TEAM CODE:

IN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

PETITION NO. ___/2017

IN THE MATTER OF

Dr. SAMEER........................................................................................... Appellant

VERSUS

UNION OF EUPHORIA.................................................................. Respondent

THE 2ndSIR SYED NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2017

 INDEX

INDEX OF
AUTHORITIES.2

TABLE OF
CASES...3

STATEMENT OF
JURISDICTION.4

STATEMENT OF
FACTS...5

STATEMENT OF
ISSUES..6

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.......................................................................................7

ARGUMENTS
ADVANCED........8

CONTENTION 1: WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY AS CHARGED UNDER

THE GIVEN SECTIONS OF THE EPC, 1860, UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES
(PREVENTION) ACT, 1967 AND THE EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES ACT, 1908 BY
THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF HEPTANESIA.

CONTENTION 2: THAT THE BAN IMPOSED ON MRO AND ITS TV CHANNEL

IS JUSTIFIED OR NOT?

Prayer .6

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT Page i

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Statutes:

Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Indian Penal Code, 1860
The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
Explosive Substances Act, 1908
Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 1976
The Constitution of India, 1950

Books referred:

M.MONIR. CJ, Law of Evidence 163, Universal Law Publishing Co.(16th.ed.,2013)

Dr. Hari Singh Gours, Penal Law of India, Law Publishers (India) Pvt. Ltd., (ed. 11
vol.3)
K.D Gaur, The Indian Penal Code, Universal Law Publishing Co., (2 ed.)
Durga Das Basu, Shirter Consitution of India, LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa
Nagpur, (14th ed. 2009 Vol. 1)
M.P Jain, India Constitution of Law, LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur,( 6th
ed.,2010, Vol. 1)

Dictionary:

P. Ramanath Aiyaris, Concise Law Dictionary, ed.5, 2014

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page ii

 TABLE OF CASES

Rajwant Singh v. State of Kerala, A.I.R 1966 S.C. 1874 at p. 1878

.

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page iii

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Respondents have approached this Honble Apex Court under Article 136 of the
Constitution of Euphoria.

This is in response to the Special leave Petition admitted by the Honble Supreme Court of
Euphoria

Article 136 - Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its
discretion, grant 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.

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page iv

 FACTS OF THE CASE

Euphoria is a country with diverse population. Dr. Sameer belonging to the minority
community left his profession of doctor and started preaching Marsi religion.
He founded an organisation called MRO and launched its TV Channel. Objectives of
MRO were to conduct scientific research & promote Marsi religion. Dr. Sameer
would invite other religious scholars on his TV Channel and conducted debates on
religion with them.
Through his influential preaching 1 million people converted to Marsi religion. Out
of the profit earned of CDs and videos of his preaching, he also opened a Trust
called MRO Trust.
Terrorist attack took place in the neighbouring country of Kangla; group of six
gunmen killed several non-Marsis. Facebook profile of one of the assailants read that
he was influenced by the teachings of Dr. Sameer.
Meanwhile a bomb blast took place at the Central Railway Station of Heptanesia, the
capital of Euphoria where 12 people were killed and more than 30 injured.
Euphorian Revolutionaries, a terror outfit claimed responsibility by sending an email
from a cyber cafe near to MRO and a sim card registered under by the name of Dr.
Sameer was found on the site. During investigation explosives were found in HQ of
MRO. The donations taken by Dr. Sameer were in violations of FCRA.
Several complaints were registered against Dr. Sameer for outraging the religions Commented [nk1]: Call me for this

feelings. He was believed to be the mastermind of the attack and was arrested with
two other members of MRO. Investigation handed over to NIA and Dr. Sameer
confessed in front to NIA. In the Special NIA Court statements of 22 witnesses were
recorded by persecution.
The Sspecial Court afteron hearing the case and evaluating the evidences deposed
found all the three guilty u/s 121, 121A, 120B read with 302, 307, 325, 326 of the
EPC, sec. 16,17,18,39 and 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and sec. 3,
4(a)(b) and 6 of the Explosives Substances Act and sentenced them to death.
High Court of hapnesia upheld the same and aggrieved by the judgement of the HC. Formatted: Font color: Text 2

Dr. Sameer has approached the Apex Court of Euphoria.

