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972
C. ARTICLES AND BLOGS

1. UN General Assembly, International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, 16 December 1966, United Nations, Treaty
Series, vol. 999, p. 171
2. Online Freedom of Speech and Expression: A Critical Analysis,

3 KIIT Student L Rev 33 (2016
3. Does your God Satisfy the Constitutional Test? – Analysing the
“Essential Religious Practices Doctrine” in Light of the
Sabarimala Verdict, 8.2 NLIU LR (2019) 210

4. Essential Religious Practices in Light of the Sabarimala

Judgment, 8.2 NLIU LR (2019) 298
D. ONLINE RESOURCES
1. LEXIS ADVANCE, https://www.lexisnexis.com/in/legal
2. MANUPATRA, https://www.manupatrafast.com
3. SCC ONLINE, https://www.scconline.com
4. WESTLAW, https://www.westlawindia.com
5. HEINONLINE, https://home.heinonline.org/
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
THE PETITIONER HAS FILED THIS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR THE VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHTS ENUMERATED IN PART III OF THE CONSTITUTION. THE
RESPONDENT MAINTAINS THAT NO VIOLATION OF RIGHTS HAS TAKEN
PLACE. THEREFORE, THIS HON’BLE COURT NEED NOT ENTRATAIN ITS
JURISDICTION IN THIS WRIT PETITION.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. INTRODUCTION
Union of Vengadam a South Asian country is union of 27 states, with a written constitution
and a federal democratic pattern of government. Vengadam is blend of both traditional and
modern views. It plays a forefront role for environmental protection, movements in the world
have taken part in international negotiations for creating international environmental laws.
Union of Vengadam and is a secular nation, and it is a Hindu majority nation. One of the
exquisite beliefs of Hinduism is that these gods and goddesses have their own vehicle or
vahana, which is either an animal or a bird.
2. UNION OF VENGADAM DECLARES ARAYANNA AS NATIONAL BIRD
Arayanna are large flying birds with a length of 20-30 inches and weight of 6-8kg,
Arayanna’s are known for their lustrous beauty it is widely distributed across the South Asia
and is found in almost all states of Union of Vengadam. Arayanna’s cannot be domesticated
and hence are not being considered as a pet bird. Feathers of Arayanna are used in many
rituals. There are large numbers of temples especially in southern states of Vengadam where
Arayanna’s are worshipped with Goddess Gadadevi. The union of Vengadam declared
Arayanna as the national bird of Vengadam in 1986.
3. IN 2007 GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATION TAG WAS GIVEN TO VALLUM
Arayattam is one of the most popular offerings given by devotees in Goddess Gadadevi
temples. The feathered headdress used in Arayattam is natively known as ‘Vallum’. In 2007
GI tag was given to Vallum based on an application given by Vallum craft associations.
4. UPCS IDENTIFIED A DRASTIC DECLINE IN THE POPULATION OF

ARAYANNA
The UPCS is a national organisation committed to protection of swans in union of

Vengadam. UPCS identified a drastic decline in the population of Arayanna during last
decade. The study estimated Arayanna’s may go extinct by 2030-2035. The Government of
Vengadam did not take any steps to make legal provisions for the protection of Arayanna’s.

In 2019 UPCS approached the Hon’ble Supreme court to issue directions to Central
Government for taking appropriate steps. In August 2020, the Hon’ble SC directed the
Central Government to make necessary changes in existing legal framework including the
Wildlife protection Act, 1972.
5. THREE PERSONS WERE ARRESTED FROM STATE OF SATVA
In December 2020, three persons were arrested from State of Satva for transporting 51
Arayanna’s. The police arrested them for theft. The accused approached the High court to
quash the FIR. The said petition was dismissed and aggrieved by this the petitioners appealed
in the SC.
6. GOVERNMENT OF VENGADAM INTRODUCED AMENDMENTS TO

WILDLIFE PROTECTION ACT
The effect of this amendment was total prohibition of possession, transportation and use of
Arayanna’s and their feathers as well as other body parts in any form. As a result of the
amendments in Wildlife Act 1972, the temple administrators the Vallum Kavu Devasom
found it difficult. Finally in June 2021 the Vallum Kavu Devasom approached the SC
challenging the said amendments. In July 2021 Vallum Craft Associations filed a petition
challenging the validity of recent amendments in Wildlife(protection) Act,1972.
7. FIR AGAINST ADVOCATE MATHUR NATH
Adv. Mathur Nath is an advocate and public-spirited citizen of Vengadam, Mrs Aneesha a
reporter from a national news channel sought his opinion. His statements invited severe
criticism from the ruling part and subsequently the police of State of Ahali registered case
under Section 124A of VPC. Adv. Mathur Nath approached HC of Ahali to quash the F.I.R,
the HC rejected his petition aggrieved by this Adv. Mathur approached the SC with a petition
challenging the constitutional validity of section 124A of the penal code.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES
The following issues are presented before this Hon’ble Court for its consideration:
ISSUE – 1
Whether the amendments made in Sections 43 (3) (a) & 44 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act,
1972 thereby extending the operation of the Act to Arayanna is violative of freedom of
religion or not?
ISSUE- 2
Whether the said amendments would amount to violation of right to livelihood of Vallum
Craft makers or not?
ISSUE – 3
Whether registering a case of theft on account of possession and transportation of

Arayanna is maintainable or not?
ISSUE – 4
Whether registering a case under Section 124A of the Penal Code of Vengadam on
account of a statements made in news discussion would violate the fundamental freedom of
speech guaranteed in the Constitution of Vengadam or not?
-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER- 10 | P a g e

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE – 1: It is submitted that Aryattam qualifies the test of Essential Religious practise as
there are ancient religious texts which says that it is important. Further it is submitted that
Religious freedom is not limited to belief it extends to rituals as well. It is further submitted
that impugned amendment curtails libertly and is against International treaties.
ISSUE – 2: The impugned amendments reek with malafide and suffer from the vice of
arbitrariness. Further it is submitted that Vallum was the only source of Livelihood to
families. The amendments also fails to satisfy the test of Proportionality and and cannot be
said to be reasonable restriction.
ISSUE – 3: It is submitted that the act of the accused will not fulfil the valid essentials of
theft u/s 378 of the penal code i.e., (1) moving a movable property of a person out of his
possession without his consent, (2) the moving being in order to the taking of the property
with a dishonest intention, hence the First information report is not maintainable.
ISSUE – 4: Freedom of speech and expression is essential for every society that
claims to be free and democratic. It has been both, nationally and internationally
recognized. Restrictions to it must satisfy the test of reasonableness that includes
legitimacy, necessity and proportionality and must adhere to constitutional
morality. Section 124-A of the Vengadam Penal Code infringe free speech and
expression under Article 19 of the Constitution. The provisions are imprecise,
unreasonable, and disproportionate. They stifle transparency and criticism of the
govt, which is beyond constitutional morality.

