Page 1 of 14

INDEX

SR NO CONTENTS PAGE NO.

1 FACTS OF THE CASE 3-6

2 ISSUES 7

3 ARGUMENTS 7-14

4 PRAYER 15
 Page 2 of 14

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIVA CRIMINAL APPELLATE

JURISDICTION (CRIMINAL)

Writ Petition NO. _______ OF 2024

Democratic Reformers Association ------ Appellant

VS

Union of Indiva,

Through Home Ministry of Indiva ------ Respondent

STATEMENT OF DEFENCE AGAINST PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIVA CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONAL
VALIDITY SECTION 124-A OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 AND FOR THE
ORDER OF REJECTION OF BAIL.

May it please your honour,

1. It is most respectfully submitted by respondent that the appellants are an group of

certain professions working in this country which has large network throughout
Indiva under the name of “Democratic Reformers Association”.

2. It is most respectfully submitted by respondent that the appellants have WhatsApp

Group and Facebook Group as well as other social media group consisting of many
 Page 3 of 14

reputable people of the society, consisting members who are of renowned and
reputed professions such as doctors, cine artist, lawyers, engineers, etc

3. It is most respectfully submitted that the appellants of such various renowned and
reputed professions have came together and formed such WhatsApp Group and other
social media Group for commenting and criticizing and sharing thoughts on social
and political problems or on the policies implemented by the Government.

4. It is most respectfully submitted that the WhatsApp Group and other social media
Groups which initially only consisted the few core influential people later was joined
by peoples of various states and places all over the country causing this group of
selected few influential people to grow into massive amount of people from all across
the country of Indiva.

5. It is most respectfully submitted that the appellant also encouraged such people who
later joined the group to invite more people from their other social circle, since the
people requesting such addition of people were of influential status this caused
various of people being added, causing the social media group to grow massively.

6. It is most respectfully submitted that once this group reach this massive amount of
support from fellow countrymen then this WhatsApp Group and other social media
group started meeting in person and discussing on steps taken by government or
policies implemented by government such as giving reservation or curtailing
reservation for certain communities or on government in general

7. It is most respectfully submitted that such in person discussions were also posted on
WhatsApp Group as well as other social media group causing many heated and
 Page 4 of 14

aggressive and hatred filled comments on government of Indiva to be posted by

various other members who were not present in such in person meetings.

8. It is most respectfully submitted that such discussions were usually filled with half-
knowledge or with no knowledge of the content for the implementation of the
policies, and not revealing such information of not knowing about policies fully to
other members of the group causing people to have opinion on only the information
provided to them by the influential people of the society who themselves were not
literate or well verse on such policies.

9. It is most respectfully submitted that since such people discussing the topics in public
knew about their own lack of knowledge about the various topics they were
discussing and sharing such false knowledge to fellow members it can be said that
such discussion were of malafide intention and were meant to cause uproar and riots
in country by aggravating and spreading hate towards country by having such
malafide discussions in public and such malafide discussions were successful as
many riots and violent protest took place after such false knowledge was made
public.

10.It is most respectfully submitted that the WhatsApp group and other social media
groups were leaded by many of influential people and were also fed many such
untruthful statements and knowledge, leading members of the WhatsApp group as
well as other social media group to believe such statements made by the influential
people to be true and also causing such people to be angered and aggravated towards
the government. It is also evident by prima facie that of all the knowledge shared by
the influential people of the WhatsApp group and other social media group none
were based on the entire facts and were knowingly kept from other members of the
group so as to cause uproar and to make violent protest and rallies all across the
Indiva.
 Page 5 of 14

11.It is most respectfully submitted that since this WhatsApp group and other social
media group were so largely known that the information of such group’s existence
were made known to the government, causing supporter of the government to oppose
such aggressive and hatred commenting group’s existence and filing an FIR against
the people of the group.

12. It is most respectfully submitted that after such false information spreading
WhatsApp group as well as other social media groups were made known to the
cabinet ministers, the cabinet ministers called an urgent meeting and passed an order
against such activities.

13.It is most respectfully submitted that once the information of such malafide intention
filled comments and discussions were made known to police the police officers did
proper investigation according to the guidelines provided under the Sanskar
Marathe vs The State Of Maharashtra, 2015, in which Bombay High Court issued
certain guidelines Police officials must follow before filing a sedition case against
anyone. And after following thesqae guidelines the police officers and investigating
the present matter the police officials came to an conclusion that the present matter
does attract 124A of Indivan Penal Code.
 Page 6 of 14

14.It is most respectfully submitted that the issues that are present in this matter are:

1) Whether the section 124A of IPC is constitutionally valid?

2) Whether the section 124A of IPC warranted and licit?

3) The bail application filed by appellant shall be allowed or not?