Further a writ petition was filed by MRO in the SC against the ban on MRO and its
TV Channel by the government of Euphoria.

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page v

 Formatted: Justified, Space After: 0 pt, Line spacing: 1.5
lines, Bulleted + Level: 1 + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at:
0.5", No widow/orphan control

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page vi

 ISSUES RAISED Formatted: Font color: Text 1
Formatted: Space After: 0 pt, Bulleted + Level: 1 + Aligned
at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5", No widow/orphan control

1) WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY AS CHARGED UNDER THE

GIVEN SECTIONS OF THE EPC, 1860, UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES
(PREVENTION) ACT, 1967 AND THE EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES ACT,
1908 BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF HEPTANESIA.

A. That the accused is guilty under Sections 120B, 121, 121A of The Euphorian
Penal Code of 1860 or not?
B. That the accused is guilty under Sections 302, 307, 325 and 326 of The Euphorian
Penal Code of 1860 or not?
C. That the accused is guilty under Sections 16,17,18,39 and 40 of The Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967 or not?
D. That the accused is guilty under Sections 3, 4(a) (b) and 6 of The Explosives
Substances Act of 1908 or not?

2) WHETHER THAT THE BAN IMPOSED ON MRO AND ITS TV CHANNEL

IS JUSTIFIED OR NOT?

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page vii

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. THAT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY AS CHARGED UNDER THE GIVEN

SECTIONS OF THE EPC, 1860, UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION)
ACT, 1967 AND THE EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES ACT, 1908 BY THE
HONBLE HIGH COURT OF HEPTANESIA.

The charges against Dr. Sameer u/s 121, 121-A,120-B, r/w 302, 307, 325,326 of
Euphorian Penal Code, Sec- 16,17,18,39 and 40 of The Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act and Sec- 3,4(a) & (b) and 6 of Explosives Substances Act are
justified as his activities created an atmosphere of terror and unrest in the society.
Further arousing religions sentiments and harming the sovereignty and integrity of
the Euphoria by orchestrating terror attacks, killing people by using explosive
substances amounts to waging war. All these activities have been done with an
intention and conspiracy to terrorise the nation. Hence,, he is the master mind of the
attacks and is guilty of all the crimes against the state.

II. THAT THE WHETHER THAT THE BAN IMPOSED ON MRO AND ITS TV
CHANNEL IS JUSTIFIED OR NOT?

The ban imposed by the Government of Euphoria is justified. The freedom of

Speech and Expression, personal liberty, freedom of religion, freedom of association
were violated because of the activities of the members of the MRO which created
unrest in the society. Hence,, MRO and its TV channel should be banned.

Because of the blah blah blah activities, the ban was necessitated. Under Article 19(2) and
whatever other articles, reasonable restrictions have been imposed on the organisation on
the ground of .

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page viii

 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

CONTENTION 1: THAT THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY AS CHARGED UNDER THE

GIVEN SECTIONS OF THE EPC, 1860, UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION)
ACT, 1967 AND THE EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES ACT, 1908 BY THE HONBLE
HIGH COURT OF HEPTANESIA.

A. That the accused is guilty under Sections 120B, 121, 121A of The Euphorian Penal
Code of 1860.
B. That the accused is guilty under Sections 302, 307, 325 and 326 of The Euphorian
Penal Code of 1860.
C. That the accused is guilty under Sections 16,17,18,39 and 40 of The Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967.
D. That the accused is guilty under Sections 3,4(a) (b) and 6 of The Explosives
Substances Act of 1908.

A. That the accused is guilty under Sections 120B, 121, 121A of The Euphorian
Penal Code of 1860:
1) Presence of conspiracy
It is humbly submitted before the honble Supreme Court of Euphoria that the appellant; Dr
Sameer in this case is guilty under section 120B1, which lays down penal provisions for
criminal conspiracy which is defined under Section 120A of the EPC.

It is a clear case where from the facts of the case it is evident that there is a criminal
conspiracy. Criminal conspiracy is defined u/s 120A2 and its punishment is given u/s 120B3.

