2nd SANKHLA & ASSOCIATES NATIONAL VIRTUAL MOOT COURT TAQ-250R

COMPETITION BY THE AMIKUS QRAIE 2023

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF RASTAN

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

W.P. (Civil) No. /2023

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF RASTAN

-IN THE MATTER OF-

Rastan for Human Rights........................................................PETITIONER

V/S

Union of Rastan..............................…………………………...RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BEFORE HON’BLE SUPREME

COURT OF RASTAN

MEMORANDUM OF THE RESPONDENT

 TAQ-250R

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTENTS PAGE
NUMBER
Index of authorities 2

List of abbreviations 3

Statement of jurisdiction 4

Statement of facts 5

Issues raised 7

Summary of arguments 9

Arguments advanced 10-17

Issue 1: Whether Section 124A of RPC is violative of Article 10

19(1)(a) of the Constitution?
ISSUE 2: Whether Sections 15, 16, 17, 18, 38, 39 and 40 of 12
UAPA are violative of Articles 14, 19, 20, 21, and 22 of the
Constitution?
Issue:3: Whether the arrest and detention of the students 14
under Section 124A of RPC and various section of UAPA
valid?
Issue:4: Whether RHR has locus standi to file a PIL 16
challenging Section 124A of RPC and UAPA?
Prayer 18

1|Page
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENTS
 TAQ-250R

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES PAGE
NUMBER
Romesh Thapar Vs. The State of Madras 1950 AIR 124, 1950 SCR 10
594
Niharendu DuttMajumdar Vs. King Emperor (1942) FCR 48 10

Kedarnath Singh v. State of Bihar 1962 AIR 955 11

A.K. Gopalan V. State of Madras 1950 SC 27; 1950 SCR 88 12

State of Bihar V. Shailabala 1952 AIR 329 12

Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab 1976 AIR 230 15

Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab 1994 SCC (3) 569 15

People’s Union for Democratic Rights & Others v. Union of India & 16
Others 1984 AIR 1473, 1983 SCR (1) 456

STATUTES REFERRED.
The Indian Constitution, 1950
Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967.

BOOKS REFERRED
1. Universal’s Bare Act, Constitution of India,1950.
2. Professional’s Bare Act, UAPA, 1967
3. Dr J.N. Pandey. Constitution of India. Central law publication. 59th Edition.
4. Justice M L Singhal, Commentary on the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act,
1967Vinod Publications.

2|Page
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENTS
 TAQ-250R

INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS

SCC Supreme Court Cases

AIR All India Reporter

UAPA Unlawful Activities Prevention Act

RPC Rastan Penal Code

UOI Union of India

RHR Rastan For Human Rights

ZU Zila University
PIL Public Interest Litigation

LBSU Lal Bahadur Shastri University

Art. Article

Sec. Section
U/S Under Section

HM Hizbul Mujahideen
JeM Jaish-e-Mohammed

SC Supreme Court
HC High Court

AMU Aligarh Muslim University

3|Page
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENTS
 TAQ-250R

STATEMENT OF JUSRISDITION

The petitioners have approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Rastan to hear and
adjudicate over the instant matter under Article 32 of the Constitution of Rastan. The
respondents humbly contest the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble court under the said provision.
The provision under which the petitioners have approached the Hon’ble court is read herein
under as follows:

Article 32: Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part.

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement
of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.

(2) The Supreme Court shall have the power to issue directions or orders or writs,
including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and
certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred
by this Part.

(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and
(2), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its
jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2)

(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise
provided for by this Constitution.

