TC 02 R.

10TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
TC – 02 R
10 TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022
[Online]
1st – 3 rd April, 2022
BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF TAPOVAST
[PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1950 R/W
SECTION 96 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973]
TO BE HEARD THROUGH THE HIGH COURT’S VIRTUAL PLATFORM
In the matter of
SLOVAS MISHI
(Petitioner)
v.
STATE OF TAPOVAST & ORS.
(Respondents)
[Writ Petition No.______/2022]
Written submissions on behalf of the Respondents
Counsels for the Respondents
1 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

LIST OF CONTENTS
LIST OF CONTENTS………………………….………………………………………….2-3
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………………………….......4-5
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………...………………..6-12
[A] BOOKS………………………………….………………………….………….….6
[B] LEXICONS……...……………………….………………………………….....6-7
[C] LEGISLATIONS/ CODE/ STATUTE ……….……………………….……....7
[D] LEGAL DATABASES………………………………………...…….…………...7
[E] LIST OF CASES…………….……………………………….…………...…...7-12
[F] OTHER AUTHORITIES…………….……………………………….….........12
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………………………....13-14
STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………………….….…...15
ISSUES RAISED………………………………………………………………....................16
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS………………………………………………..…….……..17
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED…………..……………………………...……….………18- 36
1. WHETHER THE BAN BY THE GOVERNMENT OF TAPOVAST AMOUNTS

TO VIOLATION OF SLOVAS’ RIGHT GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 19 (1)
(a) OF THE CONSTITUTION?...........................................................................18-27
1.1. A RTICLE 19 (1)(a) IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT……………………………….18-23
i. The book was banned to maintain Public Order………………………..……20-21
a. The action of government is proportional ….………………...………………….21-22
ii. Author’s writings are going against the standards of decency and morality…....22-23
1.2. GOVERNMENT OF TAPOVAST HAS ACTED WELL-WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THEIR

POWERS...………………………….………………………………………….. 23-26
i. The grounds of the opinions of the Government have been stated…………..24-25

ii. The malice intention of the petitioner has to be gathered from the contents of the
book…………………………………………………………………………25-26
1.3. THE BAN ON THE BOOK WAS A PREVENTIVE MEASURE WHICH WAS N ON-
VIOLATIVE OF NATURAL JUSTICE…………………………………………..26-27
2. WHETHER THE FIRs FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONER SHOULD BE
QUASHED OR NOT?.........................................................................................27-35
2.1. N ONE OF THE CONDITIONS TO QUASH THE FIRS IS FULFILLED…….……….28-34
i. The Petitioner promoted disharmony and enmity…………………………...28-30
a. Undignified words negatively portray the Queen Trusadi………………………...29-30
b. The romantic dream questions the chastity of the Goddess…...……………………….30
c. Truth is no defence for malicious intent…………………………………………...30
ii. The book of the Petitioner is prejudicial to national integration……………30-31
iii. The current book in question is obscene……………………..…………….32-33
a. Unquestionable work does not spare the questionable work…………………………33
iv. The Petitioner has outraged the religious feelings……………..…………….33-34
2.2. QUASHING OF FIRS IS A SENSITIVE MATTER…..………...…..……...…………34-35
3. WHETHER THE RIGHT TO REPUTATION OF PETITIONER HAS BEEN

VIOLATED BY THE STATE?............................................................................35-36
PRAYER ……………………………………………………………………………………37

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
& And
§/S. Section
AIR All India Reporter
Anr. Another
AP Andhra Pradesh
Art. Article
Assn. Association
Bom. Bombay
Cl. Clause
Co. Company
Corp. Corporation
Cr.P.C. Code of Criminal Procedure
Cri. Criminal
Cri.L.J. Criminal Law Journal
Del. Delhi
Dr. Doctor
Ed. Edition
Etc. Etcetera
FIR First Information Report
FR Fundamental Right
Govt. Government
Guj. Gujarat
HC High Court
Hon'ble Honourable
i.e., Id est (That is)

I.P.C. Indian Penal Code

Ltd. Limited
M.P. Madhya Pradesh

M/s Master
Mad. Madras
MhLJ Maharashtra Law Journal
Mohd. Mohammed
NCT National Capital Territory
No. Number
Ors. Others
Para Paragraph
Pat. Patna
Pun. Punjab
Pvt. Private
r/w Read with
Raj. Rajasthan
Re Reference
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCC (Cri) Supreme Court Cases (Criminal)
SCR Supreme Court Reports
T.N. Tamil Nadu
U.O.I. Union of India
U.P. Uttar Pradesh
u/s Under Section

v. Versus
Vol. Volume
w.e.f. With Effect From

WB West Bengal

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
A. BOOKS
S. No. NAME OF THE BOOKS PAGE NO.
1. 1 D.D. BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (8 th 31

Ed., Lexis Nexis, 2011).
2. 1 D.D. BASU, SHORTER CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (14 th Ed., Lexis 20

Nexis, 2014).
3. 1 RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (27th Ed., 35,36, Passim
Lexis Nexis, 2013).
4. E DWARD S. CORWIN, CONSTITUTION AND WHAT IT MEANS TODAY 20
(Princeton University Press, 1978).
5. M. P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (7 th Ed., Lexis Nexis, 2016). 19,22
6. MAHENDRA PAL SINGH, V.N. SHUKLA’ S CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 23

(13 th Ed. Lexis Nexis, 2019).
7. I.P. MASSEY , ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (10 th Ed. Eastern Book Company, 30

2022).
B. LEXICONS
S. N O. TITLE EDITION
1. BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 10 th ed. 2014
2. CONCISE OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY 11th ed. 2004
3. MERRIAM - WEBSTER’S ONLINE DICTIONARY -
C. LEGISLATIONS / CODES / STATUTES
1. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1973 (India).

2. Indian Penal Code, 1860, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India).

3. The Constitution of India, 1950.
D. LEGAL DATABASE
1. www.scconline.com
2. www.lexisnexis.com
3. www.manupatra.com
4. www.heinonline.com
E. LIST OF CASES
S. No. CASE NAME CITATION PAGE NO.
1. Ajay Goswami v. Union of India (2007) 1 SCC 143 22
2. Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chandra (2012) 9 SCC 460 35
3. Angoori Devi v. Union of India (1989)1 SCC 385 21
4. Arumuga Mudaliar v. Annamalai (1996) 2 MLJ 223 19

Mudaliar
5. Azizul Haque Kausar Naqvi v. The AIR 1980 All 149 29

State (FB)
6. Babu Rao Patel v. State (Delhi AIR 1980 SC 763 30

Administration)
7. Baradakant Mishra v. Registrar AIR 1974 SC 710 19
8. Baragur Ramachandrappa v. State of (2007) 5 SCC 11 23, 27, Passim

Karnataka
9. Baragur Ramachandrappa v. State of 1998 Cri LJ 3639 23,27, Passim

Karnataka
10. Barjinder v. State of Punjab 1993 Cri LJ 2040 26
11. Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of Andhra (1997) 7 SCC 431 29

Pradesh
12. Binod Kumar v. State of Bihar 2014 SCC Online SC 35

866
13. Coimbatore District Central Coop. (2007) 4 SCC 669 21

Bank v. Employees Assn.

