BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA,

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

UNDER ARTICLE 132 AND 134 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. ___ /2024

STATE OF RAMIL WADU …….………………………………......

APPELLANT
VS.

RAHUL……………..…..……………………..... RESPONDENT

(MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT)

SUBMITTED BY: ABHISHEK RISHI ([Link] LL.B (H) 1905150005)

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 5

STATEMENT OF FACTS 6

ISSUES RAISED 8

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 9

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 12

1. Can the SC hear the State's appeal against the HC's decision? 12
2. Was the HC right to overturn the lower court's conviction of Rahul? 14
3. Does the case involve any time limitations related to the Limitation Act? 15
4. Does Rahul require official permission to be prosecuted considering his position as
a state assembly member? 16
5. Is the government obligated to implement the recommendations of the Justice
Viswanathan Commission? 17
PRAYER 18

2
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

IEA Indian Evidence Act

u/s Under Sec.

Hon’ble Honourable

v./ v/s Versus

Anr. Another

Govt. Government

HC High court

SC Supreme court

Sec. Sec.

Rs. Rupees

g. Gram

no. Number

SCC SC Cases

Ltd. Limited

App. Application

3
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES:

1) Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)

2) Criminal Procedure Code,1973 (CrPC)
3) Constitution of India, 1950

BOOKS AND DIGESTS:

1) Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, LexisNexis, 32nd edition.
2) B. M Gandhi, The Indian Penal Code, EBC Explorer, 4th edition
3) Indian Penal Code, K D Gaur, 7th edition.
4) R.V. Kelkar’s Criminal Procedure
5) The Code of Criminal Procedure- Ratanlal and Dhirajlal
6) CrPC by DurgaDasBasu
7) Durga Das Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India, 1950
8) M P Jain, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, LexisNexis India

LIST OF CASES:
1) Amish Devgan v. Union of India. (2020) SCC ONLINE SC 994
2) Centre for public interest litigation v. Union Of India, AIR 2005 SC 4413.
3) D Devaraja Vs Obais Sanders Hussain, Criminal Appeal No. 458 OF 2020
4) M/S North Eastern Chemicals Industries (P) Ltd.& Anr Vs M/S Ashok Paper Mill
(Assam) Ltd. & An, Civil Appeal No. 2669 of 2013
5) Manzar Sayeed Khan vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr, AIR 2007 SC 2074
6) Shambhoo Nath Misra Vs State of UP, AIR 1997 SC 2102
7) Shadakshari Vs State of Karnataka & Anr, Criminal Appeal No. 256 of 2024
8) Sir Chunilal V. Mehta and sons Ltd. v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co, 1962
Supp (3) SCR 549
9) SBI v. Sundara Money, (1976) 1 SCC 822
10) State of Maharastra v. R.S. Nayak, AIR 1982 SC 1249
11) State of Orissa Vs Ganesh Chandra Jew, 2004 SCC (Cri) 2104
12) Union of India v. Hafiz Mohd, 1973 SCC OnLine Delhi 182

4
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Appellant have approached the SC by filing the present appeal u/a 132 and 134 of the
constitution of India challenging the order of acquittal passed by the HC.

5
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

 Rahul, a prominent businessman who transitioned into politics, resides in the village of
Mylapore in the State of Ramil [Link], an industrialist, owned multiple industries
with large workforces and trade unions associated with political groups. A walkout
occurred at Mr. Raghuvanshi's factory due to the refusal to provide bonuses and
incentives. Labor unrest, chanting of slogans, and disorder occurred. Babu Shankar, the
trade union leader, was associated with Samaj Saghatan, the opposition party that was
a fierce competitor of Janata Morcha, the ruling [Link] February 2, 2022, the situation
was very chaotic, so the local police enforced Sec. 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code
and detained certain laborers under Sec. 151 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Many
laborers were detained for longer than the time allowed by [Link]. Rahul utilized his
power and influence to quash the protest. A family member of a worker filed a Habeas
Corpus suit on February 6, 2022, under Article 226 and 227 of the Chennai HC at Ramil
Wadu, challenging the detention of multiple workers and seeking compensation.

 The Chief Justice-led Shennai Bench approved the petition, granted relief to the
petitioners' requests, and paid compensation. The Trade Union leader Babu Shankar
requested the leader of the opposition in the Ramil Wadu legislature to initiate a
discussion on Rahul's excessive influence and its negative impact on poor laborers. The
Assembly erupted in outrage, calling for the resignation of Rahul from his position as
the head of the standing committee on Education and Environment. Rahul remained
persistent. This resulted in social turmoil. Rahul delivered a public speech at Tradulai
Swamy stadium on February 16, 2022, where he referred to the Samaj Sanghtans
agitators as 'wild beasts' and encouraged Janata Morcha workers to respond strongly to
the demonstrators. This led to a commotion, law enforcement issues, casualties, and
property damage.