WRITTEN PLEADINGS
1. WHETHER THE AMENDMENTS MADE IN SECTION 43(3) (A) AND

SECTION 44 OF THE WILDLIFE (PROTECTION) ACT, 1972 THEREBY
EXTENDING THE OPERATION OF THE ACT TO ARYANNA IS VIOLATIVE
OF FREEDOM OF RELIGION OR NOT?
The Counsel seeks answer in Affirmative.
Religion has been the ethereal bond that has tied human beings together since time
immemorial.1 A religion has its basis in a system of beliefs or doctrines which are regarded
by those who profess that religion as conducive to their spiritual wellbeing.2It is humbly
submitted that the amendments made in Section 43(3) (a) and Section 44 of the Wildlife
(Protection) Act, 1972 is violative of freedom of Religion as
1.1. Hinduism is religion under Article 25 of Constitution of Vengadam and

Devotees of Gadadevi of Southern Vengadam are one of the religious
denominations of Hinduism.
The term religion has reference to one's views on their relations to their creator, and to the
obligations they impose of reverence for their being and character and obedience to their
will.3 Religion is basically a way of life to realize one's identity with the Divinity.4 It is
beyond pale of controversy that Hinduism is a religion as Section 25 categorically recognises
Hinduism as a part of Religion. This Honourable Court has also recognised Hinduism as a
Religion in the landmark case of Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam V. State of T.N
5, Indian Young Lawyers Association V. The State of Kerala 6. A.S. Narayana
Deekshitulu V. State of A.P.,7 Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments Madras V.
Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Matt8.
1
Does your God Satisfy the Constitutional Test? - Analysing the "Essential Religious Practices Doctrine" in
Light of the Sabarimala Verdict, 8.2 NLIU LR (2019) 210
2
Davie v. Benson
3
Gurleen Kaur v. State of Punjab, 2009 SCC Online P&H 6132.
4
Indian Young Lawyers Association v. The State of Kerala, 2018 SCC Online SC 1690.
5
(2016) 2 SCC 725
6
2018 SCC Online SC 1690
7
(1996) 9 SCC 548
8
1954 AIR 282

Though all Hindus consider Arayanna as a sacred Bird because it is a vehicle of Goddess
Gadadevi,9 it is humbly submitted before this Honourable Court that Arayanna is worshipped
along with Goddess Gadadevi.10 by a particular religious denomination in southern India
where Arayannas are worshiped11. In the landmark Judgement of S.P. Mittal V. Union of
India12 this court had an occasion to define religious denomination which as follows. (1)It
must be collection of Individuals who have a system of beliefs or doctrines which they regard
as conducive to their spiritual wellbeing, that is in common faith.(2)Common organisation. It
is humbly submitted that Hindus of South Vengadam satisfies the test laid down in the case
mention above and is to be recognised as particular religious denomination.
1.2. Aryattam is an essential part of South Vengadam denomination of

Hinduism.
It is humbly submitted that Arayattam which is one of the most popular offerings given by
the devotees of Gadadevi in the temples of Gadadevi 13 is essential part of the Religion.
Articles 25 and 26 embody tolerance for all religions.14 Religion incorporates the particular
beliefs that a group of people subscribe to. Hinduism, as a religion, incorporates all forms of
belief without mandating the selection or elimination of any one single belief. 15 Article 25
guarantees religious freedom.16 Every member of religious denomination is entitled to
freedom of religion under Article 25 of Constitution of Vengadam.17
A religion undoubtedly has its basis in a system of beliefs and doctrine which are regarded by
those who profess religion to be conducive to their spiritual well-being. A religion is not
merely an opinion, doctrine or belief. It has outward expression in acts as well.18
It is submitted that in the absence of (Conformity to essentials, the denomination would not
be an entity) cemented into solidarity by harmonious uniformity of opinion, it would be a
mere congruous heap of, as it were grains of sand, thrown together, without being united,
9
MP 4
10
MP 4
11
MP 4
12
(1983) 1 SCC 51
13
MP 5
14
Essential Religious Practices in Light of the Sabarimala Judgment, 8.2 NLIU LR (2019) 298
15
Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam v. State of T.N (2016) 2 SCC 725
16
John Vallamattom v. Union of India, (2003) 6 SCC 611
17
Commr. of Police v. Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta, (2004) 12 SCC 770
18
A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu v. State of A.P., (1996) 9 SCC 548 javed vs state of HArayanna 2003 8 scc369

each of these intellectual and isolated grains differing from every other, and the whole
forming a but nominally united while really connected mass.19
1.2.1. References regarding the Origin of the Aryattam can be found in

different ancient Hindu Texts.
It is humbly submitted that offerings given by the devotees of Gadadevi is essential part of
Hinduism and State cannot take away the fundamental right to worship, the references of
which can be found in the different ancient Hindu texts.
It pertinent to refer to the case of C.N. Eswara Iyer V. Commissioner, Hindu Religious
and Charitable Endowment Board,20 wherein the court held that — “There is no dispute
that the Constitution protects such practices which are essentially in the nature of religious
practices. In case those practices are found to be essential and integral parts of their religion,
the Constitutional protection would extend even to those practices. Therefore, the term
“integral part of the religion” assumes significance.
The Court in the The Commissioner V. L T Swamiar of Srirur Mutt 21 for the first time
held what constitutes essential part of religion will be ascertained with reference to the
tenants and doctrines of religion itself.22 In the case of Commissioner of Police and others
V. Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta and other23, what constitutes an integral or
essential part of religion has to be determined with reference to its doctrines, practices, tenets,
historical background etc. of the given religion24. In the instant case it is humbly submitted
that importance of the offering of Aryattam can be found in the different ancient religious
Hindu Texts and therefore it can be reasonably concluded the practise of Aryattam is an
essential part of South Vengadam denomination of Hindus.
1.2.2. Arayataam is not a new practice and is carried on from centuries
It is respectfully submitted before this court that Aryattam is not a new practise and is being
carried on from ancient period.25 This honourable court had held in the case of
Commissioner of Police and others V. Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta and
19
Free Church of Scotland vs Lord Overtoun 1904 AC 515(HL)
20
(2011) 4 CTC 710
21
1954 SCR 1005
22
A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu v. State of A.P., (1996) 9 SCC 548
23
2004 SCC OnLine SC 310
24
The Commissioner v. L T Swamiar of Srirur Mutt 1954 SCR 1005, SSTS Saheb v. State of Bombay 1962
(Supp) 2 SCR 496, and 77 Seshammal v. State of Tamilnadu : [1972]3SCR815
25
MP 5