14. D.C. Saxena (Dr.) v. Hon’ble Chief AIR 1996 SC 2481 19

Justice of India
15. Dalbir Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1962 SC 1106 19
16. Deb Dutt v. State of Manipur 1979 Cri LJ 1402 25

(Gau) (FB)
17. Delhi Police Non-Gazetted AIR 1987 SC 379 20
Karmachari Sangh v. Union of India
18. DP Chaoudhary v. Kumari Manjulata AIR 1997 Raj. 170 19
19. Duphtary C.K. v. O.P. Gupta AIR 1971 SC 1132 19
20. E.M. Namboodripal Sankaran v. T. AIR 1970 SC 2015 19

Narayan Manbiar
21. Google India Private Limited v. AIR 2020 SC 350 34

Visakha Industries
22. Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1966 SC 97 36
23. Harnam Das v. State of U.P. 1962 SCR (2) 371 25
24. In re: Harijai Singh & Anr. 1996 (6) SCC 466 27
25. Indian Hotel & Restaurant Assn. (2019) 3 SCC 429 32

(AHAR) v. State of Maharashtra
26. Jafar Imam Naqvi v. Election AIR 2014 SC 2357 19

Commission of India
27. Jagan Nath v. Union of India AIR 1960 SC 675 19
28. Jeffrey J. Diermeier v. State of W.B. (2010) 6 SCC 243 36
29. Joseph Bain D’Souza v. State of 1995 Cri LJ 1316 30

Maharashtra (Bom)
30. K. Senthil Mallar v. The Government 2017 SCC OnLine 23, 24, Passim
of Tamil Nadu Mad 7075
31. Kali Charan Sharma v. Emperor AIR 1927 All 649 25
32. Kalpana Mehta v. Union of India (2018) 7 SCC 1 22

33. Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1956 SC 541 19
34. Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar AIR 1962 SC 955 20
35. Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala AIR 1973 SC 1461 18
36. Khalil Ahmed v. State AIR 1960 All 715 33
37. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India AIR 2003 SC 3469 20
38. M.H. Devendrappa v. Karnataka State AIR 1998 SC 1064 19

Small Industries Development
Corporation
39. M.R. Parashar v. Farooq Abdullah AIR 1984 SC 615 19
40. M/s Hardevi Malkani v. State AIR 1969 All 423 30
41. Madhavrao Jivajirao Scindia v. (1989) 1 SCC 692 35

Sambhajirao Chandrajirao Angre
42. Madhu Limaye v. Sub Divisional AIR 1971 SC 2486 20

Magistrate
43. Mahavir Singh v. Surinder Singh 2010 SCC OnLine P 36

& H 9094
44. Mahendra Ram v. Harnandan Prasad AIR 1958 Pat. 445 19
45. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248 26
46. Maulik Kotak v. State of Maharashtra 2014 Cri LJ 4235 19
47. Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. (2000) 3 SCC 269 35
v. Biological E. Ltd
48. N. Veera Brahmam v. State of AIR 1959 AP 572 25

Andhra Pradesh
49. Nand Kishore Singh v. State of Bihar 1985 Cri LJ 797 (Pat) 25
50. O.K. Ghosh v. E.X. Joseph AIR 1962 SC 812 20
51. Om Kumar v. Union of India AIR 2000 SC 3689 21
52. People’s Union for Civil Liberty v. AIR 1997 SC 568 19

Union of India

53. Piara Singh Bahniara v. State of (2009) 1 Punj LR 766 27

Punjab
54. Piyush Kanitilal Mehta v. 1989 SCC (Cri) 438 22

Commissioner of Police
55. Prashant Bharti v. State of NCT of (2013) 9 SCC 293 35

Delhi
56. Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar 1985 Cri LJ 817 28
57. Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of AIR 2014 SC 1591 19

India
58. Rahmani Primary Teachers Training 1991 (39) BLJR 1374 20

College v. Najib Akhtar
59. Rajani Kant Verma v. State of Bihar AIR 1958 All 360 19
60. Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330 35
61. Ram Jethmalani v. Subramanian AIR 2006 Delhi 300 19

Swamy
62. Rama Rao V.R.V. Sree v. Telegu AIR 1984 AP 353 19

Desam
63. Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo (Dr.) v. AIR 1996 SC 1113 19, 22

Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte
64. Ramji Lal Modi v. State of Uttar AIR 1957 SC 620 19, 20, Passim
Pradesh
65. Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home (2012) 5 SCC 1 18

Secretary, Union of India
66. Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of AIR 1965 SC 881 19, 22, Passim
Maharashtra
67. Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 124 19, 27
68. Sahara India Real Estate Corpn. Ltd. AIR 2012 SC 3829 18
v. Securities & Exchange Board of
India

69. Sant Das v. Babu Ram AIR 1969 All 436 24
70. Santokh Singh v. Delhi AIR 1973 SC 1091 19

Administration
71. Sewakram Sobhani v. R.K. Karanjia (1981) 3 SCC 208 36
72. Sheikh Wajih Uddin v. The State AIR 1963 All 335 24
73. Shiv Ram Dass Udasin v. Punjab 1955 Cri LJ 337 33
74. State of Bihar v. Shailabal Devi AIR 1952 SC 329 19
75. State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal AIR 1992 SC 604 28
76. State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy (1977) 2 SCC 699 28
77. State of Maharashtra v. Sangharaj (2010) 7 SCC 398 25

Damodhar Rupawate,
78. State of Punjab v. Kasturi Lal and AIR 2005 SC 4135 34

Others
79. State of U.P. v. Lalai Singh 1971 Cri LJ 1519 24, 25
80. State of U.P. v. VRK Srivastava 1989 Cri LJ 2301 28
81. State of West Bengal v. Swapan AIR 1982 SC 949 28

Kumar Guha
82. State v. Henry Rodrigues (1962) 2 Cri LJ 564 33

(Mys.)
83. State v. Pastor P. Raju (2006) 6 SCC 728 31
84. State v. Ramanand Tiwari AIR 1956 Pat. 188 19

(195)
85. State v. Shri Kanthnath Shastri 1987 Cri LJ 1583 29

(Del)
86. Supt. Central Prison Fatehgarh v. AIR 1960 S.C.633. 20

Ram Manohar
87. Uday v. State of M.P. 1987 Cri LJ 1131 25

(MP) (FB)

88. V.K.Javali v. State of Mysore AIR 1966 SC 1387 22
89. Virendra v. The State of Punjab AIR 1957 SCC 896 20, 21
FOREIGN CASE
90. Cf. Conegate v. Customs Commrs. (1986) 2 All E.R. 688 22
91. Knuller (Publishing, Printing and (1972) 2 All E.R. 898 19

Promotions) Ltd. v. Director of
Public Prosecutions
92. Regina v. Hicklin (1868) LR 3 Q.B. 360 32
93. Theaker v. Richardson (1962) 1 All E.R. 299 19
F. OTHER AUTHORITIES
1. Rajeev Dhavan, Freedom of the Press, MA COCHIN UNI LAW REV. (1987).

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Petitioner has approached High Court of Tapovast, through a Writ Petition under
Article 226 of Indian Constitution read with Section 96 of Code of Criminal Procedure to
which the Respondents are responding through written submission.
ARTICLE 226 IN THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950
Power of High Courts to issue certain writs
1. Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout
the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or
Authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories
directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus,
prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the
rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose
2. The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government,
Authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in
relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the
exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or Authority
or the residence of such person is not within those territories
3. Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or
in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause
(1), without
(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support
of the plea for such interim order; and
(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the
High Court for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application
to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the counsel of such
party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks
from the date on which it is received or from the date on which the copy of such
application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the High Court is closed
on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on which
the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim

order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the
aid next day, stand vacated
4. The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the
power conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (2) of Article 32.
SECTION 96 IN THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973
Application to High Court to set aside declaration of forfeiture
1. Any person having any interest in any newspaper, book or other document, in respect of
which a declaration of forfeiture has been made under Section 95, may, within two months
from the date of publication in the Official Gazette of such declaration, apply to the High
Court to set aside such declaration on the ground that the issue of the newspaper, or the
book or other document, in respect of which the declaration was made, did not contain
any such matter as is referred to in sub- Section (1) of Section 95.
2. Every such application shall, where the High Court consists of three or more Judges, be
heard and determined by a Special Bench of the High Court composed of three Judges
and where the High Court consists of less than three Judges, such Special Bench shall be
composed of all the Judges of that High Court.
3. On the hearing of any such application with reference to any newspaper, any copy of such
newspaper may be given in evidence in aid of the proof of the nature or tendency of the
words, signs or visible representations contained in such newspaper, in respect of which
the declaration of forfeiture was made.
4. The High Court shall, if it is not satisfied that the issue of the newspaper, or the book or
other document, in respect of which the application has been made, contained any such
matter as is referred to in sub- Section (1) of Section 95, set aside the declaration of
forfeiture.
5. Where there is a difference of opinion among the Judges forming the Special Bench, the
decision shall be in accordance with the opinion of the majority of those Judges.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
BACKGROUND
Slovas Mishi/Petitioner, a 55-year-old Indicus citizen, authored and published a book,
‘Blood and Fire in Tapovast’. This book was based upon the life of the Trus people. The book
describes the Trus people as chivalrous, skilled in art of warfare and skilled statesmen. The Trus
men have distinct reputation fighting the Rak Army, who are inhabitants of the foreign land
Rakstar. The Petitioner wrote the book after researching for ten years. The Petitioner wrote in his
book about the valorous Trus warriors and described the 21 st war between the Trus and the Draks
as the fiercest battle in which the Trus lost.
CONTENT OF BOOK
The book of the Petitioner mainly revolved around three main characters of the Book i.e.,
Queen Trusadi, Trus King Sri and the ferocious invader Draks. Queen Trusadi is known for her
incomparable beauty and is also deified by the Trus women for her chastity, piousness and valour.
The Petitioner in his books describes the Queen as enchantress and temptress, and vividly narrates
about a romantic dream of Draks of which there is no historical account. Further, the Petitioner
also narrates about Ru and Tu, the mythological figures who were considered as Gods, withdrew
their hands from the battle. Further, the book mentions the act of self-immolation by the Trus
women when the Draks’ army won the battle.
BAN ON BOOK AND FIR FILED
An NGO by the name of Trus Swabhiman Sangthan, contended that their Queen and their
gods have been disrespected by the Petitioner through his book. Many famous people praised the
work of Slovas Mishi and revered it as classic piece of literature. Owing to this many unfaithful
events such as stone pelting, clashes between Trus and non-Trus also unfolded. FIRs were filed
by the Trus Swabhiman Sangathan under Section 153-A, 153-B, 292 and 295 A. Thereby, the book
of the Petitioner was banned under Section 95 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 by the Government of
Tapovast and the Chief Minister urged the other states to do the same.
THE PROCEEDINGS
As a response to the ban, Slovas Mishi has moved to the High Court of Tapovast
challenging the State Government’s order on the grounds that the ban throttles his rudime ntary
freedom of speech and expression under the Indicus Constitution and is therefore, invalid. He
pleads for lifting of the ban and quashing of the FIR.

ISSUES RAISED
~ ISSUE-1 ~
WHETHER THE BAN BY THE GOVERNMENT OF TAPOVAST AMOUNTS TO A

VIOLATION OF SLOVAS’ RIGHT GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 19 (1)(a) OF
THE CONSTITUTION?
~ ISSUE-2~
WHETHER THE FIR FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONER SHOULD BE

QUASHED OR NOT?
~ ISSUE-3~
WHETHER THE RIGHT TO REPUTATION OF PETITONER HAS BEEN

VIOLATED BY THE STATE?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE-1: THE BAN BY THE GOVERNMENT OF TAPOVAST DOES NOT AMOUNTS TO A VIOLATION
OF SLOVAS ’ RIGHT GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 19 (1)(a) OF THE CONSTITUTION.
It is duly submitted before the Hon’ble High Court of Tapovast that the ban on book of
petitioner is not violative of Art. 19 (1)(a) of the constitution as it is subject to reasonable restrictions.
Description of Trus’s God as ‘cowards’ along with their king and their queen as ‘temptresses’ have
led to violent clashes in several parts of Indicus. Thereby, it was essential to ban the book in interest
of public order, decency and morality. Moreover, the Government has acted well -within the scope
of its powers as it has stated the grounds for notification passed under Section 95 of Cr.P.C. The
books have outraged the religious sentiments of the Trus Community and the impugned order acted
as a preventive measure.
ISSUE-2: THE FIR FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONER SHOULD NOT BE QUASHED.
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble HC that the FIRs in the current case should not
be quashed. The petitioner through his book has offended the religious sentiments and has disrepute
the Trus community and their Gods. Further, The FIRs should not be quashed if the offence are
prima facie made out. In the current case, from the facts and circumstances it is clear that the
petitioner’s offence is prima facie made out, since the book has injured the religious feelings which
has resulted in disrupted public order and peace.
ISSUE-3: THE RIGHT TO REPUTATION OF PETITIONER IS NOT VIOLATED BY THE STATE.
It is duly submitted before the Hon’ble HC of the Tapovast that petitioner’s right to reputation
has not been violated. The statements issued by the Chief Minister were a preventive measure so
that there is no disrupted law and order in other States which occurred in Tapovast. Further, the
banning of the book was a legal process for prevention of violent clashes and enmity between
communities. Also, there is no violation to the reputation of a person if it occurs due to a legal
process. Hence, the petitioner’s right to reputation is not being violated in the instant case.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. WHETHER THE BAN BY THE GOVERNMENT OF TAPOVAST AMOUNTS

TO VIOLATION OF SLOVAS’ RIGHT GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 19 (1)
(a) OF THE CONSTITUTION?
In June 2021, the Government of Tapovast in vast majority banned book titled “Blood &
Fire in Tapovast” written by Mr. Slovas Mishi (hereinafter “Petitioner”) under Section 95 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 and FIRs have been lodged against him under Sections 153A, 153B, 292
& 295 A of Indicus Penal Code, 1860. Thereafter, upon investigation the police have submitted
the chargesheet. The counsel on behalf of Respondents humbly submits that the ban on the book
“Blood and Fire in Tapovast” by the government of Tapovast has not led to violation of Slovas
Mishi’s right to freedom of speech and expression enshrined under Art. 19 (1)(a)1 of the Indicus
Constitution as [1.1.] Art. 19 (1)(a) is not an absolute right; [1.2.] Government of Tapovast has
acted well-within the scope of their power; [1.3.] The ban on the book was a preventive measure
which was non-violative of natural justice.
1.1 A RTICLE 19(1) (a) IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT.
Art.19 (1) (a) provides the citizen with the freedom of speech and expression. Freedom of
speech and expression is the mother of all other liberties, 2 but no freedom can be absolute or
completely unrestricted. 3 In Sahara India Real Estate Corp. Ltd. v. Securities & Exchange Board of India,4
it was stated that “there cannot be any liberty which is absolute in nature and uncontrolled in
operation so as to confer a right wholly free from any restraint.” This particular idea is based on
the principle that where one man’s right to swing his fists stops just short of where another man’s
nose begins. 5 Moreover, it is true that art. 19 (2) does not use words ‘interest of public’ but it is
ultimately referrable to it. 6
1 I NDIA CONST. art. 19, cl. 1(a).
2 M.P. J AIN, I NDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1031 (7TH Ed., Lexis Nexis, 2016).
3Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union of India, (2012) 5 SCC 1; See also, Kesavananda Bharti v. State
of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461 ¶ 1303 & 1470.
4 AIR 2012 SC 3829 (3838).
5 E DWARD S. CORWIN, CONSTITUTION AND W HAT IT MEANS TODAY 261(Princeton University Press, 1978).
6Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal, 1995 (2) SCC 161; See also, 1
D.D. BASU, SHORTER CONSTITUTION OF I NDIA 247 (14TH Ed., Lexis Nexis, 2014).

