1

nd
2 National TILS Lahore L
aw Moot Court Competition
2023
TEAM CODE: (4.0)
Petitioner
 2

Table Of Contents

1. Table of Contents
2. List of Abbreviations
3. List of Authorities
4. Statement of Relevant Facts
5. Statement of Jurisdiction
6. Questions/Issues presented
7. Summary of Arguments
8. Advanced Arguments
9. Prayer/Relief
 3

List of Abbreviations

1. Petitioner (P)
2. Respondent (R)
3. Civil Rights Society (CRS)
4. Eradonian Penal Code (EPC)
5. Code of Criminal Procedure (CRPC)
6. National Assembly (NA)
7. Supreme Court of Eradoniya (SC)
8. Public Accounts Committee (PAC)
9. National Accountability Bureau (NAB)
10. Federal Investigation Agency (FIA)
11. European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR)
 4

List of Authorities
1. Article 99 PC
2. Article 66 PC
3. Article 69 PC
4. Rule 203 PAC
 5

Statement of Relevant Facts

 The Republic of Eradoniya is in South Asia which has a population of 220 million. Eradoniya
specializes in agriculture, exporting leather, rice, textile & garments. The republic of Eradoni
ya follows a federal parliament where the ceremonial head is the President & the Prime minis
ter is the head of government, while operating under democratic governance as per the constit
ution. Eradoniya also is in line with the Declaration of Human Rights which is enforced by th
e Supreme Court of Eradoniya.

 Mr. Yousufzai, thrice elected to parliament, was the former prime minister & now currently l
eads the opposition. Mr. Yousufzai won the general elections in 2015. However, in the electio
ns of 2020 he lost due to the criticism for the financial and economic mismanagement during
Covid resulting in medical emergencies in the countries as stated by political analysts.

 The new collation government formed by Mr. Alam initiated an investigation of corruption in
to Mr. Yousufzai's expenses during his tenure as Prime minister, totaling 10 million Eradonia
n Dollars. Mr. Yousufzai defended himself on Twitter, stating that the expenses were within h
is official duties, approved by the Public Accounts Committee & corresponded with claim for
ms submitted by members.

 Mr. Alam, former head of the Public Accounts Committee, raised an issue from his tenure. M
r. Yousufzai’s spokesperson, pointed out Mr. Alams delayed concerns. The lower house refer
red the matter to a privileged committee PAC initially led by Mr. Yusufzai, but due to a confl
ict of interest it was redirected to a subcommittee.

 At the committee's recommendation the Lower House Issued a FIR leading to Mr. Yusufzai's
arrest. Contesting the decision, his petition faced dismissal on grounds of maintainability. In r
esponse, Mr. Azlan, another party member, spoke in the Lower House on the importance of fr
eedom of speech, titled “Give me freedom”.

 Mr. Azlan's impactful speech in the Lower House triggered two new Parliamentarians, inspire
d by his speech to spray-painted "Give me Freedom" in the parliament building. This led to c
haos and House adjournment. The live telecast of Azlan's speech resulted in graffiti across Er
 6

adoniya and the slogan "Give me freedom" became a chant across the city. The media named
it the "Give Me Freedom" moment, with civil society appreciating the movement.

 Protests emerged in Rawalabad towards the parliamentary building, with a desire for change e
mphasizing free speech & institutional independence. Acting under pressure, the speaker susp
ended Mr. Azlan for 6 weeks as well as disqualifying the 2 activists. In response, Mr. Azlan d
efended His right to speak, suggesting his televised speech could have been censored. He stat
ed that public reactions were due to major disappointment with the government's handling of
basic rights.

 Mr. Azlan reported the public's reaction to his speech positively impacted democracy, promot
ing freedom of speech, and the knowledge of values in democratic governance. Subsequently,
Mr. Azlan and two others were charged with sedition under Section 124A of Eradoniya's Pen
al Code, alleging that the speech threatened state security. This led to nationwide debates, wit
h Azlan's supporters claiming the charges undermined democratic principles and restricted fre
e speech. However, supporters argued that questioning the government had crossed boundarie
s and might trigger public unrest.

 Mr. Azlan challenged the FIR against him through a direct petition to the Supreme Court of E
radoniya, he objected to the FIR and actions against the two parliamentarians involved in the
graffiti incident. Simultaneously, an NGO called Civil Rights Society (CRS) filed a petition c
hallenging the constitutionality of sedition laws under Section 124A, arguing that it broke the
terms of the safeguarded in the Constitution. The Supreme Court merged these three petitions.

Statement of Jurisdiction
 7

The respondent humbly submits the memorandum for the petition filed before Honorable Supreme C
ourt of Eradoniya. The petition invokes writ jurisdiction of the supreme court under Article 184 of th
e 1973 constitution of Eradoniya.

Questions/Issues Presented
 8

1. Whether the power of the legislature to punish the Members of Parliament for contempt inclu
ding the breach of its privilege is essentially a judicial function or not?

2. Whether the action of the Speaker of the Lower Houses against Mr. Azlan and Mr. Yousafzai
respectively is violative of constitutional rights?

3. Whether the law of Sedition under section 124A of The Penal Code of Eradoniya, 1860 is ultr
a vires of the constitution or not? And whether the registration of First Information Report (FI
R) against the Members of Parliament under this law is legal or not?

Summary of Arguments
 9

Issue 1:Whether the power of the legislature to punish the Members of Parliament for contemp
t including the breach of its privilege is essentially a judicial function or not?

I. The disqualifications of the two parliamentarians were under the power of the speaker and not a
Judicial function. Rule 14 of The Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in National
Assembly (NA) 2007, states the speakers power to maintain order and decorum in the
Assembly. The two parliamentarians drew graffiti on the walls of the parliament house hence
causing for the speaker to use his powers under rule 14 to disqualify the member of parliaments.

II. Furthermore the suspension of Mr. Azlan also fell under the power of the Speaker. Rule 21 of
The Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in National Assembly (NA) 2007 grants
the Speaker the permission to suspend a member of parliament for no longer than the remaining
time of Assembly if he deems fit for the suspension and in response to a breach of conduct by
the Member Parliament.