other26 that if a practise is new that it can be struck down as Ultravires which implies that if
a practice is carried on from a long period that it will be protected by Article 25 of
Constitution of Vengadam.
It is respectfully submitted that essential parts of religions are without which, a religion will
be no religion. Test to determine whether a part or practice is essential to the religion is - to
find out whether the nature of religion will be changed without that part or practice. If the
taking away of that part or practice could result in a fundamental change in the character of
that religion or in its belief, then such part could be treated as an essential or integral part.27
It is to be noted that as a result in the amendment to Wildlife Protection act even a mere
possession of a feather of Arayanna is a punishable offence. Now for conducting Aryattam a
good quantity of feathers of Arayanna is required. Therefore, it can be concluded that as a
result of amendments, Hindus of South Vengadam are deprived of practicing their religion.
1.2.3. Religious freedom can be extended to rituals
It is respectfully and humbly submitted that religious freedom conferred on the Citizens of
Vengadam by virtue of Article 25 of Constitution of Vengadam can be extended to rituals as
well. Therefore, in the instant case, protection by Article 25 extends to Arayattam as well.
It is pertinent to refer to case of The Commissioner of Police & Ors V. Acharya

Jagdishwarananda28 wherein it was held that mode of worship is integral part of religion. In
the instant case Arayattam is a mode of Worship29
In is also pertinent to refer to case of Seshammal V. State of T.N.30 wherein the apex court
said that religious freedom can be extended to rituals as well.
In the case of N. Adithayan V. Travancore Devaswom Board and others31 it was held that
the protection under Article 25 and 26 extend a guarantee for rituals and observances,
ceremonies and modes of worship which are integral parts of religion and as to what really
constitutes an essential part of religion or religious practice has to be decided by the Courts
with reference to the doctrine of a particular religion or practices regarded as parts of religion.
26
27
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/143840945/
28
29
MP 11
30
(1972) 2 SCC 11
31

It was held in the case of Haji Ali Dargah Trust V. Noorjehan Safia Niaz,32 it was held
that Essential part of a religion means the core beliefs upon which a religion is founded
and essential practice means those practices that are fundamental to follow a religious belief.
According to the ‘essential functions test’, the test to determine whether a part or a practice
is essential to the religion, is to find out whether the nature of religion will change, without
that part or practice; and whether the alteration, will change the very essence of religion and
its fundamental character.
The protection of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution is not limited to matters of doctrine.
They extend also to acts done in furtherance of religion and, therefore, they contain a
guarantee for rituals and observances, ceremonies and modes of worships which are integral
parts of the religion. 33
Therefore, it can be concluded that Arayattam which is a ritual practised by Hindus of

Southern Vengadam is protected by Article 25 of Constitution of Vengadam.
1.3. The Impugned Amendment curtains liberty
Religion can best be understood as a primary element of human nature, suppression of which
would be comparable to suppression of any other need like air, water or sex. Therefore, the
34
idea of protection of religion is akin to the protection of our natural rights. the right to
freedom of conscience and religion has been expressly recognized.35 Essentially, religion is a
matter of personal faith and belief of personal relations of an individual with what he regards
as Cosmos, his Maker or his Creator which, he believes, regulates the existence of insentient
beings and the forces of the universe.36 Individual choice is the basic
tenet of liberty.37Therefore, religious freedom is indispensable to society. 38
It is humbly
submitted before this court that Protection of religion is akin to the protection of democracy
32
33 V.S. Sivakumar vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 March, 2008
34
35
J.M.N. Rao, Freedom of Religion and Right to Conversion, 2003 PL WEBJOUR 19.
36 36
A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu v. State of A.P., (1996) 9 SCC 548
37
Fabio Macioce, Individual Liberty and Self-Determination, 3 LIBERTARIAN PAPERS 1, 18 (2011).
38
David Sloan Wilson, Darwin's Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society (2002) (hereinafter
‘WILSON’); Michael W. McConnell, Why Is Religious Liberty the First Freedom, 21 CARDOZO L. REV.
1243, 1266 (2000) (hereinafter ‘MCCONNELL’).

and liberty in the world. Liberty, in the true sense of its meaning, would only be protected
when individuals are allowed to decide their own beliefs rather than being dictated upon.39
It was held in the case of Haji Ali Dargah Trust V. NoorjehanSafiaNiaz40 that it is the
duty of the State to uphold the Constitution of India, so far as it extends to upholding the
citizens’ fundamental right to equality under Articles 14 and 15 and the right to
practice religion under Article 25 of the Constitution.
It is humbly submitted that religious freedoms protected by article 25 and 26 can be only
curtained by the Legislature to a certain extent. In the instant case there is absolute
prohibition and amendments makes mere possession of a feather of Arayanna a punishable
offence.41 The said amendments are in direct contravention to the basic rights enshrined in
the third part of our Constitution. It is also pertinent to refer to the case of Commissioner,
H.R.E. V. L.T. Swamiar wherein it was observed that religion is certainly a matter of faith
and it is not necessarily theistic.
Therefore, the impugned amendments are in violation of basic rights enshrined in the third
part of our Constitution.
1.4. Against International Treaties, Conventions and Declarations.
It is humbly submitted that amendments made in the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 is against
International Conventions.
It is submitted that Amendments are in complete contravention with Article 6(a) and 6(C) of
1881 Declaration of General Assembly which says that The right to freedom of thought,
conscience, religion or belief includes the freedom, "To worship or assemble in connection
with a religion or belief and The right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief
includes the freedom, "To make, acquire and use the necessary articles and materials related
to the rites or customs of a religion or belief;" respectively. In the instant case government
has put an bar through impugned amendments to acquire and use necessary Articles which is
sine qua non for performance of most important offerings which is ‘Aryattam’.
It is humbly submitted that amendments are also in contravention to what is contemplated in

Article 18 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 18 of the International
39
40
(2016) 16 SCC 788
41
¶10 Moot Proposition

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms
of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. Further, it is also violative
of Article 1 of UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of
Discrimination based on Religion or Belief of 1981.
It is also pertinent to refer to the Judgement rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada in the
case of R V. Big M.Drug Mart Limited42 which interalia said Every Individual is free to
hold whatever religious belief by his or her conscience dictates. In the Instant case, it is
humbly submitted that Government has denied the right to perform certain offerings, thereby
it has disallowed to follow the Religious Conscience of Hindus.
The U.S Supreme Court in the case of West Virginia State Board V. Barnatte43and
Everson V. Board of Education44 has held that Right to Religion is a basic right.
In the case of Engel V. Vital45 the Supreme Court of United States ruled that government
can’t interfere in one’s religion. It is evident by criminalizing the possession of feathers of
Arayanna, the government has interfered with one’s religion.
2. WHETHER THE SAID AMENDMENTS WOULD AMOUNT TO VIOLATION