The proper exercise of rights may have certain restrictions implicit in them. These rights
must be harmoniously construed so that they are properly promoted with the minimum of such
implicit and necessary restrictions. 7 A look at the grounds contained in Art. 19 (2) 8 specifically
given for freedom of speech and expression, it goes to show that they are all conceived in the
national interest or in the interest of the society. The set of grounds, viz., the sovereignty and
integrity of India, 9 the security of the State, 10 friendly relations with foreign States 11 and public
order12 are all grounds referable to the national interest; whereas, the second set of grounds, viz.,
decency, 13 morality, 14 contempt of court, 15 defamation16 and incitement to the offence 17 are all
conceived in the interest of the society.
In casu, the ban on the book ‘Blood and Fire in Tapovast’ also falls under reasonable
restriction enshrined under art. 19 (2), thereby it could be safely concluded that petitioner’s right
to freedom of speech and expression is not absolute. It is subject to the restriction under art. 19
(2)18 and other provisions which are supportive of art. 19 (2). The counsel submits that in the
7 M.H. Devendrappa v. Karnataka State Small Industries Developm ent Corporation, AIR 1998 SC 1064.
8 I NDIA CONST. art. 19 cl. (2).
9 V.R.V. Rama Rao Sree v. Telegu Desam, AIR 1984 AP 353 (¶ 9).
People’s Union for Civil Liberty v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 568; See also, Santokh Singh v. Delhi Administration,
10
AIR 1973 SC 1091.
11 Jagan Nath v. Union of India, AIR 1960 SC 675.
12Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P., AIR 1957 SC 620 (“Ramji Lal Case”); See also, Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras,
AIR 1950 SC 124; State v. Ramanand Tiwari, AIR 1956 Pat. 188 (195); Dalbir Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1962 SC
1106.
13Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 881(“Udeshi Case”); See also, Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo v.
Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte, (1996) 1 SCC 130; Knuller (Publishing, Printing and Promotions) Ltd. v. Director of
Public Prosecutions (1972) 2 All E.R. 898.
14 Rajani Kant Verma v. State of Bihar, AIR 1958 All 360; See also, Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 541.
15M.R. Parashar v. Farooq Abdullah, AIR 1984 SC 615; See also, EM Namboodripal Sankaran v. T. Narayan Manbiar,
AIR 1970 SC 2015; Duphtary C.K. v. O.P. Gupta, AIR 1971 SC 1132 (¶ 52); Baradakant Mishra v. Registrar, AIR
1974 SC 710; D.C. Saxena (Dr.) v. Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, AIR 1996 SC 2481.
16Ram Jethmalani v. Subramanian Swamy, AIR 2006 Delhi 300; See also, Arumuga Mudaliar v. Annamalai Mudaliar
(1996) 2 MLJ 223; Theaker v. Richardson, (1962) 1 All E.R. 299; Mahendra Ram v. Harnandan Prasad, AIR 1958 Pat.
445; Maulik Kotak v. State of Maharashtra, 2014; DP Chaoudhary v. Kumari Manjulata, AIR 1997 Raj. 170.
17Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India, AIR 2014 SC 1591; See also, Jafar Imam Naqvi v. Election Commission
of India, AIR 2014 SC 2357; State of Bihar v. Shailabal Devi, AIR 1952 SC 329.
18 I NDIA CONST. art. 19 cl. (2).

present case, petitioner’s book falls under the restriction of public order and in the interest of
decency and morality.
Authorities shall curtail the rights of a person and impose reasonable restrictions. 19 The
government’s action to ban a book under Section 95 Cr.P.C. 20 is also one such step to decrease the
greater harm which could have been caused if the book would have remained in the market for
distribution. The liberty of an individual which is dear to every citizen of this country must
necessarily be balanced with his duties and obligations towards his fellow citizens.21 Ban was based
on the same principle. Hence, to encapsulate, it is pellucid that all the fundamental rights are not
absolute22 and those are restricted by law.
i. The book was banned to maintain public order.
Public order is virtually synonymous with public peace, safety and tranquillity. 23 The term
‘disturbance of public order’ covers a small riot, breaches of peace or acts disturbing public
tranquillity. 24 The aggravated form of insult to religion which are perpetrated with the deliberate
and malicious intention of outraging religious feelings of class of citizen are said to cause disruption
of public disorder. 25
Under Art. 19 (2) a restriction can be imposed in the interest of public order. 26 The
expression ‘in the interest of’ gives state a power to take necessary steps even for an activity that
has potential tendency to cause disruption of a public order. 27 In casu, it is submitted that the gods
of Trus namely Ru and Tu who were their guarding angels have been portrayed as cowards in
petitioner’s book. 28 Sentences like “Ru and Tu were afraid of facing the barbaric Rak tribe”, “Ru
and Tu sneaked out of the palace from the backdoor” casts immense stain on the braveness of
19 Delhi Police Non-Gazetted Karmachari Sangh v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 379.
20 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, § 95, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1949 (India).
21 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 2003 SC 3469.
22 Rahmani Primary Teachers Training College v. Najib Akhtar, 1991 (39) BLJR 1374.
23O.K. Ghosh v. E.X. Joseph, AIR 1962 SC 812 (¶ 10); See also, Supt. Central Prison Fatehgarh v. Ram Manohar AIR
1960 SC 633.
24 Madhu Limaye v. Sub Divisional Magistrate, AIR 1971 SC 2486.
25 Ramji Lal Case.
26 I NDIA CONST. art. 19, cl. 2.
27Virendra v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SCC 896 (“Virendra Case”); See also, Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR
1962 SC 955.
28 Moot Proposition ¶16.

Trus community and as well as outraged the religious sentiments of the Trus people. 29 Such
disparaging depiction of their kings and god has caused rage in Trus community which has further
led to several clashes in different part of Indicus 30 hampering the public order. Hence, state has all
the right to ban the book under Section 95 of Cr.P.C.
Law punishing utterances made with deliberate intention to hurt the religious feelings of
any class of a person is valid because it imposes a restriction on the right to free speech in the
interest of public order, since such speech or writing has tendency to create public disorder. 31 To
make the exercise of these powers justiciable and subject to judicial scrutiny will defeat the very
purpose of enactment. 32 It is not the gravity of the act but how it has disturbed the repute of the
community. 33
In the petitioner’s book, Trusadi, the queen of Tapovast has been shown as a ‘temptress’
or ‘seductress’ who had attracted the leader of foreign tribe i.e., Rak. However, she was worshipped
and idolised by the Trus community for her chastity. Moreover, Trus community worshipped her
by going to temple that has been into existence since the time immemorial. 34 Such a description of
their queen was very offensive and appalling to them. It was against the dignity of their community.
Queen was known for her valour and had the reputation of joining her spouse during war.
But she was depicted as weak and vulnerable and nothing more than a figure of beauty who
attracted the king. 35 This depiction of their Goddess was unacceptable to them further adding to
their rage which resulted in such violent clashes shackling the public peace.
a. The action of the Government is proportional.
The doctrine of proportionality was adopted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Om Kumar v. Union of India. 36 Proportionality is a principle where the Court is concerned with the
process, method or manner in which the decision-maker has ordered his priorities, reached a
31 Virendra Case.
32 MAHENDRA PAL SINGH, V.N. SHUKLA’S CONSTITUTION OF I NDIA 148 (13th Ed. Lexis Nexis, 2019).
33 Angoori Devi v. Union of India, (1989) 1 SCC 385.
35 Moot Proposition ¶18 & 13.
36 AIR 2000 SC 3689.

conclusion or arrived at a decision. 37 The restriction imposed must have a reasonable and rational
relation with the maintenance of public order. If the nexus between the restriction and public
order, etc., is farfetched, then the restriction cannot be sustained as being in the 'interests' of public
order. 38
Similarly, in the instant case the counsel submits that the restriction imposed by the
government of Tapovast had direct nexus with the public order as few disturbing events have bee n
unfolded following petitioner’s publication. 39 If any act of a person creates panic or fear on the
minds of the members of the public, it affects maintenance of public order. 40 In case at hand, there
were stone pelting between the Trus and non-Trus community. 41 Also, petitioner’s book has led
to violent clashes in part of Indicus. 42Hence, the order of banning the book by the government of
Tapovast was valid.
ii. Author’s writings are going against the standards of decency and morality.
Decency and Morality are other reasonable restriction which is enshrined under Art. 19 (2) 43
and the purpose of same is to restrict speeches and publications which tend to undermine public
morals. 44 Decency indicates that the action should be in conformity with the status quo standard of
behaviour or propriety, 45 and is not confined to sexual morality alone. Rather it also ‘includes
anything that offends the modesty of the ordinary person’. 46 Decency and morality also comprise
of connotation of obscenity which would deprave and corrupt the minds of readers. 47
What must be seen is whether the artistic, literary or social merit of the work in question
outweighs its ‘obscene’ content. 48 Art must be so preponderating as to throw obscenity into a
37 Coimbatore District Central Coop. Bank v. Employees Assn., (2007) 4 SCC 669.
38 V.K. Javali v. State of Mysore, AIR 1966 SC 1387.
39 Moot Proposition ¶ 20.
40 Piyush Kanitilal Mehta v. Commissioner of Police, 1989 SCC (Cri.) 438.
42 Ibid.
43 I NDIA CONST. art. 19, cl. 2.
44 Udeshi Case.
45 Kalpana Mehta v. Union of India, (2018) 7 SCC 1.
46 Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo (Dr.) v. Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte, AIR 1996 SC 1113.
47 Cf. Conegrate v. Customs Commrs., (1986) 2 All ER 688.
48 Ajay Goswami v. Union of India, (2007) 1 SCC 143 (¶ 66).