4|Page
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENTS
 TAQ-250R

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Rastan is a large and diverse country with a population of over 1.2 billion people. It
has a federal system of government with a parliamentary form of democracy. The
Constitution of Rastan is the supreme law of the land and guarantees various
fundamental rights to the citizens, such as freedom of speech and expression, freedom
of assembly and association, and freedom of conscience and religion. However, these
rights are not absolute and are subject to reasonable restrictions.
2. In October 2020, students from Lal Bahadur Shastri University celebrated Pakora's
World Cup victory over Rastan with a peaceful celebration, displaying flags, chanting
slogans such as “Pakora Zindabad”, “Rastan Murdabad”, and “We Want Freedom”,
3. Zila police filed a case against the students under Sections 15, 16, 17, 18, 38, 39, and
40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), as well as Section 124A of
the Rastan Penal Code (RPC). According to the authorities, the students were a part of
a bigger plot to help the secessionist movement in "Kasheer," a region that is disputed
between Rastan and Pakora. Additionally, the authorities claimed that the students had
connections to outlawed groups including Hizbul Mujahideen (HM) and Jaish-e-
Mohammed (JeM). The authorities also claimed that the students had received
funding from outside to stir up turmoil and violence in the nation.

4. The students were arrested and remanded to judicial custody for 90 days without bail.
They filed a writ petition in the High Court of Zila challenging their arrest and
seeking quashing of the FIR. The High Court dismissed their petition and upheld their
arrest. It held that the celebration and slogans used by the students were seditious and
amounted to creating disaffection towards the government. It was also held that the
UAPA was a valid law enacted to deal with terrorism and unlawful activities and that
the police had prima facie evidence to show that the students were involved in such
activities.

5. In February 2021, another incident involved Sharjeel Imam, a student from Zelhi
University, arrested for inflammatory speeches advocating separatism. Charged under
RPC and UAPA, he challenged his arrest in the High Court of Zelhi, claiming his
speeches were academic and political exercises of freedom of speech.

5|Page
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENTS
 TAQ-250R

6. The High Court of Zelhi dismissed Imam's plea, deeming his speeches seditious and
invoking UAPA due to his involvement in activities that endangered national integrity.

7. Further groups of civil societies, NGOs led by Rastan for Human Rights filed a PIL
before the Hon’ble SC of Rastan challenging the constitutional validity of section
124A of RPC and various sections of UAPA.

8. The SC has admitted and will hear both the appeals and the PIL collectively. It has
issued notice to the Central government, the State governments, and the police
authorities seeking their response.

6|Page
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENTS
 TAQ-250R

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether Section 124A of RPC is violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution?

2. Whether Sections 15, 16, 17, 18, 38, 39 and 40 of UAPA are violative of Articles
14, 19, 20, 21, and 22 of the Constitution?

3. Whether the arrest and detention of the students under Section 124A of RPC and
various section of UAPA valid?

4. Whether RHR has locus standi to file a PIL challenging Section 124A of RPC and
UAPA?

7|Page
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENTS
 TAQ-250R

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1
The counsel on the behalf of the respondents most humbly submits that in a democracy like
Rastan every citizen must have the right to freedom of speech and expression. Thus, article
19(1)(a) of the Constitution of Rastan ensures this right to all its citizens. However, the same
article also elaborates that this right is subject to certain restrictions which can be imposed
based on certain grounds as enshrined under article 19(2). Section 124 A of the RPC
constitutes a reasonable restriction to freedom of speech and expression under article 19(1)(a)
of the Constitution of Rastan. Also, section 124A is applied only in rare cases and such
application on the part of the authorities is made with due care and caution. Thus, it does not
infringe right to freedom of speech and expression of an individual in any aspect.

ISSUE 2:

The counsel for respondents most humbly sibmits that the sections 15,16,17,18,38,39 and 40
of UAPA does not violate Art. 14,19,20,2 and 22. All the fundamental rights are upo
reasonable restrictions and the UAPA sections are adherent to such restrictions. The merits
although vary from each case in a general sense the offences under UAPA not being listed in
any other legislation is the only way to tackle such unlawful activities and thus not violative
of the said articles.