OF RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD OF VALLUM CRAFT MAKERS OR NOT?
The Counsel seeks answer is affirmative.
It is humbly submitted that the said Amendments would amounts to violation of Right to
livelihood of Vallum Craft Makers.
In the case of Sushil Kumar V. Union of India46 it was held that the validity of a statute can
be challenged on two well recognized grounds, (i) absence of the competence of the
legislature and (ii) clear violation of the provisions of the Constitution. In the Instant it is
humbly submitted that Impugned amendments are liable to be struck down as the same does
not meet the touchstone of Article 14,19 and 21 of Constitution of Vengadam.
42
1986 LRC Const332
43
310 U.S 586.
44
330 U.S 1
45
1962 SCC OnLine US SC 117
46
[1997] 5 SCC 536

2.1. The Amendments are manifestly arbitrary in nature and reeks from the
vice of malafide.
The Impugned amendment satisfied the test of manifest arbitrariness and suffers from the
vice of malafide. Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and
equality of treatment.47 The Supreme Court in established beyond any cavil of doubt that a
legislative enactment could be assailed as being arbitrary. It is a settled law that the Statute
can be challenged on the ground of violation of Article 14.48
49
In A.L. Kalra V. The Project & Equipment Corporation of India Limited this Court
held that Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in executive/administrative action because any
action that is arbitrary must necessarily involve the negation of equality. Further the apex
Court in Ajay Hasia's V. Khalid Mujib 50
interalia held that ‘wherever therefore, there is
arbitrariness in State action whether it be of the legislature or of the executive or of an
"authority" under Article 12, Article 14 immediately springs into action and strikes down
such State action.’
In the instant case it is respectfully submitted that Arayannas has presence all over the
Country51 and the Vallum is traditionally made by few families of Vallakam of State of
Satva. It can be safely concluded that decision to impose nationwide ban on Possession,
transportation and use of Arayanna Feathers without granting an exception to the Vallum
Craft Makers reeks with malafide, suffers from the vice of Arbitrariness and Violation of
Article 14 of Constitution of Vengadam. In the case of Venkateshwara Theatre V. State of
AP52 Honourable Apex Court discussed how the Discrimination can arise if persons who are
Unequal are treated as equals. Further, in the case of Punjab National Bank V. Astamija
53
Dash it was treating persons who are dissimilarly situated would also attract the wrath of
Article 14 of Constitution. In the Instant it is evident from the fact that many people whose
livelihood was based on Vallum committed suicide54 that they were only skilled in making
Vallum and had no other skills through which they could earn their livelihood. Therefore, it
can be concluded the Vallum Makers were in disadvantaged position as compared to other
47
Maneka Gandhi case
48
Deen Dayal vs Union of India
49
[1984] 3 SCR 646
50
[1981] 2 SCR 79
51
52
1993 AIR 1947
53
2008 III LLJ 584 (SC)
54

people of Country of Vengadam and exception to the amendment should have added in the
Impugned Amendment to cater the needs and protect the livelihood of Vallum Craft makers.
In the case of Shayara Bano V. Union of India55 it was interalia held that Manifest
arbitrariness, the must be something done by the legislature capriciously, irrationally and/or
without adequate determining principle. Also, when something is done which is excessive
and disproportionate, such legislation would be manifestly arbitrary. In the instant case it can
be safely concluded that the decision of the Union Government of placing an absolute bar on
possession of Feathers of Aryanna without giving an exception to vallum Craft makers is
irrational and is without adequate determining Principle.
2.2. Feathers of the Aryanna is the only Source of Livelihood to few families of
Vallakam.
It is respectfully submitted that the Livelihood of few families of Vallakum was based on
Vallum. One can safely arrive at a conclusion from the fact that many Vallum makers
committed suicide56 as a result of Impugned Amendment that Livelihood of few families
depended on Vallum and they were not at all skilled in any other works.
Life is a precious gift of nature to a being. Right to life as a fundamental right stand enshrined
in the Constitution. The right to livelihood is born of it.57 In the case, Olga
Tellis V. Bombay Municipal Corpn58 the Honourable Apex Court held that Right to life
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution includes “Right to Livelihood”.
Further, In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh V. Umed Ram Sharma59 right to means
of Livelihood was recognised as intrinsic and integral Part of Article 21 of Constitution of
Vengadam. In the instant case Feathers of Aryanna was the Source of Livelihood for few
Vallum Makers as Vallum is made up of Feathers of Aryanna.60 The Union Government
through impugned amendment has deprived the people of Vallum of their livelihood which is
a categorical violation of Right to Life enshrined in Article 21 of Constitution of Vengadam.
55
(2017) 9 SCC 1
56
57
Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar, (1996) 5 SCC 125
58
(1985) 3 SCC 545
59
1986 (1) Scale 182
60

In the case of Narendra Kumar V. Union of India61 it was interalia held by the Honourable
Court that The Court must also consider the question whether the restraint caused by the law
was more than what was necessary in the interest of the general public. In the instant case it
is respectfully submitted that restraint placed is more than what was necessary. Vengadam is
a Union of 27 States62 Bird Aryanna has its presence all over the Country 63 and the objective
i.e Preserving the Bird Aryanna, could have been attained by granting an exception to the
territory of Vallakam which falls in one of its State Instead, government has decided to
impose an Absolute ban which has deprived few families of Vallakam of their Livelihood.
No Prudent man can say that the Species of Aryanna will be in danger if the exception to an
amendment is given to the State of Satva which is one among 27 States64.
In the case of Pradeep Krishen V. Union of India65 the Apex Court had upheld the
Government Order which permitted certain tribes to collect Tendu leaves from the Forests as
the same is part of their Culture. In the instant case it is proved beyond a shadow of doubt
‘Aryattam’ is the most Popular Offerings and importance of this offering can also be found in
ancient religious texts.66 The offering of Aryattam is incomplete without ‘Vallum’.
In the case of Rustom Cavasjee Cooper V. Union of India67 it was observed that the statute
cannot be construed only with reference to its objective sought to be achieved without
considering the constitutionality thereof. In the instant case though the objective sought is to
preserve the species of Aryanna it has deprived the livelihood of few families of Vallakam
which is a part of Right to Life.
2.3. Not in Accordance with Doctrine of Proportionality.
It is humbly submitted that the Impugned Amendments does not satisfy the test of Doctrine
of Proportionality.
In the case, Vivek Velankar V. The State of Maharashtra And Ors 68 the court interalia
held that it can strike down enactment if it thinks it unreasonable, unnecessary or
unwarranted.
61
AIR 1960 SC 430
62
63
64
65
(1996) 8 SCC 599
66
67
1970 AIR 564
68
Vivek Velankar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors , 2019 SCC OnLine 8471