shadow or the obscenity so trivial and insignificant that it can have no effect and may be
overlooked. 49 However, in the present case, the obscenity depicted by the Petitioner has been
overlooked as the writing presented by the Petitioner is disgraceful and immoral representation of
the Queen Trusadi who was worshiped and also of the Gods Ru and Tu. 50 Here, the obscenity is
overweighing the art.
In the present case, Petitioner has portrayed Trusadi in a very negative light. He has used
words such as ‘temptress’ or ‘seductress’ and ‘enchantress’ where he projected a demeaning image
of Trusadi in the book, and high-lighted the physique of Trusadi which corrupts the mind of the
readers in relation to the Queen. Also, the author on the cover page has shown the Queen in the
dancing position and without a veil which is against the morals of the Trus Community. It is an
established fact that Trus women are known for their valour and such depiction of Trus’s queen
is utterly disgraceful 51 All these facts demonstrate that the Petitioner has shown an indecent and
disparaging image of the entities whom the members of the Trus Community pray. Moreover,
Petitioner had also depicted a romantic dream that Draks had for Trusadi wherein she is shown in
denigrated manner and that had no historical backing too. 52
Therefore, the counsel submits that the content of the book falls under the reasonable
restriction of decency and morality and the right of the Petitioner has not been violated but has
been restricted reasonably.
1.2. GOVERNMENT OF TAPOVAST HAS ACTED WELL-WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THEIR POWERS .
The counsel on behalf of Respondent humbly submits that the Government of Tapovast
has acted well within the scope of their powers wherein they had banned the petitioner book under
Section 95 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 53 It is issued in the pursuance of reasonable restriction
imposed by the parliament and it is neither violative of art. 19 (1)(a) nor art. 19 (1)(g) of
constitution. 54 The right guaranteed under art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution is not absolute and
49 Udeshi Case.
51 Moot Proposition ¶ 9, 19 & 4.
53 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, § 95 (1), No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1949 (India).
54Baragur Ramachandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 5 SCC 11 (“Baragur Case”); See also, Baragu r
Ramachandrappa v. State of Karnataka, 1998 Cri LJ 3639.

would be subject to restrictions under art. 19 (2) and therefore, the State was very much well within
its right to pass the impugned order forfeiting the book. 55
Further, as per Section 95 Cr.P.C, a book can be forfeited, if the publication and circulation
of the same would lead to commission of offences punishable under Sections 153A56 or Section
153 B or Section 292 57 or Section 293 or Section 295 A58 of the Penal Code. It can’t be ignored
that Indicus is country with vast disparities in language, culture and religion. Unwarranted and
malicious criticism or interference in the faith of others cannot be accepted. 59 It has been held that
if any article or book outrages the feelings of any section of the people there appeared justiciable
grounds for issuing the notification under Section 95 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 60 As, on the
one hand, it is necessary to maintain and preserve the freedom of speech and expression in a
democracy, there, on the other, it is also necessary to place bridles on this freedom for the
maintenance of social order. 61
It has also been observed by the SC that it is the duty of the State based on secular principles,
not to take sides with one religion or the other but to “create conditions where the sentiments and
feelings of people of diverse or opposing beliefs and bigotries are not so molested by rigid writings
or offensive publications as to provoke or outrage groups into possible violent action.” 62
Furthermore, it has also been observed in the same case mentioned above that the “public
power comes into play not because the heterodox few must be suppressed to placate the orthodox
many but because everyone's cranium must be saved from mayhem before his cerebrum can have
chance to simmer.” Hatred, outrage and like feelings of large groups may have ferocious proneness
and the State, in its well- grounded judgment, may prefer to stop the circulation of the book to
preserve safety and peace in society. 63 Even in the case at hand, the government of Tapovast had
to take a similar approach to preserve safety and peace in society.
55 K. Senthil Mallar v. Government of Tamil Nadu, 2017 SCC OnLine Mad. 7075 (“K. Senthil Case”).
56 Sheikh Wajih Uddin v. State, AIR 1963 All 335.
57 Udeshi Case.
58 Ramji Lal Case; See also, Sant Das v. Babu Ram, AIR 1969 All 436.
59 Baragur Case.
60 Ibid.
61 K. Senthil Case.
62 State of U.P. v. Lalai Singh, 1971 Cri LJ 1519.
63 Ibid.

i. The grounds of the opinions of the Government have been stated.

One of the most essential conditions for passing notification under Section 95 of Cr.P.C is
stating the grounds for the opinions on the basis of which the forfeiture has been done by the
government. 64 Moreover, absence of grounds in the notification of the order passed vitiates the
order. 65
In the instant case, grounds for the notification have been given by the Government. 66 The
contents of the petitioner’s book are provocative, indecent and scornful to the Trus community
which led to brutal altercations in several parts of Indicus. 67 Hence, the ban on the book of the
Petitioner was in best interest of the society.
ii. The malice intention of the petitioner has to be gathered from the contents of the
book.
It has been held in the catena of cases that the statute which is section 95 of Cr.P.C. 68 “does
not necessitate that it should be ‘proved’ to the State Government or that it should be ‘satisfied’
that all requirements of the punishing sections including mens rea are to be fully established. It is
well known in legal terminology that the word ‘appears’ is softer than ‘satisfied’ and even more so
from the word proved.”69 Therefore, all that Section 95 (1) requires is that the ingredients of the
offence should ‘appear’ to the Government is complied with and not that they should be ‘proved’
at the beginning or that the Government should be stubbornly ‘satisfied’ about them. Therefore,
the prima facie opinion of the Government that the offending publication would come within the
relevant section with its requirements of intent would be adequate here to enable it to act under
Section 95 (1) of the Code. 70
64Deb Dutt v. State of Manipur, 1979 Cri LJ 1402 (Gau.) (FB); See also, Uday v. State of M.P., 1987 Cri LJ 1131 (MP)
(FB); State of U.P. v. Lalai Singh, AIR 1977 SC 202.
65 Nand Kishore Singh v. State of Bihar, 1985 Cri. LJ 797 (Pat).
66 Moot clarification no. 28; Moot Proposition ¶ 18 & 19.
68 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, § 95 (1), No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1949 (India).
69State of Maharashtra v. Sangharaj Damodhar Rupawate, (2010) 7 SCC 398 (“Sangharaj Case”); See Also, N. Veera
Brahmam v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1959 AP 572; Harnam Das v. State of U.P., (1962) 2 SCR.
70 Ibid.

The general rule as held in cases is that a “man is presumed to intend the natural
consequences of his act would be attracted and such intention has to be gathered primarily from
the language and import of the offending publication and not necessarily by extrinsic evidence.”71
A plain reading of the book of the Petitioner “Blood and Fire in Tapovast” leave no iota
of doubt that the language used is offensive and derogatory to Trus Community, its god, king and
queen Trusadi. The description of Trus’s Queen Trusadi is formulated in profane, vulgar and
coarse language. 72 Thus, there does not seem to be any doubt that the vague innuendoes would
gravely outrage and dismay the feelings of a devoted community.
1.3. THE BAN ON THE BOOK WAS A PREVENTIVE MEASURE WHICH WAS NON-VIOLATIVE
OF NATURAL JUSTICE.
The counsel on behalf of Respondents states that the order passed by the Government of
Tapovast on June 2021 was of preventive or precautionary nature taken for the public interest at
large and the procedure established under Cr.P.C. authorised the government with such preventive
power.
It has been observed in the landmark case of Hon’ble SC that wherein an opportunity to be
heard would obstruct the taking of prompt action or is preventive or remedial in nature then the
requirement of notice and hearing could be prohibited. As if allowed, it would paralyze the process
of law. 73Also, it has been acknowledged that in cases of extreme urgency or where the interest of
the public would be jeopardized by the delay involved in hearing, a hearing before censure would
not be required by natural justice. 74
It has been held that in the nature of things under Section 95 of Cr.P.C. that it is not
practicable to give an opportunity of being heard to the person concerned before passing an order
of forfeiture under Section 95 Cr.P.C. 75 The section contains in-built safeguards and is not violative
of the fundamental rights of the Constitution. 76 The ‘audi alteram partem’ rule is envisioned to deliver
justice but at the same time it could not be applied to defeat or vitiate the ends of justice. With
71 Sangharaj Case; See also, Kali Charan Sharma v. Emperor, AIR 1927 All 649.
73 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 SCR (2) 621.
74 I.P MASSEY, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 251 (10th Ed. Eastern Book Company, 2022).
75 Barjinder v. State of Punjab, 1993 Cri LJ 2040 (“Bajinder Case”).
76 Ibid.