1
The Euphorian Penal Code, 1860
2
120A. Definition of criminal conspiracy.When two or more per-sons agree to do, or cause to be done,
an illegal act, or an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agree-ment is designated a criminal
conspiracy: Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal
conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in
pursuance thereof.
3
120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.- Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence
punishable with death, 2*[imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards,
shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in
the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page 1

In the present case there is a clear conspiracy against the Govt. of Euphoria. As per the
section 120A4 for a criminal conspiracy to happen there is a requirement for a minimum of
two persons and they should agree to do, or cause to be done an illegal act.

The Apex Court in E.G. Barsay V. State of Bombay5 held as under:

"The gist of the offence is an agreement to break the law. The parties to such an agreement
will be guilty of criminal conspiracy, though the illegal act agreed to be done has not been
done. So too, it is an ingredient of the offence that all the parties should agree to do a single
illegal act. It may comprise the commission of a number of acts. Under Section 436 of the
Indian Penal Code, an act would be illegal if it is an offence or if it is prohibited by law."
In the present case, the illegal act is the bomb blast7, which was planned and executed as a
part of the conspiracy among Dr. Sameer, Nayyar, Tipu and the neighbouring country of
Mankistan, which was believed to be sponsoring terrorism in Euphoria8. The conspiracy is
evident as they were receiving have been donations from Mankistan and also few of the
donations were in violation of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 20109.

In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa10the Supreme Court said that it is
not necessary for the prosecution to establish that a particular unlawful act was intended.

The Respondents place huge reliance on the case of State of NCT Delhi v. Navjot Sandhu @
Afsan Guru11 wherein the Supreme Court opined that a conspiracy is mostly proved by
circumstantial evidence; usually both the existence of conspiracy and its objects have to be
inferred from the circumstances and the conduct of the accused. Also, in the case of Nazir
Khan v. State of Delhi12 the Supreme Court held that it is a matter of common experience
that direct evidence to prove a conspiracy is rarely available. Privacy and secrecy are more

Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as
aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with
fine or with both.]
4
Supra note 3
5
AIR 1961 SC 1762
6
Illegal, Legally bound to do.The word illegal is applicable to everything which is an offence or which is
prohibited by law, or which furnishes ground for a civil action; and a person is said to be legally bound to do
whatever it is illegal in him to omit.
7
Fact sheet 6
8
Ibid.
9
ibid
10
AIR 1996 SC 1744
11
(2005) 11 SCC 600,
12
AIR 2003 SC 4427

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page 2

characteristic of a conspiracy than of a loud discussion in an elevated place open to public
view. So it is clear that there was a mala fide intention behind the blasts that shook the
national capital of Euphoria and that there was a conspiracy as to which the Special Court and
the honble High Court held Dr. Sameer guilty under section 120B of the EPC. This view of
the court was based on not only law but also as a matter of various events and evidences that
indicated that there was a conspiracy.

Since there was a criminal conspiracy as per section 120A13 the appellant was charged under
section 120B14. Relying on the view of the honble Supreme Court in the case of Ram
Narayan Popli v. CBI15where it said that Law making conspiracy a crime is designed to
curb immoderate power to do mischief which is gained by a combination of the means. The
encouragement and support which co-conspirators give to one another rendering enterprises
possible which, if left to individual effort, would have been impossible, furnish the ground
for visiting conspirators and abettors with condign (well deserved) punishment 16

In the instant case at hand from the factsheet it can be noted that there was RDX, explosive
substances and detonators found in the official premises of MRO. andFurthermore, there was
the seizure of various CDs and documents showing that there were transactions which were
from Mankistan and in violation of the FCRA, 2010 there is an indication that the MRO was
being used as a front to take in foreign aid to fund or to raise funds for unlawful activities that
would hurt the basic pillars of Euphorias being unity, integrity, sovereignty and harmony
and also the influence that Dr. Sameer exercised on his followers was helping their purpose.
The Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Usman Mohd. Hussain Maniyar v. State of
Maharashtra17 said that for an offence under section 120B18 the prosecution need not
necessarily prove that the conspirators expressly agreed to do or cause to be done the illegal
act, the agreement may be droved by necessary implications.
The respondents rely on the findings of the court in the case of Yakub Abdul RazakMemon
v. State of Maharashtra19wherein the court said that aiding or providing a free run to the