In the case of Justice K.S Puttaswamy V. Union of India69 the Honourable Apex Court
defined Doctrine of Proportionality as something postulates that the nature and extent of the
State’s interference with the exercise of a right must be proportionate to the goal it seeks to
70
achieve. Further, in the case of CPIO V. Subhash Chandra Aggarwal the meaning of
proportionality was explained as “It is also crucial for the standard of proportionality to be
applied to ensure that neither right is restricted to a greater extent than necessary to fulfil the
legitimate interest of the countervailing interest in question”.
In the case of Modern Dental College and Research Centre V. State of Madhya Pradesh
and Ors71 the Apex Court laid down the test of proportionality, which can be ascertained on
the basis of the following: (a) the action must be sanctioned by law;(b) the proposed action
must be necessary in a democratic society for a legitimate aim; (c) the extent of such
interference must be proportionate to the need for such interference;(d) There must be
procedural guarantees against abuse of such interference. In the instant case the impugned
Amendment fails to satisfy the Third test, as it has failed to add an exception to an extent of
granting special Permits to Vallum makers. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the
impugned amendments doesn’t meet the touchstone of Article 12, 19 and 21 of the
Constitution.
In the Case of Justice K.S Puttaswamy V. Union of India72 following test were laid down
by the Apex Court -a) A measure restricting a right must have a legitimate goal (legitimate
goal stage).(b) It must be a suitable means of furthering this goal (suitability or rationale
connection stage).(c) There must not be any less restrictive but equally effective alternative
(necessity stage).(d) The measure must not have a disproportionate impact on the right holder
(balancing stage). It is humbly submitted that in the instant case the impugned amendment
has utterly failed the test of last three stages. The Objective of the government i.e to preserve
the Species of Arayanna73 could have been easily achieved by adding an exception to the
State of Satva and Vallakam in Particular.
69
AIR 2017 SC 4161
70
(2019) SCC OnLine SC 1459
71
(2016) 7 SCC 353
72
AIR 2017 SC 4161
73

In the case of Anuradha Bhasin V. Union of India74 the Apex Court while discussing the
Doctrine of Proportionality had held that only least restrictive measure should be adopted by
the State. In the instant case, it is humbly submitted that the restrictions placed through
impugned amendments by no stretch imagination could it be called as least restrictive.
Therefore, it is humbly submitted that impugned amendments are violative of Right to
Livelihood of Vallum Craft makers which is enshrined and forms and integral and intrinsic
part of Article 21 of Constitution of Vengadam.
2.4. The Restriction placed through Impugned Amendments cannot be said to

be reasonable in nature.
It is humbly submitted that the Restrictions imposed through impugned Amendments are not
reasonable in nature. In the case of Prafulla Kumar Das and others V. State of Orissa and
others75 it was held that a statute can be struck down if it suffers from unreasonableness. In
the instant case the impugned Amendments cannot be said to reasonable in nature as it
imposes complete ban on the Possession of Feathers of Arayanna and also criminalises mere
possession of Feathers of Arayanna.
It was held in the case of Justice K.S Puttaswamy V. Union of India76 that the quality of
reasonableness does not attach only to the content of the procedure which the law prescribes
with reference to Article 21 but to the content of the law itself. In other words, the
requirement of Article 21 is not fulfilled only by the enactment of fair and reasonable
procedure under the law and a law which does so may yet be susceptible to challenge on the
ground that its content does not accord with the requirements of a valid law. The law is open
to substantive challenge on the ground that it violates the fundamental right. In the instant
case contention that Act has been enacted through Procedure established by law should be
rejected.
In the case of Chinaman Rao V. The state of Madhya Pradesh 77 it was held that
“Reasonable” implied intelligent care and deliberation, that is, the choice of a course which
reason dictated. Legislation which arbitrarily or excessively invaded the right could not be
said to contain the quality of reasonableness. In the instant case, it is humbly submitted that
74
AIR 2020 SC 1308
75
Prafulla Kumar Das and others V. State of Orissa and others [(2003) 11 SCC 614]
76
AIR 2017 SC 4161
77
1951 AIR 118

the Legislature has excessively invaded the Right to Livelihood by placing an absolute bar
and without giving any other Alternatives.
Therefore, it is humbly submitted that impugned amendments are liable to be struck down as
Ultravires.
3. Whether registering a case of theft on account of possession and transportation of
Arayanna is maintainable or not?
It is the contention of the counsel of the petitioner in the Special Leave Petition that
registering a case of theft on account of possession and transportation of Arayanna is not
maintainable. Hence the counsel seeks answer to the above question in negative.
According to section 378 of the penal code, theft is defined as follows,
“Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any moveable property out of the possession of any
person without that person`s consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to
commit theft.”78
The essentials of theft have been highlighted in the judgement given by Supreme Court of
India in the case of K N Mehra V. State of Rajasthan.79
“Commission of theft, therefore, consists in (1) moving a movable property of a person out of
his possession without his consent, (2) the moving being in order to the taking of the property
with a dishonest intention. Thus, (1) the absence of the person's consent at the time of
moving, and (2) the presence of dishonest intention in so taking and at the time, are the
essential ingredients of the offence of theft.”
(1) Is the property in possession of a person?

Counsel of petitioner humbly submits that, the three accused persons were merely
transporting the Arayannas. The said birds come under no individual’s possession.
Birds are considered as ferae naturae.80 In a similar case to the matter before the
Supreme Court of Vengadam, the Orissa High Court in the case of Govindha Majhi
V. Arobinda Kar81, held that fish does not come under anybody’s possession if they
are in their natural habitat because they were free to go anywhere they liked. Now the
question arises before the Hon’ble court when does an animal come under the
78
The Penal Code, 1860, s 378
79
AIR 1957 SC 369
80
Latin term for wild animals
81
AIR 1950 Ori 106

possession of an individual? The counsel of petitioner would like to state another

similar case which gives the answer to the question before us. The Supreme Court of
India in the case of Chandi Kumar Das Karmakar V. Abanidhar Roy82 held that
fish kept in the fish tank of a person is said to be in possession of that person. From
this case it is implied that the animals living in an artificial habitat created by an
individual is said to be in that person’s possession. The habitat where they live but
from where they cannot escape.
In the instant case the Arayannas were not taken from a habitat which is created by
any individual, they were not restricted from any movement. It is categorically clear
from the facts83 that Arayannas had a peculiar character and an unusual habitat, and
they cannot be domesticated and are not being considered as a pet bird. This is
sufficient enough to prove that Arayannas were freely living in their natural habitat
and do not come under anybody’s possession. By this the first essential element of,
“moving a movable property of a person out of his possession without his consent”
cannot be proved and hence our clients are not deemed fit to be charged under section
378 of the penal code.
(2) Act should be done without the consent.
The counsel would like to submit before the Hon’ble court that the act of the accused
nowhere makes them dispossessing the birds from the owner. The facts 84 of the case
mentions that three persons were merely transporting the birds, but nowhere mentions
that it is an act of theft because there is no relevant law for the same.
I would like to bring to the Hon’ble Court’s kind notice that, when it comes to
possession of the wild animals there are of two types i) Gaining title, ii) Constructive
possession.
(i) Gaining Title