ISSUE 3
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that on the paramount importance of
protecting national security and maintaining public order. We assert that the state's fundamental
duty is to safeguard these critical aspects of governance. The actions of the students, which
included chanting slogans like "Rastan Murdabad," are viewed as potentially disruptive to
public order and national security. Furthermore, the police's allegations of links between the
students and banned organizations, such as Hizbul Mujahideen and Jaish-e-Mohammed, lend
credence to the charges filed under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). It

8|Page
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENTS
 TAQ-250R

pertains to the validity and necessity of sedition laws and UAPA. They contend that these are
legitimate and essential statutes enacted to address national security and unlawful activities.
The existence of prima facie evidence indicating the students' involvement in unlawful
activities and conspiracy supports the charges against them under these laws. Additionally, the
respondents argue that the expressions and slogans used by the students can be construed as
seditious and potentially incite violence or public disorder. They assert that the state must
prevent such actions that could disrupt public order and influence public perception negatively.

ISSUE 4

The counsel for respondents most humbly submits that the petitioner in this case RHR does not
have a locus standi to file this PIL. The Hon’ble SC has laid down various guidelines for the
filing of a PIL and fulfilling the locus standi is an essential part of it. Neither of the members
of this NGO were charged under the sections of UAPA or sedition. The NGO is in no way
connection to the students who were arrested hence the hon’ble bench should not entertain such
petitions which are often aimed at the abuse of process of law.

9|Page
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENTS
 TAQ-250R

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1: Whether Section 124A of RPC is violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the

Constitution?

It is humbly submitted that section 124A of RPC, constitutes an unreasonable restriction to

freedom of speech and expression under article 19(1)(a) and is thus violative of A.19(1)(a) of
the constitution.

1. It is humbly submitted that Section 124 A of the RPC, which deals with sedition, does
not infringe the fundamental right of speech and expression enshrined under article
19(1)(a) of the Constitution of Rastan in any aspect. Patanjali Sastri correctly concluded
that article 19(1)(a) is the cornerstone of the constitution and our democracy.
2. Furthermore, in Romesh Thapar Vs. The State of Madras1. Bhagwati J. provided
additional support for this viewpoint in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India by
highlighting the value of freedom of speech and expression. However, the very same
article that grants this right to every citizen also states in its clause (2) that reasonable
restrictions may be placed on the right granted by this article based on specific
justifications.
3. Sedition is a pre-constitutional law and has been upheld by the Supreme Court. Sedition
refers to overt actions, gestures, or speech by a person in oral or written form which
expresses his or her discontent against the established Government in the State, with
the aim the incite violence or hatred against it. Section 124A3 of the IPC (Chapter VI)
defines the offense of sedition. There are several in which this law has been challenged.
Most of these cases deal with the constitutionality of Section 124A.
4. The Federal Court in Niharendu DuttMajumdar Vs. King Emperor2, held that “public
disorder or the reasonable anticipation or likelihood of public disorder is the gist of the
offense”. In the present case where anti-Rastan logans were raised, there was a clear
anticipation of the likelihood of public disorder and hence charges of sedition have been
rightfully imposed in the present case.

1. 1950 AIR 124, 1950 SCR 594

2. (1942) FCR 48

10 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENTS
 TAQ-250R

5. The Supreme Court's ruling in Kedarnath Singh v. State of Bihar3, which upheld the
constitutionality of the sedition statute and stated that it was the only instrument
available to protect the Government, provided the basis for the position that the
judiciary now takes. The meaning of the term “reasonable restriction” has been a matter
of judicial discussion. There has been a doubt about whether the term “reasonable
restriction” also includes “total prohibition”.
6. Later the Supreme Court in another decision, interpreted the term to mean “total
prohibition” where the restriction was reasonable. It is submitted that what is restrained
is not the “fundamental right” that continues unaffected, but the “exercise” of it. The
restriction when it is unreasonable does not affect the right and when it is reasonable it
only restrains the exercise of that right. Such restraint on the exercise of a right, when
reasonable, may be partial or total. In addition, when determining whether a restriction
is reasonable, one must consider the nature of the right allegedly violated, the
restriction's primary goal, the severity, and urgency of the wrong being attempted to be
corrected, the imposition’s proportionality, and the circumstances in existence at the
time the restriction was imposed.
7. The Constitution imposes two requirements to justify a restriction on the liberties
protected by Article 19 (1). These prerequisites include the need for the limits to be fair
and for a specific purpose specified in the provision allowing the imposition of the
restriction on that specific right. The restriction here is not curtailing the fundamental
rights under Art.19(1)(a) rather is protective of any activity that could lead to inciting
violence against the state or its government and thereby infringing the fundamental
rights of the citizens at large.
8. In the present case the Government has acted within its powers while imposing charges
of sedition to restrict the excessive use of right to freedom of speech & expression
which could increase the tensions between the two nations of Pakora and Rastan. The
sheer basis of democracy is free speech and thought. The same cannot be misused by
the people. The constitution that promises fundamental rights to the people also is
responsible for the smooth governing and functioning of the government. If there is no
law to govern threats or attempts to overthrow the government a grave number of
constitutional values would be threatened.