 Rahul's speech was considered a hate speech that incited hostility between two
populations, leading to his arrest under Sec. 153A of the Indian Penal Code. A First
Information Report (FIR) was filed against him on February 17, 2022. The media
provided continuous coverage of the violent episodes. The opposition requested an
investigation into the incidents and strongly advocated for the establishment of a

6
 commission. The Ruling Party, Janata Morcha, established a Commission on 1st April,
2022, led by retired judge Justice Vishwanath, to promptly investigate this subject. The
commission presented its report to the House on June 30, 2022. The commission report
was heavily disputed during the election and then postponed. Samaj Sanghatan gained
control, resulting in Muthuswamy Nair being appointed as Chief Minister in November
2022. The commission report was revisited and discussed in the House amidst
interruptions.
 Rahul was charged under Sec. 153 A of the Indian Penal Code and a First Information
Report (FIR) was filed against him on February 17, 2022. However, he was not detained
because of political connections. The Home Minister requested the arrest of Rahul, who
was subsequently apprehended and brought before a magistrate on November 12, 2022.
The magistrate acknowledged the complaint and sentenced Rahul to 3 years in jail on
December 18, 2022. The order was contested in the sessions court on December 22,
2022, where it was affirmed. Subsequently, it was challenged in the Chennai HC on
December 27, 2022. The HC accepted the appeal on 16th July, 2023, overturned Rahul's
conviction, and determined that the lower courts had made a significant mistake in their
rulings. In August 2023, the State appealed the HC's decision to acquit in the SC of
India.

7
 ISSUES RAISED

1. Can the SC hear the State's appeal against the HC's decision?
2. Was the HC right to overturn the lower court's conviction of Rahul?
3. Does the case involve any time limitations related to the Limitation Act?
4. Does Rahul require official permission to be prosecuted considering his position as a
state assembly member?
5. Is the government obligated to implement the recommendations of the Justice
Viswanathan Commission?

8
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1) Can the SC hear the State's appeal against the HC's decision?

It is humbly submitted before the court that the appeal is maintainable. The State can appeal to
the SC under Article 134(1)(b)1. This article allows an appeal against an acquittal by a HC if it
involves a question of law of exceptional importance.
It is humbly submitted that Article 132 empowers the SC to hear appeals from HCs in certain
cases, specifically those cases which involve substantial questions of law as to the
interpretation of the Constitution. The SC may grant a certificate of appeal to a case if it deems
fit. Cases involving constitutional matters, such as the interpretation of fundamental rights or
the division of powers between the Centre and the States, often fall under this article.

It is submitted the interpretation and application of Sec. 153A, a crucial provision safeguarding
public order and harmony, are crucial. The HC's judgment on the specific words and context
used by Raghuvanshi in his speech, and their potential to incite violence or promote enmity
between communities, raises a substantial question of law.

Further, the test of the phrase used by him i.e "Wild Creatures" as Hate Speech involves a
substantial question of law or not is a question for maintainability under Article 132 read with
134A. It is submitted that the HC's interpretation of the phrase "wild creatures" used by
Raghuvanshi, and its finding that it doesn't constitute hate speech, raises a substantial question
of law. This phrase has the potential to dehumanize and demonize a specific group, potentially
leading to violence and discrimination.

2) Was the HC right to overturn the lower court's conviction of Rahul?

It is submitted that the HC is not justified in setting aside the session court’s order. The HC has
made a gross error by overruling the conviction passed by the lower court and acquitting him
on 16th July, 2023.

1
Constitution of India

9
It is submitted that the potential impact of the judgment involves a substantial question of law
and therefore the appeal is maintainable. The HC's judgment, if not reviewed, could create a
dangerous precedent where similar inflammatory language, even if deemed offensive, might
not be considered hate speech. This raises a substantial question of law with far-reaching
consequences for maintaining public order and social harmony.
It is further submitted that the Conflicting Judgments on Hate Speech also involves a
substantial question of law and therefore the appeal is maintainable. The HC's interpretation
might conflict with judgments delivered by other HCs or the SC on interpreting and applying
Sec. 153A in specific situations. This creates legal uncertainty and necessitates a clear and
uniform interpretation by the SC, raising a substantial question of law.

3) Does the case have anything pertaining to limitation act or has time barred as per
the relevant legal provisions?