13
Supra note 2
14
Supra note 3
15
AIR 2003 SC 2748
16
Esher Singh v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2004 SC 3030, Sachin Jagdish Joshi v. State of Maharashtra,
AIR 2009 SC 2991
17
AIR 1981 SC 1062
18
Supra note 3
19
(2013) 13 SCC 1

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page 3

offenders shall constitute conspiracy. The accused in that case had provided the terrorists
with vehicle and helped them to hide in his house. Helping the conspirators of such a grave
crime makes him a co-conspirator.

In the case at hand Dr. Sameer who was the founder of MRO, aided the bomb blast that killed
12 innocent people and more than 30 were injured20, by using the MRO headquarters as a
forward base to store explosives and provide a quick launch pad. More over, the email
received by the police of Heptanesia by the Euphorian revolutionaries was later foundrealised
to be sent from a cyber caf situated near the Headquarters of MRO.21

2) Presence of motive

It is also submitted before the honble Court that, in a criminal case motive is of paramount
importance. Motive for doing a criminal act is generally a difficult area for prosecution. One
cannot normally see into the mind of another. Motive is the emotion which impels a man to
do a particular act. Such impelling cause need not necessarily be proportionately grave to do
grave crimes. Many a murders have been committed without any known or prominent
motive22. It is possible that the aforesaid impelling factor would remain undiscoverable 23.
Notwithstanding, in the present case there is a clear motive behind the commission of such a
grave crime of bomb blast.

In order to establish motive the perusal of the facts is very important. There were debates and
comparisons on the TV channel of MRO where in the religious scholars of non-Marsi
religion were called and there Dr. Sameer used to outplay them24.Furthermore,Also it is
clearly stated that there was a huge influence that the appellant exercised as a result of which
1 mMillion people had converted to Marsi religion but also there are other facts that cannot Formatted: Font color: Red

be ruled out here in order to show the motive, it is clear that the appellant did not just
propagate his religion but also tried to compare the other religion with his own and tried to
show supremacy of the Marsi religion over others. Also there was the shocking incidence of
the attack at a mall in Kangla25 a neighbouring country where in only non- marsis were killed

20
Supra note at 7
21
ibid
22
2 M.MONIR. CJ, Law of Evidence 163, universal Law Publishing Co.(16th.ed.,2013)
23
Ranganayaki v. State, AIR 2005 SC 418
24
Fact sheet 3
25
Fact sheet 5

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page 4

and one of the assailants Facebook profile readclearly stated that he was influenced by the
teachings of the appellant26, the question which arises here is that what was the appellant
saying in his videos that lead to such an act of terrorism, also its of pertinence here that why
only non- Marsis were killed. Tthere has to be something in the videos of Dr. Sameer that
created such discontentment between Marsis and non-Marsis, even after knowing that
Euphoria was a non-Marsi dominated country still he propagated such videos.

It is clear that his motive was not just to propagate his religion but to hit the unity and
harmony between people in Euphoria and also to hinder the functioning of Government. The
various cases regarding outraging the religious beliefs27 are an important fact as here Dr.
Sameer was using his religion and religious influence as a weapon against the very pillars of
a democracy.

The ban imposed on the MRO and the TV Channel aggravated their anti-national thoughts
against the State of Euphoria, which was a Non-Marsi dominated nation. As a result the
bomb blasts were carried out in Heptenasia, the national capital of Euphoria, in order to show
the Government the consequence of their act of banning the MRO and the TV channel 28
without giving any importance to the human life and society. Also, after taking into account
all the facts and circumstances the motive was to wage war against Government of Euphoria
for the act which was done in order to safeguard the sentiments of the people of Euphoria, to
maintain the proper functioning of the Government and to safeguard unity, harmony, integrity
and sovereignty by creating a war like situation which was violative of sections 121 and since
there was a criminal conspiracy with this regard it was also violative of section 121A of the
EPC.