The first way in which a person can gain title to a wild animal is by exercising
possession over it. In order to exercise possession legally, a person must
exercise dominion and control over the animal in addition to having
possession of the animal.
82
AIR 1965 SC 585
83
¶ 3 Moot proposition
84
¶ 3 Moot Proposition

(ii) Constructive Possession

85
In S.M. Yaqub and Ors. V. T. N. Basu and Anr. , the Patna High Court
held that “The term ‘constructive possession’ in the ideal sense means
possession in law but not possession in fact, that is to say, though a party may
not be in possession of the property, the law attributes to him the advantages
and results of possession fictitiously, by applying the legal fiction that
possession follows title.”
A person could exercise constructive possession over a wild animal. This could be done by
trapping or netting it. When one of these actions occurs, the person who traps or nets the
animal is said to constructively possess it.
It is humbly submitted that the said birds were neither in title of someone nor in constructive
possession of someone. Since the birds were not under anybody’s possession there is no room
for consent. No question of consent arises in the instant case. Therefore the essential element
of moving a property out of a person’s possession without his/her consent is not fulfilled and
theft will not be proved.
Furthermore, the accused have exercised constructive possession over the 51 Arayannas
and hence are the rightful owners of these birds and have not committed theft.
(3) Is the element of dishonest intention present at the time of moving the property?
The counsel for the petitioner likes to submit before the Hon’ble court that the offence of
theft is incomplete without dishonest intention on the part of the accused. The opening
phrase of section 378 of the Penal Code reads, “Whoever dishonestly….” This signifies
the importance of the dishonest intention in the crime of theft under the penal code.
Dishonestly means, “Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain
to one person or wrongful loss to another person is said to do that thing dishonestly”.86
In K N Mehra v. State of Rajasthan87 the importance of dishonest intention was

discussed "It is rightly pointed out that since the definition of theft requires that the
moving of the property is to be in order to such taking, 'such' meaning 'intending to take
dishonestly' the very moving out must be with the dishonest intention."
85
1949 CriLJ 299
86
Section 24 of the Penal Code
87
AIR 1957 SC 369

This intention is known as ‘Animus Furandi’88 and without it the offence of theft is not
complete. In the instant case, the action of the accused, i.e. transporting of the 51 live
Arayannas must cause a wrongful gain to the accused or wrongful loss to another person.
Only when this is proved, the presence of dishonest intention can be highlighted.
Firstly, the transportation of these birds is not resulting in any wrongful gain to the
accused. Secondly, there is no other person involved. As proved earlier, the birds were
not in anybody’s possession; hence it is not causing any wrongful loss to anybody.
It is evident from the facts that the accused has not wrongfully gained from the act or
wrongfully caused loss to someone. Hence the element of dishonest intention cannot be
proved.
To conclude, the essentials of theft highlighted in K.N Mehra v. State of Rajasthan, (1)
moving a movable property of a person out of his possession without his consent, (2) the
moving being in order to the taking of the property with a dishonest intention, cannot be
proved. Hence it is the humble submission of the counsel that the accused cannot be
charged under the offence of theft as the essentials of theft are absent.
4.WHETHER REGISTERING A CASE UNDER SECTION 124A OF THE PENAL

CODE OF VENGADAM ON ACCOUNT OF A STATEMENTS MADE IN NEWS
DISCUSSUION WOULD VIOLATE THE FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOM OF SPEECH
GAURENTEED IN THE CONSTITUITION OF VENGADAM OR NOT?
The counsel seeks answer to the above issue in affirmative. Section 124A of the penal code
of Vengadam violates the freedom of speech and expression recognised under Art.19 of
Vengadam constitution. Such freedom is considered as the foundation stone for every free
and democratic society.89 This freedom is also enshrined under Art.19 of ICCPR.
88
Chandi Kumar v. Abanidhar Roy, AIR 1965 SC 585
89
Tae-Hoon Park V. Republic of Korea, Comm. 628/1995, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/57/D/628/1995 ¶
10.3 (HRC 1998); Stephen Benhadj v. Algeria, Comm. 1173/2003, UN Doc. CCPR/C/90/D/1173/2003 (HRC
2007); Handyside V. United Kingdom, App. No. 5493/72 Eur. Ct. H.R. ¶ 49 (1976); Perna v. Italy, App. no.
48898/99 Eur.

4.1 Section 124A Vengadam penal code (VPC) violates the intrinsic right to free speech
and expression.
It is most humbly contended before the honourable court that Section 124A of the VPC
violates freedom of speech and expression and is void since the Section is imprecise and
vague.
Freedom of speech and expression is a natural right which a human being acquires on birth.90
It is the only vehicle of Political Discourse essential for Democracy.91 Since the inception of
the Constitution, right to freedom of speech and expression has been given paramount
importance.92It is most humbly contended that Right to freedom and expression is a most
cherished value forming the basis of a democratic society. The words “freedom of speech and
expression” finds place in the association of words “Liberty of thought, expression, belief,
faith and worship” which form a part of preamble of our Constitution.93
4.1.1 Section 124A is vague
Section 124A of VPC states “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 India
shall be punished with imprisonment for life.”94 In Shreya Singal V. Union of India95 the
Supreme Court held the vagueness of law can be sufficient ground for its invalidation.
In the case of Grayned V. City of Rockford 96 the US Supreme Court held that “vague laws
may trap the innocent by not providing fair warning”
4.1.2 Does not pass the test of causation and proximity
In the case of The Superintendent, Central Prison, Fatehgarh V. Dr Ram Manohar