15.It is most respectfully submitted that the Constitutionality of the Section 124A has
been challenged by the appellant in this present matter but the respondent are of
opinion that the Section 124A is constitutionally valid because of the following
reasons:

(a) Since the Sedition Law is implemented to protect the citizen of Indiva from
various rallies and riots from happening and if the present matter is taken into
consideration then it can be said that due to malafide filled misinformation
which from the various WhatsApp group and other social media groups caused
an aggravated public believing the misinformation instigating such rallies and
violent protest against the government and causing damage and harm to public
at large

(b) Similar to Contempt of Court Act, 1971, protects the integrity and honour and
prestige of the judiciary system all across the Indiva, Sedition Law helps
protect the integrity and honour and prestige of the rightfully elected
government. That is similarly to the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, prevents
the judiciary system from being taken advantage by the people unnecessarily
 Page 7 of 14

and exploit the leniency provided by the judiciary system the Sedition law
prevent the rightfully elected government from people who misuse the Right to
Speech provided under Article 19(1)(a) of The Indiva Constitution. Under
Article 19(1)(a) of The Indiva Constitution “this implies that all citizens have
the right to express their views and opinions freely” and there should be a line
that needs to be drawn so as the people take undue advantage of this provision,
and the Respondent are of firm belief that when there are violent riots and
violent caused due to some influential people spreading misinformation with
malafide intention then such Article 19(1)(a) shall be curtailed so as to prevent
The Constitution of Indiva to not be mistreated and misused.

(c) Sedition law protects the Nation of Indiva from various terrorist organisations
from entering and terrorising Nation of Indiva by committing various terrorist
activities such as bombing and destroying various public property as well as
private property, etc. One such example of this Sedition Law being used
rightfully against Ajmal Kasab after he terrorised Mumbai and entire India by
doing mass shooting and bombing various localities around the Taj Hotel and
Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus in Mumbai, following the arrest of
Ajmal Kasab the Supreme Court of India held Ajmal Kasab guilty and gave
verdict of death penalty. Similar to this situation might arise in Nation of
Indiva hencewhy to protect and prevent such criminal activities from going not
penalised and to provide proper justice against such heinous crime, the Nation
of Indiva needs the Sedition Law in Indiva.

(d) Sedition law provides protection to the rightfully elected government from
being overthrown by illegal and violence by people of members and followers
of opposition parties and also allows the people living in the Nation a peaceful
and prosperous life. That means by the means of sedition law a rightfully
elected government can be assure that no violence and illegal means will be
 Page 8 of 14

used for overthrowing their government and also protecting and preventing the
peace with in the country.

16. It is most respectfully submitted that the appellant also implied that the changes
brought against of Section 124A of Indiva Penal Code to be dropped, the
Respondents are of firm belief that such charges does not need to be dropped but the
charges that are imposed on appellant by the law enforcement officials are true and
the appellant shall be convicted of those charges for the following reasons:

(a) Before the appellant were charged for the under the Sedition Law under the
section 124A of Indiva Penal Code, the law enforcement officials who were
notified of such nefarious activities being committed in an WhatsApp group and
other social media groups follow the guidelines provided under Sanskar Marathe
vs The State Of Maharashtra, 2015, in which the Bombay High court provided
certain guidelines Police officials must follow before filing a sedition case against
anyone. The guidelines provided by the Bombay High Court before filing a
sedition case against anyone are:

(i) The words, signs or representations must bring the Government (Central
or State) into hatred or contempt or must cause or attempt to cause
disaffection, enmity or disloyalty to the Government and the
words/signs/ representation must also be an incitement to violence or
must be intended or tend to create public disorder or a reasonable
apprehension of public disorder;

(ii) Words, signs or representations against politicians or public servants by

themselves do not fall in this category unless the
 Page 9 of 14

words/signs/representations show them as representative of the

Government;

(iii) Comments expressing disapproval or criticism of the Government with a

view to obtaining a change of government by lawful Cri.PIL 3-2015
means without any of the above are not seditious under Section 124A;

(iv) Obscenity or vulgarity by itself should not be taken into account as a

factor or consideration for deciding whether a case falls within the
purview of Section 124A of IPC, for they are covered under other
sections of law;

(v) A legal opinion in writing which gives reasons addressing the aforesaid
must be obtained from Law Officer of the District followed within two
weeks by a legal opinion in writing from Public Prosecutor of the State.

The law enforcement officials once being notified of such activities in WhatsApp
group and other social media groups made sure to follow such guidelines provided by
the Bombay High court and after evaluating the evidence and other facts of the case
were of the opinion that the members of the WhatsApp group as well as other social
media group that were being charged with 124A under the IPC was correct and the
members of the group that were charged with by Sedition Law is correct and licit and
rightful.
 Page 10 of 14

(b) The next submission respondent would like to submit is of Supreme Court of
India observations made in the matter of Vinod Dua v. Union of India (2021),
where the supreme court of India made the following observation:

(i) A citizen has the right to criticise or comment on the actions of the
government and its officials as long as he does not incite people to
violence against the government established by law or with the intent of
causing public disorder. Sections 124A and 505 of the IPC must be
invoked only when the words or expressions have a pernicious tendency
or intention of causing public disorder or disturbance of law and order.