The blasts were carried out with sophisticated explosives and in an area which was more or
less run by Government, which was located in the National Capital of Euphoria. An attack at
the national capital was a challenge to the sovereignty of Euphoria, an attack which was of
serious nature and needed to be answered with an answer which not just settles this case but
also makes sure that such act will be taken as a crime against state and shall be punished
accordingly.

26
ibid
27
Fact sheet 7
28
Supra note at 24

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page 5

The Supreme Court in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu29made it clear that an attack
against the sovereignty will come under the purview of section 121. Something which is
common in both the cases is that both the attacks were carried out in the respective National
Capitals. Also the motive becomes strong as circumstantial evidence and facts support the
claim of the State. Also the confession regarding appellants involvement in the bomb blasts30
cannot be ruled out. Avarice, love, hatred, jealous and revenge are the mainsprings of human
action.31

It is humbly submitted before the honble Court that in the present case at hand Dr. Sameer
has committed a crime against the State of Euphoria, by attempting to wage war and for
abetment to wage war against the State of Euphoria. This is punishable under Section 121 32
and since the criminal conspiracy has been proved and the illegal act attracting section 121A,
is the bomb blast at the entrance of the Central Railway Station of the National Capital with a
motive to hurt the basic pillars of a nation; integrity, sovereignty, unity, harmony and also
tried to hinder the normal functioning of the government by putting a scar on the National
Capital, from where the whole government machinery works. If we try to analyse the
situation there at the station entrance there must be a security arrangement with regard to the
Manual for Standards and Specifications for Railway Stations.33 So in order to target them
along with the innocent people of Euphoria the blast was carried out there. The true rule is
that where the injury caused is not the result of accident or of negligence, a strong
presumption arises that the injury caused was intended to be caused, though this presumption
may be rebutted by other circumstances, the motive of the accused, the nature of the
instrument of attack, the time and the place of attack, the position and condition of the
deceased, the number of injuries, the force used etc.34

In 1820 Lord President Hope, in his charge to the Jury in B. v. Wilson35observed:

The circumstances necessary to constitute a levying of war is not that there shall be regular
trained force, nor a regular army, and, indeed, from the nature of the thing in common sense,
I am sure it must strike you that, except where a foreign enemy invades the country, war

29
(2005) 11 SCC 600
30
Supra note at 26
31
Dr. Hari Singh Gours,Penal Law of India,ed.11, volume 4,pg(2421)
32
33
MINISTRY OF MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS (RAILWAY BOARD) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA DEVELOPMENT OF WORLD
CLASS STATIONS THROUGH PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP MANUAL FOR STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS
FOR RAILWAY STATIONS June 2009.
34
Behari v. State, A.I.R 1953 All.203, Faqira v. State A.I.R. 1955 All.321 at p.323 (D.B).
35
(1820) 1st. Tr. (N.S.) at pp. 1353, 1354.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page 6

never can be levied in that manner in the commencement of an insurrection. I lay down, as
the undoubted law of the land, that the smallest body which rises in arms to effectuate a
general purpose is treasonable, and constitute a levying of war. In Maganlal Radha Krishan
v. Emperor36 the Supreme Court said No specific number of persons is necessary to
constitute the offence of waging war, the number of persons concerned and the manner in
which they are equipped is immaterial; the true criterion is Quo Animo, which means with
what intent. The intent was clear to attack and disrupt the governmental authorities and also
to create a war like situation. Also it was the NIA which saved the furtherance of such attacks
by seizing the RDX, explosive substances and detonators which were in the official premises
of the MRO, which must have been kept to further shock Euphoria. Circumstances are
sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused.37

Under section 838 any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for
any fact in issue or relevant fact39.Motive is defined as that which moves or induces a
person to act in a certain way40. It is thus that which is in his mind and which moves him to
act, and whether the belief which produces that state of mind is true or false; the motive
remains same, and the truth or falsity of the belief is not really in question. 41 Also relying on
where there is other evidence of the guilt of an accused person, the existence of motive is a
circumstance corroborative of the case against him.42 In the present case it can be seen
whether there was a motive or not but other circumstances mentioned in the facts of the case;
the seizure of RDX, explosives and detonators43 provide for clear evidence against the
appellant.