Lohia97 it was held by the apex court that in order to prevent complete arbitrariness and to
90
Life Insurance Corporation of India V. Manubhai D. Shah,(1992) 3 SCC 637 : AIR 1993 SC 171
91
Secy., Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Govt. of India V. Cricket Assn. of Bengal, (1995) 2 SCC 161
92
Online Freedom of Speech and Expression: A Critical Analysis, 3 KIIT Student L Rev 33 (2016) Shreya
Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India,
(1985) 1 SCC 641
93
Devidas Ramachandra Tuljapurkar V. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 6 SCC 1
94
The Indian Penal Code, 1860, s.124A.
95
AIR 2015 SC 1523
96
408 U.S. 104 (1972)
97
AIR 1955 All 193

give effect to requirements of reasonableness there needs to be test of causation and

proximity.
In the case of Balwant Singh V. State of Punjab98 the Supreme Court proposed a test of
proximity. It is clear from the Indian jurisprudence that any arbitrary law is unconstitutional
beyond any reasonable doubt. American Supreme Court has held that there must be a “clear
and imminent danger” for restriction of free speech.
In the instant case Adv. Mathur Nath opinion clearly did not cause any danger, and the F.I.R
filed against him is unreasonable and does not fall within the ambit of Art.19(2) of Vengadam
constitution.
4.1.3 Does not pass the test of national security
In Romesh Thapar V. the State of Madras99 It was held that “nothing less than endangering
the foundations of the state or threatening its overthrow could justify curtailment of the rights
to freedom of speech and expression.” Thus, if the right to free speech invokes a tendency to
violently overthrow a government established by law an action under section124A of VPC
can be initiated.
When such necessity is absent then the law is prone to unconstitutional use, in the instant
case the law has been prone to unconstitutional use by the state as Adv. Mathur Nath’s
opinion did not tend to violently overthrow the government.
4.1.4 Right to disagree with the Governments Policy is a part of the Basic Right
enshrined under Part 3 of Constitution of Indus.
Freedom of speech not only recognizes Right to speech but also recognizes right to hear100.
The State cannot prevent open discussion and open expression, however hateful to its
policies101. It is pertinent to refer to the Supreme Court of India’s Judgement in the case of
LIC V. Manubhai D. Shah (Prof.)102 wherein it was held that Freedom to air one’s view is
the lifeline of any democratic institution and any attempt to stifle or gag this right would send
a death-knell to democracy. It was also held by the apex court in the case of Indian Express
98
1994 SCC, Supl. (2) 67 JT 1994 (2) 30
99
[1950] S.C.R. 594
100
Time V. Hill US 374 and Grill word V. Connecticut. And Tata Press Ltd. V. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam
Ltd., (1995) 5 SCC 139
101
Rangarajan V. P. Jagjivan Ram, (1989) 2 SCC 574
102
1992 3 SCC 637

Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. V. Union of India 103 that all members of the society
should be able to form their own beliefs and communicate them freely with others. In the
instant case Adv. Mathur Nath’s statement on a live news discussion was to express his
dissatisfaction with the ruling dispensation, legislature has taken away the fundamental right
to dissent which is sacrosanct to a democracy.
4.2 Section 124A is an unreasonable restriction
Freedom of speech guaranteed under Art.19 is essential in functioning of a democratic polity

further the restrictions must pass the test of reasonableness, therefore it cannot be curtailed
ordinarily.
It is most humbly contended that section 124A of VPC is an unreasonable restriction to

freedom of speech and expression enshrined under Art.19(1)(a). The freedom of speech and
expression also has the right to express one’s views and opinions on any issue through any
media. In the case of Ramesh Thappar V. Union of India104, it was held that 19(1)(a) is the
very basis and essence of the constitution and democracy. In the case of Maneka Gandhi V.
Union of India105 Bhagwati J. has emphasized on the significance of the freedom of speech
& expression in these words: “Democracy is based essentially on free debate and open
discussion, for that is the only corrective of government action in a democratic set up. 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 rights of making a choice, free & general discussion of public
matters is absolutely essential.”
4.2.1 This section is outside the scope of restrictions under Art.19(2).
As per Art.19 (2) the five restrictions which can be imposed on free speech are:
(i)Public order (ii) Morality (iii) National security (iv) Defamation (v) Incitement
to an offence
None of these cover hatred, contempt or disaffection towards the Govt. Further, public order
has been held not to be synonymous with law and order but something which affects the
103
1985 1 SCC 641
104
[1950] S.C.R. 594
105
1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621

public at large.106 Similarly, incitement to an offence is not merely that the audience may
have a feeling of hatred, contempt or disaffection but should have been by abetment to
commit an offence.107 Thus, unless the presence of incitement to commit an offence is read
into the section, it would be rendered unconstitutional.108
It is most humbly contended that in the instant case Adv. Mathur Nath’s opinion did not
result in incitement of an offence hence the section is read without the presence of incitement
to commit an offence and can be rendered as unconstitutional.
4.2.3 Mere criticism cannot be considered sedition
Section 124A defines the limits of sedition as follows “Comments expressing disapprobation
of the measures of the government to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without
exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offense
under this section. Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other actions
of the government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection,
do not constitute an offense under this section.”109
In Kedar Nath Singh V. State of Bihar110 the Supreme Court restricted the scope of sedition
law enshrined under section 124A of VPC. It was held that the application of this section
must be limited to “acts involving intention or tendency to create disorder or disturbance of
law and order; or incitement to violence".111 Supreme Court held that a citizen has a right to
say or write whatever he likes about the Government, or its measures, by way of criticism or
comment, so long as he does not incite people to violence against the Government established
by law or with the intention of creating public disorder.
In Vinod Dua V. Union of India112 the Supreme Court held that merely criticising the
government does not amount to sedition. It said, “The time is long past when the mere
criticism of governments was sufficient to constitute sedition, for it is recognised that the
right to utter honest and reasonable criticism is a source of strength to a community rather
106
Ram Manohar Lohia V. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 740
107
S.S. Cheena V. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, (2010) 12 SCC 190
108
Kedar Nath Singh V. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955
109
The Indian Penal Code, 1860, s.124A.
110
AIR 1962 SC 955
111
Kedar Nath Singh V. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955
112

than a weakness”.113 It is confirmed and held that Right to Criticize Government falls within
the framework off Art.19(1)(a) of Constitution of Vengadam.
In the instant case Adv. Mathur Nath’s opinion “………The people who enact the laws
should have some sense….it is high time people should react against such
governments…...”114 these statements were mere criticism which cannot be considered as
sedition.
4.3 Union of Vengadam’s obligation under International Law
The country is bound by the ICCPR (international covenant on civil and political rights). The
ICCPR recognises the dignity and promotes conditions within states to allow enjoyment of
civil and political rights. Right to freedom of speech and expression is protected under Art.19
of ICCPR this right is not absolute and international law sets out stringent standards which
need to be met by states to restrict this right.
ICCPR provides for the standards to restrict freedom of speech and expression by the state:
(a) Provided for by law (b) Necessary (c) In pursuit of one of the legitimate aims set forth in
the Art. (is for the respect of the rights or reputations of others, for the protection of national
security or of public order, or of public health or morals)115
It is most humbly contended that section 124A as a restriction of freedom of expression falls
short of these requirements in that it is neither 'necessary' nor sufficiently 'provided by law'.
4.4 The FIR Lodged against Adv. Mathur Nath is illegal
It is most humbly contended that FIR against Adv. Mathur Nath for his statement during a
live news night discussion where he had stated, “the people who enact the laws should have
some sense …it is high time people should react against such senseless governments……”.116
does not fall within the ambit of section 124A.
In Gurjatinder Pal Singh V. State of Punjab117, Punjab & Haryana HC quashed the FIR
filed against him under Section 124A of the IPC. The High court cited the decision of the
113
Vinod Dua V. Union of India, 2021 SCC Online SC 414
114
¶13 Moot proposition
115
UN General Assembly, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966, United
Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 999, p. 171
116
¶13 Moot proposition
117
(2009) 3 RCR (Cri) 224