(ii) The assertions ascribed to Dua that the Prime Minister utilised fatalities
and terror attacks to get votes, or that the Prime Minister won votes
through acts of terrorism, were not stated during the talk show. There are
no such claims in the real translation, and no objections were filed that
the translated version was wrong in any manner. The petitioner did
claim that India’s airstrikes on Balakot, Pathankot, and Pulwama were
exploited as political events to attract votes, but no claims against the
Prime Minister were made, as mentioned in the F.I.R.

(iii) Migrant workers in large numbers were migrating back to their

hometowns/villages as of March 30, 2020. Given the circumstances,
there would be some concern regarding the shelter and food that would
be supplied to them along the way. If Dua made certain remarks on his
talk show on March 30, 2020, before the matter was taken up by the
Supreme Court, he would be within his rights to claim that as a
journalist, he was addressing subjects of major importance so that
 Page 11 of 14

enough attention might be given to the current difficulties. The

petitioner cannot be accused of propagating misleading information or
rumours.

(iv) The testing facilities to assess and monitor the spread and effect of the
pandemic, at least in the early phases of the surge, were not precisely
appropriate, given the magnitude of the country’s population. If the
petitioner makes any comments concerning testing facilities, PPE Suits,
N-95 masks, or ply masks in that light, the comments in the first two
sections must be nothing more than an assessment of the circumstances
at the time.

(c) According to the section 124A of Indiva Penal Code it reads as: [124ASedition].--
Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible
representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt,
or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, 2*** the Government
established by law in 3[Indiva], 4*** shall be punished with 5[imprisonment for
life], to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three
years, to which fine may be added, or with fine

Explanation 1: - The expression "disaffection" includes disloyalty and all feelings

of enmity.

Explanation 2: - Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the

Government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without
exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute
an offence under this section.

Explanation 3: - Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or

other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred,
contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.]
 Page 12 of 14

The respondent would most humbly submit that in the section 124A of IPC stated
above the sentence “ Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or
by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or
contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, 2*** the
Government established by law in 3[Indiva]” can be interrelated as anyone being
citizen of Indiva passes any comments or writes any article or by act attempts to
overthrow the rightfully and lawfully elected government by enticing other
citizens of Indiva such that the enticed citizen of Indiva causes violent riots and
other unlawful acts to be carried out in order to achieve the goal of overthrowing
the government shall be said to have committed the crime under the section 124A
of IPC. In the present matter the members of the WhatsApp group and other social
media group used to meet in public to discuss and criticize the action and the
policies that the rightfully and lawfully elected government were going to
implement or were already implemented by the rightfully and lawfully elected
government, and such comments and criticism was based on knowingly shared
skewed knowledge by the members so as to entice the people once such
conversations and criticism were shared by the members meeting in public in the
WhatsApp group and other social media group for the other members in the group
to be read, also such conversations and criticism were shared by the members
amongst each other so as to cause an violent riots and violent protest so that the
rightfully and lawfully elected government was overthrown by such violent riots
and violent protest.

17.It is most respectfully submitted that the applicant has also filed an application for
Bail alongside challenging the constitutionality of Section 124A of IPC, the
Respondent are of firm belief that such Bail application filed by Appellant shall be
rejected for the following reasons:
 Page 13 of 14

(a) There is no reason to believe that once the appellant is released on bail will
continue to co-operate with the law enforcement authorities for providing
required information.

(b) It is also of no faith that entire information provided by them until now is true
and hence after being released on bail might try to tamper any such crucial
document that are required for convicting them of their crimes.

(c) There is also requirements of many more people who were actively part of the
WhatsApp group as well as other social media groups and involvement of such
active members of the WhatsApp group as well as other social media group
with the violent and illegal activities committed by the group in public.

(d) Information regarding involvements and the extend of such involvement of the
members of the group is yet to be finished, hence requiring more time to
investigate and analyse regarding the same.

(e) The information regarding the messages, photos, videos and other media
shared in the group is yet to be recovered from the accused members of the
WhatsApp and other social media groups.

(f) The respondents are also of firm belief that once the appellants are released on
bail try to leave the Jurisdiction of the court.

18. It is most respectfully submitted that the appellant in the present matter is not filing
his first Bail application but in fact has already filed an bail application in front of
 Page 14 of 14

Trial Court as well as High Court and in both the Court the said applications were
rejected.

19.The observations and the understanding of the Trials Court as well as High Court
were licit and warranted against the members of the “Democratic Reformers
Association”. Hence why making the orders and orders and decisions made by the
Trial Court and Hight court valid and lawful.

Prayer

(1) To reject the Bail application of the appellant.

(2) To reaffirm the constitutionality of the Section 124A of the Indiva Penal Code

(3) To rightfully charge the members of the Democratic Reformers Association

WhatsApp group and other social media group of Section 124A of the Indiva Penal
Code.

(4) To pass an order allowing the IT cell to gather all the required information from the
members of the Democratic Reformers Association WhatsApp group and other social
media groups.

(5) Any other order that the Court deems fit.