It is submitted that the case does not involve anything pertaining to limitation act or has time
barred as per the relevant legal provisions.
It is submitted that delay doesn't bar prosecution. The mere delay in arrest, even due to political
influence, does not automatically bar prosecution. The focus should be on whether a fair trial
remains possible.

4) Does Rahul require official permission to be prosecuted considering his position as

a state assembly member?

It is submitted that the speech wasn't part of any official duty as an MLA but a political
rally unrelated to his legislative responsibilities. Even if it can be loosely connected to his
duty, the speech isn't protected under Sec. 197 as it violated the public servant's expected
conduct and potentially caused harm.

It is submitted that the Hate Speech goes Beyond official duty. Rahul's alleged hate speech
falls outside the scope of "official duty" as envisaged in Sec. 197. The speech, being
inflammatory and potentially inciting violence, cannot be considered a legitimate function
of an MLA.

10
 5) Is the government obligated to implement the recommendations of the Justice
Viswanathan Commission?

It is submitted that Justice Viswanathan Commission was a fact-finding commission

constituted by the ruling party (Janata Morcha). Such commissions are not courts and their
reports aren't legally binding on the government. They serve an advisory purpose, providing
insights and recommendations for further action.

It is submitted that the commission, constituted by the then-ruling party, might have been
susceptible to political influence. This raises concerns about potential bias in its
findings, impacting their reliability and weight in influencing government action.

11
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. Can the SC hear the State's appeal against the HC's decision?

It is submitted that the appeal is maintainable. The State can appeal to the SC under Article
134(1)(b)2. This article allows an appeal against an acquittal by a HC if it involves a question
of law of exceptional importance.

It is humbly submitted that Article 132 empowers the SC to hear appeals from HCs in certain
cases, specifically those cases which involve substantial questions of law as to the
interpretation of the Constitution. The SC may grant a certificate of appeal to a case if it deems
fit. Cases involving constitutional matters, such as the interpretation of fundamental rights or
the division of powers between the Centre and the States, often fall under this article.

It is further submitted that Article 134 deals with the “appellate jurisdiction of the SC in
granting special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order
in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India”. The
SC has discretion in granting such special leave, and generally, cases that raise substantial
questions of law of general importance or cases involving grave injustice fall under this
provision.

It is submitted that the HC's judgment overturning the lower court convictions raises a question
of law of exceptional importance regarding the interpretation of Sec. 153A of the IPC and its
application in this specific case.

Moreover the potential impact of the HC's decision on similar cases and the need for national
uniformity in interpreting such provisions justify the SC's intervention.

Article 132 (2) clarifies that any party appealing may “urge as one of the grounds” in the appeal
that “a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution has been wrongly
decided.”3

It is submitted that the three Judge-Bench of SC interpreted Art. 133(1) in SBI v. Sundara
Money4, “A significant legal issue of broad importance is essential to demonstrate suitability

2
Constitution of India
3
Sec. 109 read with Order XLV of the CPC, 1908
4
SBI v. Sundara Money, (1976) 1 SCC 822

12
for a hearing by the Supreme Court. Moreover, the question must be of significant importance
and deep meaning, requiring resolution at the national level by the highest court.”

While interpreting the term “needs to be decided by the SC”, the Court in Sundara Money
thereafter approvingly quoted the decision of the Delhi HC in Union of India v. Hafiz Mohd.
Said5,”...moreover, the word 'needs' implies that the SC must reach a decision on the subject.
This requirement can be argued to exist when, for example, HC takes one of two potential
positions on the question. It is also possible to say that such a necessity exists when another
HC has a different opinion.”

In Sir Chunilal V. Mehta and sons Ltd. v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co.6, the
Constitutional Bench of the SC held, “In our view, the correct way to determine if a legal issue
in the case is significant is to look at whether it's a matter of public interest, if it has a direct
and substantial impact on the parties' rights, and if it's either an open question that hasn't been
resolved by the federal court, the Privy Council, or this Court, or if it's difficult or requires
alternative perspectives to be considered. The question does not constitute a substantial matter
of law if it has already been decided by the highest court, if the general principles to be
employed in deciding the question are well-established and the only issue is how to apply those
principles, or if the argument put up is obviously ridiculous.”

It is submitted the interpretation and application of Sec. 153A, a crucial provision safeguarding
public order and harmony, are crucial. The HC's judgment on the specific words and context
used by Raghuvanshi in his speech, and their potential to incite violence or promote enmity
between communities, raises a substantial question of law.

Further, the test of the phrase used by him i.e "Wild Creatures" as Hate Speech involves a
substantial question of law or not is a question for maintainability under Article 132 read with
134A. It is submitted that the HC's interpretation of the phrase "wild creatures" used by
Raghuvanshi, and its finding that it doesn't constitute hate speech, raises a substantial question
of law. This phrase has the potential to dehumanize and demonize a specific group, potentially
leading to violence and discrimination.