Supreme Court in Balwant Singh V. State of Punjab118 where it was held that the mere
casual raising of slogans a couple of times without the intention to incite people to create
disorder would not constitute a threat to the Government of India. In the instant case Adv.
Mathur Nath did not have any intention to incite people to create disorder and the FIR filed
against him is illegal.
4.4.1 Quashing of FIR through writ jurisdiction of Supreme Court
The Constitution of Vengadam guarantees direct access to its Supreme Court for its
fundamental rights through Art.32 of the Constitution of Vengadam. It is pertinent to refer to
the Judgement given by this court in the case of Vinod Dua V. Union of India119, wherein
this honourable court by exercising its power under Art.32 had quashed the FIR lodged
against a journalist on the ground that FIR violates his Fundamental Right of Freedom of
Speech as conferred to him under Art. 19(1)(a) of Constitution of Vengadam. So therefore, it
cannot be said that FIR cannot be quashed by the Supreme Court through invoking its Writ
Jurisdiction under Art.32 of Constitution of Vengadam.
The Supreme Court in Plethora of cases120 has held that FIR can be quashed on the ground
inter alia to:
(1) Prevent abuse of Process of Law (2) Otherwise, to secure the ends of Justice.
It is to be noted that in the case of Geeta Mehrotra V. State of Uttar Pradesh121, the
Honourable Supreme Court has held that in the absence of any specific allegation in an FIR,
prima facie, indicating no case against the co-accused, the Court would have the power to
quash an FIR.
It is also to be noted that the proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case
of State of Haryana V. Bhajanlal122 for quashing the criminal proceeding is 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 any offence or
make out a case against the accused the FIR can be quashed. The ratio of the above
118
(1995) 3 SCC 214: AIR 1995 SC 1785
119
120
Gian Singh vs State of Punjab 2012 SCC 10 303
121
(2012) 10 SCC 741
122
1992 SCC (Cri) 426

Judgement was approved in M.A.A. Annamalai V. State of Karnataka123, Sharda Prasad

Sinha V. State of Bihar124and Smt. Nagawwa V. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi.125
In the instant case allegations made in the First Information Report even if they are taken at
their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or
make out a case against the Accused. Therefore, it is respectfully contended that First
Information Report registered against Adv. Mathur Nath should be quashed.
123
(2010) 8 SCC 524
124
(1977) 1 SCC 505: AIR 1977 SC 1754
125
(1976) 3 SCC 736: AIR 1976 SC 1947

PRAYER
Wherefore in light of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advance, and authorities cited,
the Petitioner most humbly and respectfully request the Hon’ble Supreme court to adjudge
and declare that:
A. The amendments made in Section 43(3)(a) and 44 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act,
1972 thereby extending the operation of the Act of Arayanna is violative of freedom
of religion.
B. The amendments made in Section 43(3)(a) and 44 of the Wildlife (Protection)
Act,1972 amount to violation of right to livelihood of Vallum Craft makers.
C. Registering a case of theft on account possession and transportation of Aryanna is not
maintainable.
D. Registering a case under Section 124A of the Penal Code of Vengadam on account of
a statements made in news discussion violate the fundamental freedom of speech
guaranteed in the Constitution of Vengadam.
AND/OR
Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.
And for this, the Petitioner as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.
Respectfully submitted,
AGENTS FOR PETITIONER

Campbell Bay Petitioner Memorial

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Campbell Bay Petitioner Memorial

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

39th All India Moot Court Competition, AGLC

TEAM CODE: CAMPBELL BAY

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF VENGADAM

W.P. NO. 3456/2021

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF VENGADAM

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER-

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER- 1|Page

S. No. Contents Page No.

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER- 2|Page

AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

FIR FIRST INFORMATION REPORT

NGO NON GOVERNMENTAL

SCC SUPREME COURT CASES

SLP SPECIAL LEAVE PETETION

u/s UNDER SECTION

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER- 3|Page

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER- 4|Page

24. Shayara Bano V. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1.

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER- 5|Page

51. Maneka Gandhi V. Union of India, 1978 AIR 597.

B. LIST OF LAWS AND STATUTES

1. The Constitution of India, 1949

2. The Indian Penal Code, 1860

3. Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972

C. ARTICLES AND BLOGS

2. Online Freedom of Speech and Expression: A Critical Analysis,

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER- 6|Page

4. Essential Religious Practices in Light of the Sabarimala

1. LEXIS ADVANCE, https://www.lexisnexis.com/in/legal

3. SCC ONLINE, https://www.scconline.com

THE PETITIONER HAS FILED THIS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER- 7|Page

2. UNION OF VENGADAM DECLARES ARAYANNA AS NATIONAL BIRD

3. IN 2007 GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATION TAG WAS GIVEN TO VALLUM

4. UPCS IDENTIFIED A DRASTIC DECLINE IN THE POPULATION OF

The UPCS is a national organisation committed to protection of swans in union of

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER- 8|Page

5. THREE PERSONS WERE ARRESTED FROM STATE OF SATVA

6. GOVERNMENT OF VENGADAM INTRODUCED AMENDMENTS TO

7. FIR AGAINST ADVOCATE MATHUR NATH

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER- 9|Page

Whether registering a case of theft on account of possession and transportation of

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER- 10 | P a g e

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER- 11 | P a g e

1. WHETHER THE AMENDMENTS MADE IN SECTION 43(3) (A) AND

The Counsel seeks answer in Affirmative.

1.1. Hinduism is religion under Article 25 of Constitution of Vengadam and

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER- 12 | P a g e

1.2. Aryattam is an essential part of South Vengadam denomination of

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER- 13 | P a g e

1.2.1. References regarding the Origin of the Aryattam can be found in

1.2.2. Arayataam is not a new practice and is carried on from centuries

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER- 14 | P a g e

1.2.3. Religious freedom can be extended to rituals

It is pertinent to refer to case of The Commissioner of Police & Ors V. Acharya

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER- 15 | P a g e

Therefore, it can be concluded that Arayattam which is a ritual practised by Hindus of

1.3. The Impugned Amendment curtains liberty

-MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER- 16 | P a g e

1.4. Against International Treaties, Conventions and Declarations.

It is humbly submitted that amendments are also in contravention to what is contemplated in