regards to that, ‘right to be heard’ is in case related to Section 95 Cr.P.C. is excluded as it is in the
need for promptitude or the urgent situation. 77
Furthermore, it is also to be submitted that the reading of Section 95 Cr.P.C. clearly indicates
that the preventive nature of the law has been designated to prevent any disturbance to public
order. 78 Therefore, the contention that the onus of proof would lie on the State Government is
unacceptable as the intention has to be inferred from the nature of the publication. If the forfeiture
is called in for public interest, it would without a doubt have dominance over any individual’s
interest as the public order and interest is more important over the interest of an individual. 79
In the instant case, the contents of the book authored by petitioner was such that it led to
several clashes and violence in various parts of Indicus 80 and providence of “right to hear’’ was
impracticable and unjustified especially when the provision of Section 95 Cr.P.C. is in question
which is precautionary in its nature. Hence, it is unnecessary that prior to issues of the order, the
state Government should issue notice to the party to give them an opportunity of being heard. 81
ISSUE-2
2. WHETHER THE FIRs FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONER SHOULD BE
QUASHED OR NOT?
It is most humbly submitted before Hon’ble High Court of Tapovast that the FIRs that have
been filed against the Petitioner should not be quashed. In the current case, Petitioner has
surpassed his freedom of speech and expression by making false and mortifying statements
through his book. It is unquestioned that freedom of speech and expression is an integral part of
the Fundamental rights, 82 however, at the same time, it has also been established that freedom of
speech and expression is not an absolute right. 83 Further, the interest of general public is always to
be kept above, 84 and each and every word uttered, expressed or written is subjected to reasonable
77 Barjinder Case.
78 K. Senthil Case.
79 Baragur Case.
80 Moot proposition ¶20.
81 Piara Singh Bahniara v. State of Punjab, (2009) 1 Punj. LR 766.
82 Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124.
83 In re: Harijai Singh & Anr., (1996) 6 SCC 466 (“Harijai Case”).
84 1 D.D. BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF I NDIA 346 (8TH Ed., Lexis Nexis, 2011).

restriction conferred under art. 19 (2). 85 It is because unlimited and unfettered freedom might lead
to anarchy. 86
In casu, the book ‘Blood and Fire in Tapovast’ triggered the shameful incidents of
aggression between communities, 87 and the Government of Tapovast banned the book, keeping
in view the unprecedented events. 88 Thus, the ban was done in order to retain peace which is of
paramount importance. Hence, it is advanced that, [2.1] none of the conditions to quash the FIRs
are fulfilled, and also that, [2.2] quashing of FIR is a sensitive matter might lead to further
problems in maintenance of public order.
2.1. N ONE OF THE CONDITIONS TO QUASH THE FIR IS FULFILLED.
It is well settled that the court can exercises its power to quash any criminal proceedings to
prevent the abuse, and follow the process of law and to secure the ends of justice, if the judicial
conscience of the court persuades it do so. 89 Also, in the case of State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal 90
the Apex Court has laid down inexhaustive principles for the purpose of governing the quashing
of FIRs.
It has been ruled, among these principles, that if the allegations are taken prima facie and
accepted in toto, constitute an offence, then the criminal proceedings or FIRs should not be
quashed. 91 Thus, the courts tests to see whether the offence prima facie is made out or not. 92 Also,
if the tests follow that the allegations are not bleak then the FIRs should not be quashed, if it serves
useful purpose. 93 If a prudent man is also able to reach to same conclusion that there exist sufficient
grounds for criminal proceedings against the accused, even then the FIRs should not be quashed.94
85 Rajeev Dhavan, Freedom of the Press, MA. COC UNI LAW REV. (1987),
http://dspace.cusat.ac.in/jspui/bitstream/123456789/10933/1/Freedom%20of%20the%20Press.PDF.
86 Harijai Case ¶10.
88 Moot Clarification ¶ 2.
89 State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, (1977) 2 SCC 699.
90 AIR 1992 SC 604.
91 State of UP v. VRK Srivastava, 1989 Cri LJ 2301 (“Srivastava Case”).
92 State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha, AIR 1982 SC 949.
93 Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kum ar, 1985 Cri LJ 817.
94 State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 ¶105.

Since both the rules are dependent upon facts and circumstances 95, it is contended in casu,
that the allegations are highly probable and hence, it is submitted that, the Petitioner has, [i.]
promoted disharmony and enmity among different communities, [ii.] caused prejudice to the
national integration, [iii.] written & published obscene book, and [iv.] has outraged religious
feelings by insulting the Trus community.
i. The Petitioner promoted disharmony and enmity.
It is humbly submitted that Petitioner has promoted disharmony among the people of
Tapovast and has caused enmity between the Trus and non-Trus people through his book. 96 The
book penned by the Petitioner has caused disharmony and has unfolded many unprecedented and
disturbing events mainly in State of Tapovast but across Indicus. 97
a. Undignified words negatively portray the Queen Trusadi.
Section 153-A98 pre-requisites intention as a necessary ingredient, 99 also, if the nature of the
writing is calculated, and it promotes enmity, hatred, the intention is to be presumed against the
accused. 100 The intent of the Petitioner can be judged by the very fact when he portrays the beauty
of the pious Queen Trusadi from the lens of disrespectful words such as ‘enchantress’ and
‘temptress’. 101 The words temptress means ‘a women who sexually seduces someone’, 102 and the
word enchantress means ‘a women who uses magic to put someone or something under a spell’
or ‘a fascinating woman’. 103 These words itself portray an image of queen as a woman who is
unchaste, whereas, the Trus women idolize Queen Trusadi for her chastity. 104
95 Srivastava Case.
97 Ibid.
98 Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 153-A, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860.
99 Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1997) 7 SCC 431.
100 State v. Shri Kanthnath Shastri, 1987 Cri LJ 1583 (Del).
102 MERRIAM WEBSTER, https://www.merriam -webster.com/dictionary/temptress (last visited Mar. 12, 2022).
CAMBRIDGE DICITIONARY, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/ench antress (last viewed

103
Mar. 14, 2022).

It has also been observed and held that if the words used are not temperate, dignified and
of mild language, the penal consequences follow. 105 The words used by the Petitioner cannot be
said to be dignified, since it portrays a pious and chaste woman under the lens of disrepute. The
words that are used by the Petitioner in his book are ‘temptress’ and ‘enchantress’. 106 Such words
portray an image of a women who is unchaste, let alone in casu, these undignified, false and
inherently disgraceful words are being used for a Goddess who is been worshipped by the Trus
people for her chastity. The use of such condemning, disgraceful and undignified words for a pious
and chaste woman who is deified by the Trus community cannot be said to be a part of temperate,
dignified, mild language or any other interpretation that the Petitioner gives for the use of such
words.
b. The romantic dream questions the chastity of the goddess.
Further, the Petitioner wrote in his book about a romantic dream of the Draks, which has
no historical truthfulness and relevance. 107 This creates a phycological facts that the Queen during
her lifetime was not considered as pious and chaste which is utterly wrong. Also, the Petitioner
wrote that Queen Trusadi considered her beauty as a burden. 108 This gives us an account as to how
the Petitioner wants to portray a valiant, pious and a chaste queen deified by Trus as a vulnerable,
weak and an unchaste woman and such portrayal has eventually caused, problems in public order,
destruction of peace in the State of Tapovast and has abridged the religious sentiments of the Trus
community.
c. Truth is no defence for malicious intent.
It is also been observed that even truth is no defence if disharmony and enmity is created
by the accused. 109 In the current case, Petitioner has not even penned the truth but has
misrepresented the facts through the lens of disgracefulness and disrespect which has created
105 Azizul Haque Kausar Naqvi v. State, AIR 1980 All 149 (FB).
Babu Rao Patel v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1980 SC 763; See also Joseph Bain D’ Souza v. State of
109
Maharashtra, 1995 Cri LJ 1316 (Bom).

