SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS (ACCUSED)

Whether the Appellants have a locus standi to challenge the validity of section
124A of TPC and whether their rights were actually violated?

Yes, the appellants argued that they have the locus standi (legal standing in court)
to challenge the validity of Section 124A because their fundamental rights have
allegedly been violated. Being accused of sedition has really affected their lives, so
they should be allowed to question if this law is fair or not. The appellants focused
on defending their right to freedom of speech, challenging the misuse of sedition
laws, privacy violations and questioning the reliability of narco analysis tests.
Case- People’s union for civil liberties (PUCL) v UOI.

Whether the Appellants had an intension to incite violence and hatred against
the ‘State’?

They challenge the constitutionality of Section 124A and said that in no way does
their actions proves that they were trying to persuade other people against the
‘State’, They challenged that in the past, the government has used this law to stop
people from expressing their opinions freely. what they did, celebrating and
cheering for a cricket match was not violent or against the country. So, being
charged with sedition for doing something peaceful is not being fair to them. For
merely enhancing the punishment in the name of national security and curtailing
the rights of my client to express his feelings and emotions is a complete misuse of
rights by the law enforcement authorities. Case- Kedar nath singh v State of
Bihar.

Whether the Appellants had a fair and just investigation or were there
elements of inappropriate conduct involved on the part of law enforcing
authorities?

The use of narco analysis tests, especially after what happened to Rimon, is not
right. These tests are not trustworthy and can make people really sick, just like
what happened to Rimon and making them take these tests without their agreement
is like taking away their right to control what happens to their own bodies. In case
of selvi v state of Karnataka, The court stated that narco-analysis, in particular, is
a cruel and inhuman treatment that violates an individual's right to privacy. The
court emphasized that these tests should only be allowed in exceptional cases
where it is necessary for public interest.

The use of their phone records and messages against them is not fair, this kind of
spying goes against their right to keep their personal stuff private, which is a part
of the bigger right to have personal freedom protected by the Constitution. Using
private messages to investigate things that are not violent could be seen as breaking
their rights under the Constitution. Case- Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs.
Union of India

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. Whether the Appellants have a locus standi to challenge the validity of

section 124A of TPC and whether their rights were actually violated?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Bench that section 124A of IPC is infringing the
fundamental right of my client in the present case. Article 19. Article 19(2) clearly defines the
boundaries of reasonable restrictions and my client through no means of expressions,
words or actions is seeming to not abide by them. It appears to us that the raising some
slogan only a couple of times by the appellants in a moment of celebration even over the
victory of any other team in a sports event, for which they're completely justified to express
their feelings, neither evoked any response nor any reaction from anyone in the public and
thus cannot attract the provisions of Section 124A. This was clearly defended in the case of
Balwant Singh and Anr vs State of Punjab on 1 March, 1995

To defend the contention whether any public disorder was created or public tranquility was
compromised, it is to be humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Bench that in the case of
Romesh Thappar vs The State Of Madras on 26 May, 1950, The Court stated that the
Constitution has varying criteria for permissible restrictions on the freedom of speech and
expression, and draws a boundary between “serious and aggravated forms of public
disorder which are calculated to endanger the security of the State and the relatively minor
breaches of the peace of a purely local significance.” Only a higher degree of threat
pertaining to the endangerment of the foundations of the state “could justify curtailment of
the rights to freedom of speech and expression.” The Court categorically stated that “there
can be no doubt that freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of propagation of
ideas, and that freedom is ensured by the freedom of circulation.” In Ram Manohar Lohia
vs State of Bihar (1965), the Supreme Court held that in the case of ‘public order’, the
community or the public at large have to be affected by a particular action. One has to
imagine three concentric circles, the largest representing ‘law and order’, the next
representing ‘public order’ and the smallest representing ‘security of State’.