It has been consistently laid down by the Supreme Court that where a case rests squarely on
circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating
facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the
guilt of any other person.44

36
AIR 1946 Nag. 126
37
Ibid.
38
Evidence Act, 1872
39
2 M.MONIR. CJ, Law of Evidence 161, universal Law Publishing Co.(16th.ed.,2013)
40
GangaramHariParik v. E., 62 IC 545
41
Ibid
42
Atley v. State, AIR 1955 SC 807
43
Supra note at 7
44
Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR (1977 SC 1063);

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page 7

Supreme Court in the case of Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathodvs State Of Gujarat45said
that if the said evidence has been found to be credible, cogent and trustworthy for the purpose
of recording conviction, to treat that evidence as a mitigating circumstance, would amount to
consideration of an irrelevant aspect. Also the prosecution is not bound to prove motive of
any offence in a criminal case, in as much as motive is known only to the perpetrator of the
crime and may not be known to others. If the motive is proved by the prosecution, the court
has to consider it and see whether it is adequate.46

The Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Amir Ajmal Kasab v. State of Maharashtra 47said
that the question that arises for consideration, therefore, is what is the true import of the
expression Government of India? In its narrower sense, Government of India is only the
executive limb of the State. It comprises a group of people, the administrative bureaucracy
that controls the executive functions and powers of the State at a given time. Different
governments, in continuous succession, serve the State and provide the means through which
the executive power of the State is employed. The expression Government of India is
surely not used in this narrow and restricted sense in Section 121. In our considered view, the
expression Government of India is used in Section 121 to imply the Indian State, the
juristic embodiment of the sovereignty of the country that derives its legitimacy from the
collective will and consent of its people. The use of the phrase Government of India to
signify the notion of sovereignty is consistent with the principles of Public International Law,
wherein sovereignty of a territorial unit is deemed to vest in the people of the territory and
exercised by a representative government.

Any international convention not inconsistent with the fundamental rights and in harmony
with its spirit must be read into those provisions to enlarge the meaning and content thereof,
to promote the object of the Constitutional guarantee.48

It has been consistently laid down by the Supreme Court that where a case rests squarely on
circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating
facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the
guilt of any other person.49

45
(2011) 2 SCC 764
46
State of Haryana v. Sher Singh, AIR 1981 SC 1021
47
(2012) 9 SCC 1
48
Visakha v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011
49
Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR (1977 SC 1063);

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page 8

Section 320 of Indian Penal Code,1860 defines Grievous hurt and section 325 Punishment
for voluntarily causing grievous hurt. Section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven
years, and shall also be liable to fine. Section 326. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by
dangerous weapons or means.

B. That Dr. Sameer is liable under Sections; 302, 307, 325 and 326 of the EPC:

Its humbly submitted before the honble Supreme Court that doctor Sameer in order to
wage a war against the State of Euphoria used the blood of the innocent people to colour the
national capital red. He is guilty for the murder of 12 people under section 302 of the EPC
and he is also guilty for injuring 30 people under sections 307, 325 and 326 of the EPC.
Humanitarian consideration was not at all present in the case at hand.

The intention and knowledge of the accused are subjective and invisible states of mind and
their existence has to be gathered from the circumstances such as weapon used the ferocity of
the attack, multiciplity of injuries and all other surrounding circumstances as compared to
knowledge intention requires something more than the mere foresight off the consequences
namely; the purposeful doing of a thing to achieve a particular end50.

In the present case a bomb blast was carried out least realising that who so ever whether
children, women, old aged people and men will come in the blast radius of the bomb will die
or at the least be grievously injured.

Section 302: Punishment for murder, whoever commits murder shall be punished with death,
or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

It is humbly submitted before this honble court that the accused is liable for murder, and
all the other charges against the accused are true. Section 30051of IPC: according to this
there should be intention present of the murderer while committing the murder. Culpable
homicide is murder if the act by which death is caused is done with the intention of
causing death. The mental element in culpable homicide i.e. the mental attitude of the

50
K.D Gaur, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE< Universal Publishing Co., New Delhi, 757, 2nd e.d.(2013)
51
Section 300 of IPC: Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which
the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page 9

 agent towards the consequences of his conduct is one of intention or knowledge or
both.52

Intention To Cause Death:

An intention to kill a person brings the matter so clearly within the general principal of
mens reaas to cause no difficulty.53 Austin defined intention as the aim of the act, of
which the motive is the spring.54 It is most humbly submitted before this Honble Court
that the accused have committed murder punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal
Code 1860. Once the intention to kill is proved the offence is murder.