3. 1962 AIR 955

11 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENTS
 TAQ-250R

9. In A.K. Gopalan V. State of Madras4, the Supreme Court observed: 'Man as a rational
being desires to do many things but in civil society his desires have to be controlled,
regulated, and reconciled with the exercise of similar desires by other individuals.
Liberty has therefore to be limited in order to be effectively possessed.”
10. Thus, we can conclude this issue by saying that the right to freedom of speech &
expression is not at all absolute but subject to certain restrictions as provided under
19(2).
11. Further to support the above-mentioned contentions a judgement in the case of State of
Bihar V. Shailabala 5reads as follows, “Reasonable restrictions can be imposed on
freedom of speech and expression in the interest of security of the State. All the
utterance intended to endanger the security of the State by crimes of violence intended
to overthrow the government, waging war and rebellion against the government,
external aggression or war etc. may be restrained in the interest of the security of the
State”. The slogans raised were intended to express disaffection towards the
government but also called for freedom which can be understood as a call to overthrow
the government or incite the people for the same.
12. In lieu of the above-mentioned contentions and cited case laws the counsel for
respondents humbly submit and strongly contend that this Hon’ble bench find that
Sec.124-A of RPC is not in violation of Art.19(1)(a) but rather a protective tool against
the elements of the society which aim to incite violence against the government and the
state.

ISSUE 2: Whether Sections 15, 16, 17, 18, 38, 39 and 40 of UAPA are violative of Articles
14, 19, 20, 21, and 22 of the Constitution?

It is humbly submitted before this bench that the above-mentioned sections are not violative
of articles 14,19,20,21 and 22 of the constitution.

NOT VIOLATIVE OF ART.14- EQUALITY BEFORE LAW

13. The above-mentioned sections primarily deal with association with terror outfits,
funding terror programs and organizations, conspiracy etc. These acts are not covered
under the CrPC but rather are very strictly punishable offences according to the UAPA.

4. 1950 SC 27; 1950 SCR 88

5. 1952 AIR 329

12 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENTS
 TAQ-250R

14. The students who were arrested were remanded for 90 days as it is a standard practice,
and no abuse of power was done against the students. All due process of law will be
followed in every case registered under the various sections of UAPA.
15. It is humbly submitted that from a person who commits a terror act, anyone who
harbours or raises funds for such unlawful activities are held liable for their actions
under the various sections of UAPA hence equality before law is very much upheld
rather than violated.

NOT VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 19

16. Article 19 of the constitution is important to safeguard freedom of expression of the

people. No section in the UAPA has brought about restriction of what people say or
express out of their own will.
17. The charges of UAPA were implemented against the students of LBSU only because
the police had substantive prima facie evidence which proved that the students who
raised slogans were also involved in raising funds for inciting violence in the state. The
students were in active association with banned organizations such as HM and JeM.
18. It is humbly submitted that no provision of the UAPA encourages any kind of a
restriction for expression and free speech,
19. The counsel for respondents humbly submits that the above-mentioned sections are not
in violation of article 19 of the constitution.

NOT VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 20, 21 and 22.