It is further submitted that a balance between Freedom of Speech and Public Order involves a
substantial question of law and therefore the appeal is maintainable before the SC under Article
132 read with 134A. The HC's judgment needs to be examined in the context of balancing the

5
Union of India v. Hafiz Mohd, 1973 SCC OnLine Delhi 182
6
Sir Chunilal V. Mehta and sons Ltd. v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co, 1962 Supp (3) SCR 549

13
fundamental right to freedom of speech u/a 19(1)(a) and the need to maintain public order and
prevent violence. This involves interpreting the reasonable restrictions imposed on free speech
u/a 19(2), raising a substantial question of law.

2. Was the HC right to overturn the lower court's conviction of Rahul?

It is submitted that the HC is not justified in setting aside the session court’s order. The HC has
made a gross error by overruling the conviction passed by the lower court and acquitting him
on 16th July, 2023.

It is submitted that the potential impact of the judgment involves a substantial question of law
and therefore the appeal is maintainable. The HC's judgment, if not reviewed, could create a
dangerous precedent where similar inflammatory language, even if deemed offensive, might
not be considered hate speech. This raises a substantial question of law with far-reaching
consequences for maintaining public order and social harmony.

It is further submitted that the Conflicting Judgments on Hate Speech also involves a
substantial question of law and therefore the appeal is maintainable. The HC's interpretation
might conflict with judgments delivered by other HCs or the SC on interpreting and applying
Sec. 153A in specific situations. This creates legal uncertainty and necessitates a clear and
uniform interpretation by the SC, raising a substantial question of law.

It is submitted that as in the case of Manzar Sayeed Khan vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr7, the
Apex Court stated that “it is the duty of the prosecution to prima facie establish the mens rea of
the accused to cause enmity between different classes of people in Sec. 153A IPC.”

In the present case also, the facts clearly shows that Rahul had the mens rea as even after there
was huge furor amongst the two communities and the speech made by him at Tradulai Swamy
stadium on February 16, 2022, where he referred to the Samaj Sanghtans agitators as 'wild
beasts' and encouraged Janata Morcha workers to respond strongly to the demonstrators. This
led to a commotion, law enforcement issues, casualties, and property damage. Rahul's speech
was considered a hate speech that incited hostility between two populations, leading to his
arrest under Sec. 153A of the Indian Penal Code. A First Information Report (FIR) was filed
against him on February 17, 2022.

7
Manzar Sayeed Khan vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr, AIR 2007 SC 2074

14
It is submitted that it can be seen that Rahul had the mens rea and he did he same with the intent
to violate 153 of the IPC.

The SC in Amish Devgan v. UOI8 emphasized “the crucial element of intent in the context of
Sec. 153A of the law. The court defined 'public tranquillity' as being closely related to 'public
order', clarifying that ordinary legal issues do not fall within the scope of public tranquillity.
The court explicitly declared that any misuse of this Sec. should not be tolerated under any
circumstances.”

3. Does the case involve any time limitations related to the Limitation Act?

It is submitted that the case does not involve anything pertaining to limitation act or has time
barred as per the relevant legal provisions.

It is submitted that delay doesn't bar prosecution. The mere delay in arrest, even due to political
influence, does not automatically bar prosecution. The focus should be on whether a fair trial
remains possible.

It is submitted that A two Judge Bench of the SC comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and
Sanjay Karol passed a Judgment dated 11.12.2023 in a recent case of M/S North Eastern
Chemicals Industries (P) Ltd.& Anr Vs M/S Ashok Paper Mill (Assam) Ltd. & Anr. 9 and
observed that when a general or specific law doesn’t specify a time limit for filing an appeal,
the Court must decide whether to allow the appeal or not based on the facts and circumstances
of the case and whether the delay could prejudice the other party.

Moreover it is further submitted that there was a Reasonable delay. The nine-month delay in
arrest was reasonable, considering factors like investigation, gathering evidence, and political
complexities. The HC accepted the appeal on 16th July, 2023, overturned Rahul's conviction,
and determined that the lower courts had made a significant mistake in their rulings. In August
2023, the State appealed the HC's decision to acquit in the SC of India.

It is submitted that there is no delay in filing the appeal before the SC against the order of the
HC.

8
Amish Devgan v. Union of India. (2020) SCC ONLINE SC 994
9
M/S North Eastern Chemicals Industries (P) Ltd.& Anr Vs M/S Ashok Paper Mill (Assam) Ltd. & An, Civil
Appeal No. 2669 of 2013

15
4. Does Rahul require official sanction to be prosecuted considering his
position as a state assembly member?