havoc and a chaotic condition. This in turn has created disharmony is the state of Tapovast and
has also made people enemy of each other. Hence, the Petitioner is liable under Section 153 - A110.
ii. The book of the Petitioner is prejudicial to national integration.
The book of the Petitioner is prejudicial to the national integration. The assertion of the
Petitioner through his book has created disharmony in the State of Tapovast.
If anyone publishes anything regarding any community which is prejudicial to national
integration is liable under this Section. Publication of such assertion is the gist of offence under
the Section. 111 The Petitioner, in casu, made assertions regarding Queen Trusadi and has called her
seductress, temptress, and enchantress, implying her to be unchaste, whereas, and ironically the
Queen is exalted by the Trus people as Goddess for her chastity. The Petitioner has sarcastically
revered the glory of the act of self-immolation as suicide, 112 whereas the Queen was worshipped
by community for her valour and sacrifice. 113
Not only this but also the Petitioner wrote in his book that the Gods of the Trus community
were scared. While on the other hand the Petitioner wrote about the how Trus warriors lost their
lives and the Trus women committed the act of self-immolation, 114 and at the same time their
Gods whom the Trus worshipped, sneaked out from the back door of their palace only upon
hearing that Draks was approaching. Through, such lines while showing the martyrdom of the
Trus warriors on one hand and portraying the Gods as running away, upon whom the Trus have
placed their faith to win the same battle from which the Gods ran, the Petitioner has inferred that
the Trus Gods were coward, which tarnishes the image of the Trus God’s. 115
This is ferocious attack upon the faith of the Trus community and condemning attempt to
tarnish the images of the Trus’ Gods and any of the argument, for whatever reason such lines were
written in the book cannot become a vest for the Petitioner to save him from his liability.
110 Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 153-A, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860.
111 M/s Hardevi Malkani v. State, AIR 1969 All 423.
114 Moot Proposition ¶ 7 & 13.

Further, when there was assertion being made regarding the conversion from one religion
to another the accused was held liable. 116 On the similar lines, the Petitioner has made assertions
for which the Petitioner claims to have rigorously researched for 10 years, 117 through which the
Petitioner has not just played with the religious sentiments of the Trus community but has also
stained the image of their Gods and barbarously attacked upon the faith of Trus community by
calling their Gods scared, enchantress, seductress, etc., and this in turn has caused violence,
aggression, disharmony and has caused irreparable loss of peace and order between the Trus and
non-Trus and in the State of Tapovast.
Hence, the book of the Petitioner has promoted disharmony, enmity and hatred among
communities which is prejudicial to national integration. Since, the Petitioner distorted the belief
and obligation of the Trus regarding their religion, hence, the Petitioner is liable under Section
153-B of the I.P.C.
iii. The current book in question is obscene.
Obscenity is a crime against decency and morality. 118 It has been held that, if something
inflames the passions among the people, then it will amount to obscenity. 119 Further, anything
which is lascivious and appeals to the prurient interest of the people is to be considered as
obscene. 120
In case, the Petitioner has viewed the beauty of the chaste Queen Trusadi from the lens of
obscenity by calling her enchantress, temptress and seductress, implying her to be unchaste by
showing her in a dancing position, unveiled between two men upon the cover page. The Petitioner
in the current case has used the words such as ‘enchantress’ and ‘temptress’. 121 The word
enchantress means, “a women who uses magic to put someone or something under a spell” or “a
fascinating woman.”122 Whereas, the word temptress means, “a women who tempts someone to
116 State v. Pastor P. Raju, (2006) 6 SCC 728.
118 Udeshi Case.
119 RATANLAL AND DHEERAJ LAL, supra note 121, at 1279.
120 Indian Hotel & Restaurant Assn. v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 3 SCC 429.
CAMBRIDGE DICTIONARY, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/en chantress (last viewed,

122
Mar. 12, 2022).

do something, typically a sexually attractive woman who sets out to allure or seduce someone. ”123
Such disrespectful words, which are symbols of sexual allurements, being used against the Goddess
of a community is the root cause of prevailing disruption of peace and order in Tapovast.
Also, obscenity has the tendency to deprave and corrupt those people whose minds are open
to immoral influences. 124 Further, the Petitioner describes about the romantic dream of Draks. 125
The book should be judged as obscene in the current case by the virtue of the language used, under
the disgraceful lens of ‘enchantress’, ‘temptress’ and because of disrespectful fact which have no
historical account off. Thus, the book written by the Petitioner is against morality because it
depraves and corrupts readers, by suggesting them to think about the physique and beauty of the
queen in an overtly sexual way because of the words used by the petitioner.
a. Unquestionable work does not spare the questionable work
Arguendo, even if the rest of the book is unobjectionable, obscene passages cannot be
excused. 126 The authors liability cannot be saved or avoided in respect of obscene passages even if
rest of the work is morally unquestionable. 127 Thus, the Petitioner cannot escape from his liability
for obscenity, hence, the Petitioner is liable for obscenity under Section 292 I.P.C.
iv. The Petitioner maliciously has outraged the religious feelings
Deliberate intention is a sin qua non for the charge under Section 295-A. 128 The Petitioner in
the instant case has published the book where he has shown a queen who is worshipped as God
and even has a temple dedicate to her, for her chastity and valiant as an unchaste and a vulnerable
woman. The Petitioner has further painted the Trus Gods, Ru and Tu as scared from the Draks, 129
who left their worshippers to die when the Trus people most needed the help of their Gods. By
this the author depicts that the Trus Gods are coward and not able to protect their own
123CAMBRIDGE DICTIONARY, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/temptress (last viewed,

Mar.12, 2022).
124 Regina v. Hicklin, (1868) LR 3 QB 360.
126 RATANLAL AND DHEERAJ LAL, supra note 121, at 1279.
127 Ibid.
128 Shiv Ram Dass Udasin v. Punjab, 1955 Cri LJ 337.

community. 130 Also, the Petitioner has depicted the Queen Trusadi unveiled in the cover page,
when it is disrespectful to unveil Trus royal women and Goddesses. This in turn proves the
deliberate and malicious intention of the Petitioner to disgrace the religion by disgracing the
religion practise of keeping veil and picturising her as a coward and unchaste woman.
Further, malice is presumed if an act is done without a lawful excuse and voluntarily. 131 There
can be no reasonable excuse as to why a person after researching for ten years, who is well aware
of the stature of the personalities such as Ru and Tu and the pious Queen Trusadi, mentioned in
the book, has shown them as coward, unchaste and vulnerable. 132 Even the truth of the allegations
cannot be a good defence under this Section, 133 whereas, in the current case the Petitioner has not
even written the truth, but has distorted and has concocted the facts and has presented them in an
utterly disgraceful way hurting the religious sentiments of the Trus community.
Also, when there is a violently abusive forceful and a bitter attack against the founder or
anointed individual of a particular religion, then the insult is considered to be malicious and
deliberate combined with an intention of outraging the feelings of a class of people, of who’s the
prophet or founder is. 134 On the similar lines in the current case, Ru and Tu who are considered
as gods, who are being worshipped by the Trus community in the month of Kartik and have the
month of dedicated solely for their worship, 135 are being depicted as coward. 136
Further, it has been observed that, by drawing inference, it is to be presumed that there
exists a deliberate and malicious intent on the part of the author, if the books have outraged or if
it outrages the religious feelings of any part of the society. 137 In the current case, it is evident from
the clashes between the Trus and non-Trus that the religious feelings of the Trus have been
outraged by the author by depicting their Gods as cowards, unchaste and vulnerable. Hence, the
Petitioner is liable under Section 295 - A of I.P.C., 1860.
2.2. QUASHING OF FIR IS A SENSITIVE MATTER.
131 Khalil Ahmed v. State, AIR 1960 All 715.
132 Moot Proposition ¶ 9, 12 & 13.
133 State v. Henry Rodrigues, (1962) 2 Cri LJ 564 (Mys).
134 RATANLAL AND DHEERAJLAL, supra note 121, at 1321.
137 Baragur Case.

The power to quash the FIR should be used with carefulness and caution but not routinely
and should be used only when, the failure to interfere with the proceedings would lead miscarriage
of justice. 138 This power should be exercised ex debito justitiae and in order to do substantive and
real justice, 139 though the High Court in the current case should not use such powers, because it is
not the Petitioner but the Trus community as whole, who are the real victims of malicious attacks
upon their faith, their Gods, their religion and upon their sentiments. The Petitioner, in casu, by
the virtue of his book, has not just disrespected a religion but has also breached upon the
sentiments of the Trus community by presenting them in a disgraceful way, which ultimately
caused disruption of peace and order in Tapovast and hate and enmity between Trus and non-
Trus people. 140
i. For true justice prosecution should not be discarded.
The principle of quashing the FIR is so propounded because, quashing of the criminal
proceedings, might have far reaching consequences, as it negates the prosecution’s case without
allowing the case to go to the stages of evidence. 141 Also, the power to quash the FIR should be
used with prudence, restraint and caution because otherwise it would scuttle a legitimate
prosecution. 142 Considering the status quo, it is clear that in the current case it is the petitioner who
is trying to hide under the vest of literary devices. Through these literary devices, he is causing
grave wounds to the sentiments of the Trus community and if the FIRs are quashed before the
Trial begins, then there will be no justice to the community. Thus, the power to quash the FIRs
should be used with circumspection, 143 so that justice towards the tarnished image of a Trus can
be done.
Further, in the current case the chargesheet has been filed and the quashing of chargesheet
should be an exception that is to be used in rarest of rare case rather than rule. 144 In the case of
138 Google India Private Limited v. Visakha Industries, AIR 2020 SC 350.
139 State of Punjab v. Kasturi Lal, AIR 2005 SC 4135.
141 Prashant Bharti v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2013) 9 SCC 293.
142 Binod Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2014 SCC Online SC 866.
143 Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330.
144 Madhavrao Jivajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrajirao Angre, (1989) 1 SCC 692.

Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. 145 it has been held that the quashing of
proceedings after the chargesheet has been submitted is an exception and should be used in rarest
of rare cases.
Further, in quashing the FIRs the courts are only concerned with suspicion, that if the
matter is taken into trial the charge could be proved, 146 and in casu, there is no suspicion that the
male fide intention of the Petitioner exists and, in all probabilities, proves the guilt of Petitioner
and his successful attempt of disrespecting a whole community and representing their Gods as
cowards, scared, unchaste. Also, the proceedings are still at initial stage and prima facie the case
against accused is been made out. Hence, the FIRs should not be quashed and the case should be
allowed to go to trial.
ISSUE-3
3. WHETHER THE RIGHT TO REPUTATION OF PETITIONER HAS BEEN
VIOLATED BY THE STATE?
It is most humbly submitted that in the current case the right to reputation of the Petitioner
has not been violated by the Chief Minister. In casu, the Chief Minister of Tapovast, Mr. Yoda
Trudis has merely urged with the respective authorities of the other state in order to ban the books
with the sole intention that no harm shall be caused to the peace & public order in other states. 147
The Apex Court in the case of Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab 148 has held that if anything
is done for the purpose of public good in good faith then it is not a harm to the reputation of a
person. Further, in the case of Jeffrey J. Diermeier v. State of W.B. 149, is has been held that regards have
to be placed upon facts and circumstances, status both the people the one who makes imputations
and one against whom it is been made, for deciding “good faith” and “public interest”.
Also, the facts and circumstances have to be taken as major evidence. 150 From the facts and
circumstances it can be inferred that the statements were issues for public good and also there is
no other evidence which suggest that there was any malice on the part of Chief Minister. 151
145 (2000) 3 SCC 269.
146 Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chandra, (2012) 9 SCC 460.
148 AIR 1966 SC 97.
149 (2010) 6 SCC 243.
150 Sewakram Sobhani v. R.K. Karanjia, (1981) 3 SCC 208.

Further, in casu, in the State of Tapovast the peace and public order was distorted because
of communal violence between Trus and non-Trus community. 152 Hence, the statement was issued
so that such circumstances and incidents of violence do not occur in other States as well. The
statements of the Chief Minister were issued in good faith for public good which is clear from the
facts and circumstances of this case. Furthermore, when a person’s reputation is been distorted
due to filing of an FIR then it will not be considered as a violation to his right to reputation. 153 On
the similar lines, when a person is been dishonoured due to any legal process then it will not be
considered as violation of his right to reputation. 154 Hence, there has been no violation of
petitioner’s right to reputation due to the lodging of the FIRs in pursuance to banning of the book.
PRAYER
Wherefore it is prayed, in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, and authorities cited, that this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
1. Declare that the impugned notification under Section 95 Cr.P.C, 1973 passed by
the Government of Tapovast did not violate petitioner’s freedom of speech and
expression, freedom to practice any profession, right to reputation and pass an
order and declare the that the ban imposed by the government is right and
legitimate.
2. Declare and pass an order that FIRs disclose prima facie case against the accused and
further proceedings of trial must continue.
And/or Pass any other Order, Direction, or Relief that it may deem fit in the best
interests of Justice, Equity, and Good Conscience.
Sd/-
(Counsels on behalf of the Respondents)
152 Ibid.
153 Mahavir Singh v. Surinder Singh, 2010 SCC OnLine P & H 9094.
154 Moot Clarification ¶ 17.

TC 02 R.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

TC 02 R.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

10 TH RGNUL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2022

1st – 3 rd April, 2022

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF TAPOVAST

[PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1950 R/W

SECTION 96 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973]

TO BE HEARD THROUGH THE HIGH COURT’S VIRTUAL PLATFORM

STATE OF TAPOVAST & ORS.

[Writ Petition No.______/2022]

Written submissions on behalf of the Respondents

Counsels for the Respondents

1 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

[C] LEGISLATIONS/ CODE/ STATUTE ……….……………………….……....7

[D] LEGAL DATABASES………………………………………...…….…………...7

[E] LIST OF CASES…………….……………………………….…………...…...7-12

[F] OTHER AUTHORITIES…………….……………………………….….........12

1. WHETHER THE BAN BY THE GOVERNMENT OF TAPOVAST AMOUNTS

1.1. A RTICLE 19 (1)(a) IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT……………………………….18-23

i. The book was banned to maintain Public Order………………………..……20-21

a. The action of government is proportional ….………………...………………….21-22

1.2. GOVERNMENT OF TAPOVAST HAS ACTED WELL-WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THEIR

i. The grounds of the opinions of the Government have been stated…………..24-25

2 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

2.1. N ONE OF THE CONDITIONS TO QUASH THE FIRS IS FULFILLED…….……….28-34

i. The Petitioner promoted disharmony and enmity…………………………...28-30

a. Undignified words negatively portray the Queen Trusadi………………………...29-30

b. The romantic dream questions the chastity of the Goddess…...……………………….30

c. Truth is no defence for malicious intent…………………………………………...30

ii. The book of the Petitioner is prejudicial to national integration……………30-31

iii. The current book in question is obscene……………………..…………….32-33

a. Unquestionable work does not spare the questionable work…………………………33

iv. The Petitioner has outraged the religious feelings……………..…………….33-34

2.2. QUASHING OF FIRS IS A SENSITIVE MATTER…..………...…..……...…………34-35

3. WHETHER THE RIGHT TO REPUTATION OF PETITIONER HAS BEEN

3 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

AIR All India Reporter

Cr.P.C. Code of Criminal Procedure

Cri.L.J. Criminal Law Journal

FIR First Information Report

i.e., Id est (That is)

4 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

I.P.C. Indian Penal Code

M.P. Madhya Pradesh

MhLJ Maharashtra Law Journal

r/w Read with

U.O.I. Union of India

U.P. Uttar Pradesh

u/s Under Section

w.e.f. With Effect From

5 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

S. No. NAME OF THE BOOKS PAGE NO.

1. 1 D.D. BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (8 th 31

2. 1 D.D. BASU, SHORTER CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (14 th Ed., Lexis 20

5. M. P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (7 th Ed., Lexis Nexis, 2016). 19,22

6. MAHENDRA PAL SINGH, V.N. SHUKLA’ S CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 23

7. I.P. MASSEY , ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (10 th Ed. Eastern Book Company, 30

1. BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 10 th ed. 2014

2. CONCISE OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY 11th ed. 2004

3. MERRIAM - WEBSTER’S ONLINE DICTIONARY -

C. LEGISLATIONS / CODES / STATUTES

1. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1973 (India).

6 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

3. The Constitution of India, 1950.