20. The counsel for respondents humbly submits that the said sections of UAPA do not
violate articles 20, 21 and 22 of the constitution. No person can be convicted or charged
for the same offence more than once and no provision of the UAPA allows the same. A
person in association with any terrorist outfit can be tried for his crime under the
provisions of the UAPA but not if the person has already faced charges in the same
instance.
21. Article 21 is the most supreme article of the constitution since it’s the main reason the
right to life and personal liberty of the people are safeguarded. The very fact that the
UAPA is still constitutionally valid is good enough to contend that it is not in violation
of Art. 21. The Art also has specified that “except according to procedure established
by law” is justifying enough that the arrests and detentions made under the sections of
UAPA are valid and not arbitrary in nature.

13 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENTS
 TAQ-250R

22. Thu upon the observing of aforesaid contentions the counsel for respondents humbly
submits before this Hon’ble bench that the said sections of UAPA are not violative of
the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights of the people including the basic
right it life with personal liberty.

ISSUE 3: Whether the arrest and detention of the students under Section
124A of RPC and various section of UAPA valid?

It is humbly submitted that the arrest of the students and Sharjeel Imam U/S 124A of RPC
and sections of UAPA is valid.

23. The counsel for respondents humbly submits before this Hon’ble court that on the
paramount importance of protecting national security and maintaining public order we
assert that the state's fundamental duty is to safeguard these critical aspects of
governance. The actions of the students, which included chanting slogans like "Rastan
Murdabad," are viewed as potentially disruptive to public order and national security.
Furthermore, the police's allegations of links between the students and banned
organizations, such as HM and JeM lend credence to the charges filed under the UAPA.
24. The charges against students pertain to the validity and necessity of sedition laws and
UAPA. It is contended that these are legitimate and essential statutes enacted to address
national security and unlawful activities. The existence of prima facie evidence
indicating the students' involvement in unlawful activities and conspiracy supports the
charges against them under these laws. Even the Hon’ble HC has taken note of the same
and has upheld the arrests made by the Zubai police.
25. The foremost duty of the state is to protect national security and maintain public order.
The actions of the students and Sharjeel Imam, including slogans such as "RASTAN
MURDABAD," and “WE WANT FREEDOM” can reasonably be construed as a threat
to public order and national security since the slogans intend to incite violence and
uprise the people against the government.
26. The contention in para 15 can be supported by the case of Ram Nandan v. State. In this
case, the Supreme Court stated 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 “.
27. As much as understanding legislation is important, the same becomes much clearer
when the intention behind that legislation is understood. The enactment of UAPA is

14 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENTS
 TAQ-250R

purely based on attempts to prohibit and prevent the carrying out of unlawful activities
such as terrorism or even association or funding of terrorist organizations. The police
have showcased every prima facie evidence regarding the students having been
associated with the organizations such as HM and JeM.
28. Section 124A of RPC and the provisions of UAPA are valid laws enacted to address
matters of national security and unlawful activities. They serve as essential tools for the
government to combat terrorism and protect the sovereignty and integrity of the
country. Hence it can be clearly observed that the charges under these sections are very
much valid and serve a fruitful purpose of punishing those who engage in activities
such as inciting the people against the government for violence or the secession of a
part of the nation.
29. In the case of Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab 6the apex court held that shouting
slogans like "Khalistan Zindabad" could be considered seditious if there was an
incitement to violence. Similarly, the students shouted slogans such as “PAKORA
ZINDABAD”, “RASTRAN MURDABAD” which is essential to incite violence
among the people against the government.
30. The actions of the students, although peaceful, can affect public perception and
potentially incite violence. The students having knowledge of the dispute between
Pakora and Rastan over the area of Kasheer yet shouted “PAKORA ZINDABAD”
which does not show disaffection to the government of Rastan but invited praise for the
country we are in dispute with. This very act should be treated as advocating to
overthrow the government or endanger the safety of Rastan.
31. Sharjeel Imam's speeches advocating for cutting off eastern states from Rastan pose a
direct threat to the sovereignty and integrity of the country. Such actions cannot be
tolerated. It can be observed that in the case of Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab7, the
Supreme Court upheld the validity of certain provisions of UAPA, emphasizing the
importance of national security.
32. It is more crucial to note that the statement by Sharjeel Imam were in direct violation
of the Supreme Court verdict in Romesh Thapar judgment, “nothing less than
endangering the foundations of the state or threatening its overthrow could justify