It is submitted that the speech wasn't part of any official duty as an MLA but a political rally
unrelated to his legislative responsibilities. Even if it can be loosely connected to his duty, the
speech isn't protected under Sec. 197 as it violated the public servant's expected conduct and
potentially caused harm.

It is submitted that the Hate Speech goes Beyond official duty. Rahul's alleged hate speech
falls outside the scope of "official duty" as envisaged in Sec. 197. The speech, being
inflammatory and potentially inciting violence, cannot be considered a legitimate function of
an MLA.

In State of Maharastra v. R.S. Nayak10 it was held that “Protection under Sec. 197 is applicable
only where the alleged act carried out by a public servant is reasonably linked to the
performance of their official responsibilities. To ensure the proper functioning of democratic
governance, the Governor must act independently in this situation.”

It is submitted that there was no Bona Fide discharge of official duty. Even if the speech was
loosely connected to Rahul's political affiliation, it wasn't a bona fide discharge of his official
duties as an MLA. It was an act with potentially harmful consequences, exceeding the expected
conduct of a public servant.

Rahul's case falls under the exception outlined in Sec. 197(3) of the CrPC, which exempts
offenses punishable under Sec. 153A of the IPC (promoting enmity) from the requirement of
prior sanction.

It is submitted that in the case of 'Shambhoo Nath Misra Vs State of UP'11 and 'D Devaraja Vs
Obais Sanders Hussain'12 and 'State of Orissa Vs Ganesh Chandra Jew'13, the bench said, “This
court has consistently ruled that Sec. 197 CrPC does not provide protection for every action
or inaction of a public servent during their service. It applies only to actions or failures to act
carried out by public officials while performing their official responsibilities”.

10
State of Maharastra v. R.S. Nayak, AIR 1982 SC 1249
11
Shambhoo Nath Misra Vs State of UP, AIR 1997 SC 2102
12
D Devaraja Vs Obais Sanders Hussain, Criminal Appeal No. 458 OF 2020
13
State of Orissa Vs Ganesh Chandra Jew, 2004 SCC (Cri) 2104

16
The bench said, “The ambit, scope and effect of Sec. 197 CrPC has received considerable
attention of this court. It is not necessary to advert to and dilate on all such decisions. Suffice
it to say that the object of such sanction for prosecution is to protect a public servant
discharging official duties and functions from undue harassment by initiation of frivolous
criminal proceedings.”14

5. Is the government obligated to implement the recommendations of the

Justice Viswanathan Commission?

It is submitted that Justice Viswanathan Commission was a fact-finding commission

constituted by the ruling party (Janata Morcha). Such commissions are not courts and their
reports aren't legally binding on the government. They serve an advisory purpose, providing
insights and recommendations for further action.

It is submitted that the commission, constituted by the then-ruling party, might have been
susceptible to political influence. This raises concerns about potential bias in its
findings, impacting their reliability and weight in influencing government action.

It is submitted that the State has the right to conduct its own independent investigation into the
incident. This independent investigation can be based on witness testimonies, forensic
evidence, and other relevant information, potentially leading to conclusions that might differ
from the commission's report.

It is submitted that the change in government after the commission's report. Samaj
Sanghatan, the opposition party at the time of the commission, is now in power. They might
have a different perspective on the incident and how to address it, necessitating a fresh analysis
based on their priorities.

It is submitted that even if the commission's findings aren't legally binding, they can still hold
substantial weight. Judicial intervention might be sought if the government's reasons for
disregarding the report are deemed arbitrary or unreasonable. Additionally, the media and civil
society can exert public pressure on the government to consider and implement the
commission's recommendations, especially if they resonate with the public interest.

14
Shadakshari Vs State of Karnataka & Anr, Criminal Appeal No. 256 of 2024

17
 PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced, authorities cited, the
Appellant respectfully requests this Court to adjudge and declare that:

1) the Supreme Court can hear the State's appeal against the High Court's decision
2) the High Court was not right to overturn the lower court's conviction of Rahul
3) the case does not involves a time limitations related issue and should be dismissed
4) Rahul does not a require official sanction to be prosecuted considering his position as
a state assembly member
5) the government is not obligated to be bound by the recommendations of the Justice
Viswanathan Commission

18
And subsequently uphold the judgment/order passes by the session’s court and dismiss the suo
moto case of the accused.

And any other relief in favour of the Respondent that the court may deem fit. All of which is
most humbly submitted.

- On behalf of the Appellant

19