BBD UNIVERISTY MOOT COURT ASSIGNMENT

BBD UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF X

In the matter of

ALEX………………………………………...........................................PETITIONER

V.

UNION OF X...............................................................................RESPONDENT

PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTIUTION OF X

1
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 BBD UNIVERISTY MOOT COURT ASSIGNMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABBREVATIONS……………………………………………………..3

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

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………9

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

ISSUES OF CONSIDERATION………………………………………………15

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS………………………………………………..16

ARGUMENTSADVANCED……………………………………………………16

PRAYER…………………………………………………………………………32

2
 BBD UNIVERISTY MOOT COURT ASSIGNMENT

ABBREVATIONS

AIR : All India Reporter

VOL : Volume

W.P : Writ Petition

Hon’ble : Honourable

Edn. : Edition

SCC : Supreme Court cases

V. : Versus

3
 BBD UNIVERISTY MOOT COURT ASSIGNMENT

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUES:

The Constitution of India, 1950

CONSTITUTION:

The Constitution of India, 1950

BOOKS:
INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW BY MP JAIN

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA BY J.N PANDEY

ONLINE PLATFORMS:

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

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/

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
It is mostly humbly submitted that the respondent has appeared before Hon’ble Supreme court of
X in the response to the petition filed by petitioner.

4
 BBD UNIVERISTY MOOT COURT ASSIGNMENT

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

5
 BBD UNIVERISTY MOOT COURT ASSIGNMENT

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

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

6
 BBD UNIVERISTY MOOT COURT ASSIGNMENT

The counsel humbly submits that newly enacted law restricting hate speech is not violating
constitutional right and fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression under Article
19(1)(a) of the constitution of X as he gave the speech during a political rally and speeches given
rally and is speech incited the people to cause public disharmony.

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 an individual to maintain the societal
harmony and in this matter it is alleged that speech given by Alex comes under the purview of
Hate speech and his speech caused disturbance because his speech was against the various
religious denomination.

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

7
 BBD UNIVERISTY MOOT COURT ASSIGNMENT

1.1. RELEGION IS AN IMPORTANT ASPECT OF INDIAN SOCIETY

1.1.1 The counsel humbly submits that religion is an integral of the Indian society and statement
of Alex is hurting various religious groups which is against the principle of morality and
violating religious sentimentality of the different people practising various religions in the
country of X and it’s against the principles of morality as it is well established fact that religion
is the soul of the people of the country because the religion people follow is related to their gods
and if sentiments of religious communities are violated so it will lead to public disharmony and
communal similarly in this matter communal violence is caused by the hate speech of Alex and
also against the principles of

1.1.2 It is most humbly submitted that morality is a very important element of society that
defines our behaviour and actions. But, in today’s times, people relate morality with religion,
which is not correct. At times, religions can differ to a great extent and can even lead to wars
between different sects. But it is not so as morality is more of a universal thing and even a person
who is an atheist can be moral.

1.1.3 It is pertinent here to take into the account of the case The Ahmadabad St. Xavier’s
College v. State of Gujarat1

“The Supreme Court held that Secularism neither means anti-god nor pro-god. It just ensures that
no one is differentiated on the basis of religion eliminating the concept of God in matters of the
state” It is well established fact that speech of Alex is violating the principle as it is targeting
particular religion and god of a specific religions which against the principle of morality.

1.1.4 The counsel humbly submits that violation of the principles of morality and secularism is
against the public harmony and has incited violence in the country of X Alex constitutional right
as well as fundamental right has not been violated in this matter as his can be considered as hate
speech

1.1.5 It is pertinent here to note that Stainislaus v.State of M.P2 in which the Hon’ble Supreme
Court held that:

1
1974 AIR 1389, 1975 SCR (1) 173
2 1977 AIR 908, 1977 SCR (2) 611

8
 BBD UNIVERISTY MOOT COURT ASSIGNMENT

The freedom of ‘profession’ means one’s right to state in public the creed he belongs to.
Moreover, the Court said that freedom of ‘practice’ means one’s right to worship in private or
public. It was further explained that the right to propagate one’s religion gives one the right to
convey his/her religious beliefs to another individual but not to convert a person to one’s
religion.

1.2 Alex has committed offence of Hate speech

1.2.1 The counsel humbly submits that Alex has committed offence of hate speech under Section
295 –A of IPC as he has given derogatory remarks on the particular religion and targeted the
religion he is punishable under section 295-A of the IPC and has committed the offence under
this section which clearly anyone who will insult specific religious beliefs and feelings of any
religion and this matter religious beliefs and sentiments have been violated.

1.2.2 It is important to note the case Ram Manohar Lohiya v.State of Bihar 3 in which the
Supreme Court held that:

In this case it was held that hate speech must incite violence in public or public order and in this
matter and mere criticism does not amount to hate speech in this matter Alex has given
derogatory remarks on the particular religion which caused public disorder so it is well
established fact that Alex is punishable under Section 295-A of IPC.

1.2.3 The counsel humbly submits that speech of Alex comes under the scope of section 295-A
of the IPC because it fulfils all the ingredients related to section 295-A as he targeted a particular
religion and insulted the religious beliefs of people as it is well established fact that his speech
was against the religion of people so he will punishable under section 295-A of IPC.

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

3 1966 AIR 740, 1966 SCR (1) 709

9
 BBD UNIVERISTY MOOT COURT ASSIGNMENT

2.1.1 The counsel humbly submits that balance between freedom of expression and societal can
be maintained by the citizens and by imposing reasonable on the speeches of a person the
purpose enacting laws related to hate speech was to stop the communal violence and public order
caused due to the speech of a person.

2.1.2 It is most humbly submitted that societal harmony and freedom of expression both these
terms have distinct meaning societal harmony maintaining peace in the society freedom of
expression means everyone freedom to express his views but there are reasonable restrictions
imposed on the people on this fundamental right because some speeches are the reason of
inciting violence in the society so Article 19(2) imposes restriction the freedom of speech that is
how balance is maintained between freedom speech and societal harmony.

2.1.3 It is pertinent here to take into the account of the case Prabhu Dutt v.Union of India in
which the Hon’ble Supreme court held that right to reasonable restriction can be imposed in the
interest of society and as in this matter it was opined that the speech of Alex was against the
religion and religious beliefs which caused violence and public disturbance in the country.

2.1.4 It is most humbly submitted that the balance freedom expression and societal harmony only
be maintained imposing restriction on certain rights so that no one in the does the thing which
cause disharmony among various members of society.

PRAYER

10
 BBD UNIVERISTY MOOT COURT ASSIGNMENT

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 not 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 maintained
by reasonable restrictions on the rights of the people.
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 pra

TAQ-275, Counsels for the

DEFENDANT

SUBMITTED BY

11
BBD UNIVERISTY MOOT COURT ASSIGNMENT

NAME: ANANYA SINGH

ROLL NO: 1200992019

COURSE: BA.LLB 4th year 7th Semester

SUBMITTED TO

NAME: Mrs Vasundhra Garg

Assistant Professor BBD UNIVERISTY

12
BBD UNIVERISTY MOOT COURT ASSIGNMENT

13
BBD UNIVERISTY MOOT COURT ASSIGNMENT

14
BBD UNIVERISTY MOOT COURT ASSIGNMENT

15