6. 1976 AIR 230

7. 1994 SCC (3) 569

15 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENTS
 TAQ-250R

curtailment of the rights to freedom of speech and expression”. Hence the arrest of
Sharjeel Imam is justified U/S 124A RPC and various other sections of the UAPA.
33. The students' alleged receipt of foreign funds to incite violence and unrest demonstrates
that their actions were not merely expressions of dissent but part of unlawful activities
that could threaten national security. Hence the counsel for respondents humbly submits
that the arrest of students of LBSU U/S 124A RPC and UAPA are valid.

ISSUE 4: Whether RHR has locus standi to file a PIL challenging Section
124A of RPC and UAPA?

It is most humbly submitted that RHR does NOT have locus standi to file a PIL challenging
section 124A of RPC.

34. Black’s Law Dictionary defines Public Interest as: “Something in which the public, the
community at large, has some pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal
rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything so narrow as mere curiosity,
or as the interests of the localities, which may be affected by the matters in question.
Interest shared by citizens generally in affairs of local, state, or national Government.”
The word ‘litigation’ means a legal action, including all legal proceedings initiated in a
Court of law with the purpose of enforcing a right or seeking a remedy.
35. In People’s Union for Democratic Rights & Others v. Union of India & Others 8the
Hon’ble court defined Public Interest Litigation and observed that “Public interest
litigation is a cooperative or collaborative effort by the petitioner, the State of public
authority and the judiciary to secure observance of constitutional or basic human rights,
benefits and privileges upon poor, downtrodden and vulnerable sections of the society.”
In case of a certiorari, a stranger4 may be allowed, by the court, at its discretion, to
apply for the writ in exceptional circumstances, viz., where the impugned order or
decision Involves a grave miscarriage of justice; ii) Has an adverse impact on public
interest.
36. It is humbly submitted that the NGO RHR is no way related to the events that have led
to the arrest of students’ U/S 124-A of RPC. The NGO is run by a group of civil society
activists. As much as civil rights are important for a society to exist peacefully, more
important is the security and protection of such a society and its government. The

8. 1984 AIR 1473, 1983 SCR (1) 456

16 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENTS
 TAQ-250R

counsel for respondents submits that the Petitioner in this case has NO locus standi in
this petition.
37. The counsels humbly submit that as laid down in order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure
Code, some essentials of locus standi required for a petitioner to have while filing a
petition of public litigation are (1) Presence of injury and (2) Causation. The petitioner
fulfils neither of the requirements.
38. Entertaining petitions challenging the constitutionality of legislations by the way of
relaxing the criteria for locus standi has often been misused and amounts to the abuse
of process of law.
39. Moreover, the law of sedition and its judgement varies from the merits of each case.
According to the facts mentioned above of our case the students had not only raised
slogans which incited for secession of a part of Rastan but also were in close connection
with banned terrorist organizations whose sole aim is to disrupt the peace and harmony
of Rastan and its government.
40. The counsel humbly submits that entertaining this PIL would amount to disastrous
effects upon the government and its agencies as the challenged provision of law in this
petition is the only tool of protection for the government against causing or inciting
violence against the government, whose safety is crucial to peacefully govern the
country and advocate to the issues of the citizens.

17 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENTS
 TAQ-250R

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the
Petitioner respectfully requests this Hon’ble Court to adjudge and be pleased to:

➢ Hold this PIL NOT maintainable.

➢ Declare that Sec.124-a of RPC is not violative of Article 19(1)(a).
➢ Declare that the arrest and detention of the students’ U/S 124-A of RPC and various
sections of UAPA is valid.
➢ Hold that Sections 15,16,17,18,38,39 and 40 of UAPA are not violative of Articles
14,19,20,21 and 22 of the constitution.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE RESPONDENTS SHALL DUTY BOUND

FOREVER PRAY.

On Behalf of the Respondents

Counsel for Respondents
-SD-

18 | P a g e
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENTS