PETITIONER BBD UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT TEAM CODE TC-

BBD UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT ASSIGNMENT

208

TTAQP-NAMC 134

In the Hon’ble

SUPREME COURT OF X

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ALEX..........................................................................................................APPELANT

ABBREVATION………………………………………………………………………… 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………………
V. 5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………………………

STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………………………

ISSUES OF CONSIDERATION………………………………………………………..

SUMMARY ARGUMENTS………………………………………………………….......

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED………………………………………………………………..

PRAYER…………………………………………………………………………………….
UNION OF INDIA...................................................................................................DEFEDANT

1.WHETHER CLAUSE 3(g) OF BYLAWS OF THE GANGAPUTRA RESIDENTS

ASSOCIATION IS LEGAL AND BINDING ON NARANG GANGAPUTRA vis a vis
RIGHT TO SHELTER AND ARTICLE 300 A OF THE CONSTITUTION?

1.1

1.2

2.WHETHER REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY CAN EXERCISE

JURISIDICTION WITH RESPECT TO PROJECT WHICH IS NOT REGISTERED
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF RERA?
PETITON INVOKED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF X
2.1
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITONER
2.2

3. WHETHER THE PRACTICE OF SAMADHI SMARPAN VIOLATES THE

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF A GANGAPUTRA INDIVIDUAL?
Page 1 of 13
 PETITIONER BBD UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………………………..

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………….

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………………

STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………………….

ISSUES OF CONSIDERATION………………………………………………

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS………………………………………………..

ARGUMENTSADVANCED……………………………………………………

PRAYER…………………………………………………………………………

Page 2 of 13
 PETITIONER BBD UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT

TABEL OF CASES

ABBREVIATIONS

AIR : All India Reporter

VOL : Volume

W.P : Writ Petition

Hon’ble : Honourable

Edn. : Edition

SCC : Supreme Court Cases

V. : Versus

Page 3 of 13
 PETITIONER BBD UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES:
1 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) AIR 597, (1978) SCR (2) 621

2 Papnasam Labour Union v. Madura Coats Ltd., 1995 AIR 2200, 1995 SCC (1) 501

3 Balwant Singh & Anr v.State of Punjab (1995 (1) SCR 411) .

4 Superintendent, Central V.Ram Manohar Lohia (1966) 1 SCR 709

STATUTES:
1 The Constitution of India, 1950

CONSTITUTION:
The Constitution of India, 1950

ONLINE PLATFORMS:
SCC ONLINE (https://scc-bbdu.refread.com/Members/SearchResult.aspx#FN0017)

Page 4 of 13
 PETITIONER BBD UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT

LEXPEEPS.COM (https://lexpeeps.in/right-to-food-and-shelter-on-the-touchstone-of-article-21/)

INDIA LIVE LAW (https://indianlawlive.net/2021/08/31/bye-laws-of-societies-fundamental/)

INDIAN KANOON: (https://indiankanoon.org/)

BOOKS:

INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW BY MP JAIN

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA BY J.N PANDEY

Page 5 of 13
 PETITIONER BBD UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
It is most humbly submitted that appellant have approached Hon’ble Supreme court of X under
Article 32 of the constitution of X as fundamental rights are violated in this matter. It is most
humbly submitted that Supreme court has competent jurisdiction to hear the matter.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
A political activist named Alex organized a public rally in a major city square to address what they
believe are pressing issues facing the country. During the rally, Alex delivered a speech expressing strong
criticism of a certain religious group, accusing them of being responsible for various societal problems.
The speech contained derogatory and offensive language, causing outrage within the targeted religious
community and leading to a clash between Alex's supporters and members of the religious group. The
government, responding to public outcry and concerns about maintaining social peace, arrested Alex and
charged them with inciting hatred and disturbing public order under a newly enacted law. Alex's legal
team argues that this law infringes upon their constitutional right to freedom of expression

STATEMENT OF ISSUES
ISSUE 1: Does the newly enacted law restricting hate speech violate Alex's constitutional
right to freedom of expression?

ISSUE 2: How should the balance between freedom of expression and societal harmony be
struck in cases of hate speech

Page 6 of 13
 PETITIONER BBD UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE 1: : Does the newly enacted law restricting hate speech violate Alex's constitutional
right to freedom of expression?

The counsel humbly submits that newly enacted law restricting hate speech is violating
constitutional right and fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression under Article
19(1)(a) of the constitution of X.

ISSUE 2: How should the balance between freedom of expression and societal harmony is
struck in cases of hate speech?

It is most humbly submitted that there should be balance maintained between freedom of
expression and societal harmony it is responsibility of goverment of X to maintain the balance
between freedom of expression and societal harmony

Page 7 of 13
 PETITIONER BBD UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE 1: Does the newly enacted law restricting hate speech violate Alex's constitutional
right to freedom of expression?

1.1 FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS A HUMAN RIGHT AND THE FOUNDATION UPON

WHICH DEMOCRACY IS BUILT

1.1.1 The counsel humbly submits that newly enacted law is in clear violation of Alex
constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression because the arrest of Alex is only based
on the Alex speech which he said for the political purpose his speech did not intended to cause
violence in the country of X and it is well established fact in that there was no guilty intention of
Alex to cause public disorder

1.1.2 It is most humbly submitted that in the landmark judgment of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of
India1, the significance of freedom of speech was explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
these words:

“Democracy is based essentially on free debate and open discussion for that is the only
corrective nature of the government action in a democratic setup. If democracy means the
government of the people and by the people, it is obvious that every citizen must be entitled to
participate in a democratic process to enable him to intelligently his right of making a choice,
free and general matters of public matters are essential.”

1.1.3 It is most humbly submitted that referring to the case mentioned in which Hon’ble Supreme
Court clearly stated that democracy is based on free debate and open discussion every citizen is
entitled to participate in the democratic process means that in a democratic state, everyone must
have the freedom to express views and opinions and in this matter fundamental right of freedom
of speech is violated under Article 19(1)(a) of the constitution of X.

1.1.4 It is pertinent here to take into account of case Balwant Singh & Anr v. State of Punjab 2

The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “Raising some lone slogans a couple of times by two
individuals without anything more did not constitute any threat to the Government of India as by
law established not could the same give rise to feelings of enmity or hatred among different

1
(1978) AIR 597, (1978) SCR (2) 621
2
(1976) AIR 230

Page 8 of 13
 PETITIONER BBD UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT

communities or religious or other groups”. So here also Alex has given slogans and speech
which cannot be regarded as against the particular religious group.

1.2 “Procedure for Test of Reasonableness shall not be same”

1.2.1 The counsel humbly submit that Union cannot impose restriction on the fundamental right
of freedom of speech under Article 19(2) of the constitution of X because in this matter
restriction imposed on his speech are arbitrary and unreasonable

1.2.2 It is pertinent here to take into account the case Panasam Labour Union v. Madura Coats
Ltd3. in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated following principles and guidelines on the
reasonable restriction imposed on the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 19(a) to (g)
challenged on the ground of unreasonableness of the restriction imposed by it the guidelines are
as follows:

● The restriction must not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature to go beyond the requirement of
the felt need of the society and sought to be achieved.

● There must be a direct and proximate nexus or a reasonable connection between the restriction
imposed and the object sought to be achieved.

● No abstract or fixed principle can be laid down which may have universal application in all
cases. With such consideration, the question of reasonableness, therefore, is expected to vary
from case to case.

● In interpreting constitutional provisions the court should be alive to the felt needs of the
society and complex issues facing the people which the legislature intends to solve through
effective legislation

● In appreciating such problems felt the need of society the judicial approach must necessarily
be dynamic, pragmatic, and elastic.

It is imperative that for consideration of the reasonableness of the restriction imposed by the
statute, the court should examine whether the social control as envisaged in Article 19 is being
effectuated by the restriction imposed on the fundamental right.

● The right guaranteed to a citizen by Article 19 does not confer any absolute or unconditional
right. Each right is subject to a reasonable restriction that the legislature may impose in the

3
1995 AIR 2200, 1995 SCC (1) 501

Page 9 of 13
 PETITIONER BBD UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT

public interest. It is, therefore, necessary to examine whether such limitation is meant to protect
social welfare by satisfying the need of prevailing social values.

● The Reasonableness has got to be tested in both substantive and procedural aspects. It should
not be bound by procedural perniciousness or jurisprudence of remedies.

● A restriction imposed on a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 19 must not be arbitrary,

unbridled, unanalyzed, and excessive, and also not unreasonably discriminatory. So, it is a well-
established fact from the above guidelines that restrictions imposed on the fundamental right
guaranteed under Article 19(1) (a) shall not be arbitrary and discriminatory and in this case, if a
restriction is imposed it will be arbitrary and unreasonable.

1.2.3 It is most humbly submitted that by giving reference of this case counsel would conclude
the arguments with the point restriction can only be imposed when exceptional circumstance but
in this his speech shall not fall under the scope of and his speech is related to freedom of speech
and expression.

Page 10 of 13
 PETITIONER BBD UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT

ISSUE 2: How should the balance between freedom of expression and societal harmony is
struck in cases of hate speech?

s“2.1 Societal harmony and balance between freedom of expression”

2.1.1 The counsel humbly submits that maintaining societal harmony in public requires a proper
assessment of public activities and freedom expression is also a distinct term which requires that
freedom expression means giving opinions on the various public and to maintain balance
between both societal harmony and freedom of expression the state and central responsible to
maintain as per the present circumstance of the case everyone has right to express his
maintaining public order is duty of goverment.

2.1.2 It is most humbly submitted that in the present case it is evident that it is the responsibility
of state to maintain balance between freedom of speech and expression and public peace and it
shall be maintained by the state and union goverment.

2.1.3 It is pertinent here to take into the account of the case the Superintendent, Central V.Ram
Manohar Lohia4 in this case the Hon’ble court held that

Public order" is synonymous with public safety and tranquility, and it is the absence of any
disorder involving a breach of local significance in contradistinction to national upheavals such
as revolution, civil strife, war, affecting the security of the State

4 (1966) 1 SCR 709

Page 11 of 13
 PETITIONER BBD UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in the light of the facts used, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to
adjudge and declare that:

1 To declare that the newly enacted law are restricting hate speech violate Alex's constitutional
right to freedom of expression
2 To declare that the balance between freedom of expression and societal harmony is struck in
cases of hate speech
And pass any other order, direction, or relief that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest
of justice, equity and good conscience.

All of which is humbly prayed,

TAQ-275, Counsels for the

APPELLANT

SUBMITTED BY

NAME: Shivansh Chandra

ROLL NO: 1200992101

COURSE: BA.LLB 4th year 7th Semester

SUBMITTED TO

NAME: Mrs Vasundhra Garg

Assistant Professor BBD UNIVERISTY

&

SUBMITTED BY

SAURABH SINGH

BA.LLB 4th year 7th Semester ,Roll no 1200992096

Page 12 of 13
PETITIONER BBD UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT

Page 13 of 13