Intention is one of the essential elements of the offence it is always necessary that there
should be a definite finding as to whether the necessary guilty intention is or is not
present.55

In the present case there is a clear intention was to wage a war by shocking the
conscience of the whole State of Euphoria by striking right at the heart of the National
capital. Where the injuries individually and collectively are sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death it was held that the accused intended to kill the
deceased.56 It is well settled that if it is proved that the accused had the intention to inflict
injuries actually suffered by the victim and such injuries are found to be sufficient in the
ordinary course of to cause death, the ingredients of cause third of sec.300 of the IPC are
fulfilled and the accused must be held guilty of murder punishable under sec.302 of IPC.

Intention is only one of the essential requirements of murder intention can be inferred
from act, as every man is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his acts.57
Motive aspect assumes considerable importance on circumstantial evidence.58

In this case the cold blooded murder of 12 innocent people with a bomb show that there
was a clear intention to kill and shock the whole country at once. There was not only
intention present but also there was the motive59 to. All acts of killing done with the

52
Anada v. State, (1966) AIR 148 (SC).
53
Dr. Hari Singh Gours,Penal Law of India,ed.11, volume 4,pg(2421).
54
JOHN AUSTIN, LECTURES ON JURISPRUDENCE 165 (Students Edn. 1920).
55
Sirkantiah v. State of Karnataka, (1958) AIR 672 (SC)
56
Rewaram v. State of Madhaya Pradesh, 1978 Cr.l.J. 862 at p.862(M.P.)
57
State of Kerela v. Kuttappan, 1982 Cr.L.J 1702.
58
BudhaSatya S. Rao v. State of A.P., 1994 Supp (3) SCC 639.
59
Sec.8 of Indian Evidence act 1872- any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for
any fact in issue or relevant fact.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page 10

 intention to kill or to inflict bodily injure likely to cause or with the knowledge that death
must be the most probable result are prima facie murder.60

In the case at hand a bomb was used and its of common knowledge that when a bomb
explodes loads of splinters come out which go in all the directions and hence, cause
deaths and grievous hurt to the people present in the blast radius. It is not targeted at a
single person usually its put in order to cause maximum bloodshed possible. Then
surely the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knew was likely to
cause death or was sufficient in the ordinary course or nature to cause death would be
attributed to the accused.61 Also the as per section 325 of the EPC when a person
voluntarily causes grievous hurt on a person in this case persons is also liable for
punishment.

Circumstances before the act:

Circumstances are sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused.62There are clear
circumstances that make the respondent believe that there was a plan to kill as many
people possible; most important of all are

1. Confessional statement which has not been retracted.

2. Seizure of CDs and documents which show the donations were in violation with
FCRA.
3. Recovery of RDX, explosives and detonators from the premises of MRO.
4. Lodging of several complaints against the Dr. and the MRO for outraging the
modesty of other religions.

Other essentials related to circumstances:

The true rule is that where the injury caused is not the result of accident or of negligence,
a strong presumption arises that the injury caused was intended to be caused, though this
presumption may be rebutted by other circumstances, the motive of the accused, the
nature of the instrument of attack, the time and the place of attack, the position and
condition of the deceased, the number of injuries, the force used etc.63

60
Supra, note 70.
61
Bhoor Singh v. State, 1962 Raj.L.W. 55 at p.57.
62
Ibid.
63
Behari v. State, A.I.R 1953 All.203, Faqira v. State A.I.R. 1955 All.321 at p.323 (D.B).

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page 11

 But in this case these circumstances cannot be rebutted. There was a bomb which simply
means that the intention and motive was simple, to kill as many as possible. Also the
place selected was of national importance and a place where the targets of the attack are
readily available.