TO JUSTIFY THAT THERE WASN’T ANY INTENTIONS INVOLVED ON THE PART OF THE
APPELLANT TO CREATE VIOLENCE AND SPREAD HATRED AGAINST THE ‘STATE’ AND THE
FACT THAT THEY WERE NOT INVOLVED IN ANY SORT OF PURSUASION TO OTHER PEOPLE.

My client and his friends were merely involved in celebrating over the victory of just
another team other than their own country’s in a random sports event, which in no way is
signifying that they did something ‘anti national’ or in any sense proves there was any
intention priorly established to cause damage or to cause unrest amongst the public. There
were no signs of protestations involved against the state. The facts and circumstances of
this case unmistakably show that there was no disturbance or semblance of disturbance of
law and order or of public order or peace and tranquility in the area from where the
appellants were apprehended while raising slogans on account of the activities of the
appellants. There is a complete absence of mens rea, the intention to cause disorder or
incite people to violence is also not getting established because as mentioned in the facts,
my client and his friends were merely asking for other people to join in their "celebration"
as the word has carefully been used, denial upon which there might have been some
nuisance created in the heat of the moment but it's completely unreasonable to sentence
them on the pretext of section 124A. In our opinion, for what we have stated above, the
prosecution has not succeeded in establishing the case against the appellants beyond a
reasonable doubt. The section has taken care to indicate clearly that strong words under
lawful means used to express disapprobation of the measures of the Government with the
view to their improvement or alteration would not come within the section. Similarly,
comments, however, strongly worded, expressing disapprobation of actions of the
Government, without exciting those feelings which generate the inclination to cause public
disorder by acts of violence, would not be penal. Sadashiv Narayan, (1947) 49 Bom LR 526.
Niharendra Dutt Majumdar, (1942) FCR 38.

The Appellants had an unfair and agonizing investigation and there were
elements of inappropriate conduct involved on the part of law enforcing
authorities.
Narco-analysis “without consent” raises certain issues such as (i) a physical assault on the
body by giving injections and also multiple painful stimuli such as slapping, pinching,
pushing, hitting, shaking the body and so forth to wake a person from hypnotic state to
answer the questions, and (ii) mental assault through the effect of the injection on his/her
mind and also an unrestricted access to the utmost privacy, the privacy of his/her own
mind. Rimon and his friends were subjected to extreme torture which ultimately led to his
death and raised the question that only because they were celebrating over an event and
through no means signified any attempt to revolutionize against the country, they were
subjected to such unfair and forcefully consented investigation which was completely
barbaric in nature and breached their privacy and basic fundamental rights. It becomes
imperative to analyze Article 20 (3) of the Indian Constitution. Clause (3) of Article 20
declares that no person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against
himself. In State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad a Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of
eleven judges held that: "It is well established that clause (3) of Article 20 is directed against
self-incrimination by the accused person. Self-incrimination must mean conveying
information based upon personal knowledge of the person giving the information and
cannot include merely the mechanical process of producing documents in court which may
throw a light on any of the points in the controversy, but which do not contain any
statement of the accused based on his personal knowledge." The third component of Article
20 (3) is that it is a prohibition only against the compulsion of the accused to give evidence
against himself. In Kalawati v H.P. State, the Supreme Court held that Article 20 (3) does not
apply at all to a case where the confession is made by an accused without any inducement,
threat or promise. Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is founded on the principle
that if the confession of the accused is supported by the discovery of a fact, the confession
may be presumed to be true, and not to have been extracted. In Santokben Sharmanbhai
Jadeja v. State of Gujarat, the Court while upholding the order for conducting a Narco
Analysis on the accused Santokben Sharmanbhai Jadeja, observed that "when after
exhausting all the possible alternatives to find out the truth and nab the criminal/accused
and when it is found by the prosecuting agency that there is no further headway in the
investigation and they are absolutely in dark, there is a necessity of such a test, which by
facts prove that the authorities were absolutely over the line when they subjected the
appellants to narco analysis. selvi v state of Karnataka. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs.
Union of India