Act done with the knowledge:

A person who causes severe injuries which are of such a nature as would cause death in
the ordinary course of nature he must be held to have inflicted them intentionally.64

The second clause deals with acts done with the intention of causing such bodily injury
as the offender knows to be likely to cause death of the person to whom the harm is
caused.65The mental element is thus made of two elements:

A) causing an intentional injury

B) Which injury the offender has foresight to cause death.66
In this case there was a clear intention to cause death in order to wage a war or to abet
one. The appellant had complete knowledge that this step of his will devastate so many
lives.

Kind of weapon used:

However the weapon used, the degree of force released in wielding it, In this case the
weapon used is the bomb. It is one of the most dangerous weapons of all, which is
capable for causing huge damage to life and property. Firing of gun not possible, unless
trigger is pulled it was held that firing of two gun shots were not accidental.67 In the same
way a bomb will not blow off automatically.

In Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab68the Supreme Court, referring to the rarest of the
rare case theory formulated in Bachan Singh observed that when the communitys
collective conscience is so shocked that it will expect the holders of the judicial power
centre to inflict the death penalty irrespective of their personal opinion as regards the
desirability or otherwise of retaining the death penalty, the court must award it in such a
case.

64
Bhori v. State, A.I.R. 1953 All. 189 at P. 191.
65
Sec.300(2) 0f I.P.C .
66
Rajwant Singh v. State of Kerala, A.I.R 1966 S.C. 1874 at P. 1878.
67
Vinod Kumar v. State of U.P, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 353 at p.354.
68
Machi singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 957

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page 12

 The community ay entertain such a sentiment when the crime is viewed from the
platform if the motive for, or the manner of the commission of the crime, of the anti-
social or abhorrent nature of the crime, such as for instance:

i. Manner of commission of murder

When the victim is subjected to inhuman acts of torture or cruelty in order to bring about
his or her death;

ii. Motive for commission of murder

When the murder is committed for a motive hat evidences total depravity and meanness.
For instance, when- A cold-blooded murder is committed with deliberate design in order
to inherit property, or to gain control over property of a ward or a person under the
control of the murderer or vis-a-vis when the murderer is in a dominating position or in a
position of trust, and a murder is committed in the course of betrayal of the motherland.

iii. Anti-social or socially abhorrent nature if the crime-

Then murder of a member of a group of people belonging to scheduled caste or minority,
etc., is committed not for personal reasons, but n circumstances which arouse social
wrath. For instance, when such a crime is committed in order to deprive them of, or
make them surrender lands or benefits conferred on them with a view to reverse past
injustice and in order to restore the social balance.

iv. Magnitude of crime-

When the crime is enormous in proportion. For insatance, when multiple murders, say of
all or almost all the members of a family or a large numer of persons of a particular
caste, community or locality are committed.
In ShushilMurmu v. State of Jharkhand69the Supreme Court has spelled out that in
rarest of rare cases when collective conscience of the community is so shocked that it
will expect the holders of the judicial power centre to inflict death penalty irrespective of
their personal opinions as regards, desirability or otherwise of retaining death penalty,
death sentence can be awarded. The community may entertain such sentiments in the
following circumstances:

69
AIR 2004 SC 394

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page 13

 1) When the murder is committed in an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting or
dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community.

2) When the murder is committed for a motive which evinces total depravity and meanness
for example a cold-blooded murder for gains of a person vis--vis whom the murderer is
in a dominating position or in a position of trust, or murder is committed in the course for
betrayal of the motherland.

3) When the crime is enormous in proportion. For example when multiple murders or a
large number of persons of a particular caste, community are committed.

C. That the accused is guilty under Sections 16,17,18,39 and 40 of The Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967.

It is humbly submitted before the honble Supreme Court of Euphoria that the appellant,; Dr.
Sameer is rightfully convicted under section 16 of the Act which states whoever commits a
terrorist act, if the act results in the death of any person, be punishable with death or
imprisonment for life and shall also be liable for fine.70 The terrorist act is further explained
as whoever does any act with the intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity,
security or sovereignty of Euphoria, with an intent to strike or likely to strike terror in the
people or any section of people in or any foreign country.71The act done by Dr Sameer was Commented [nk2]: State the act. The bomb blast

to destabilise the nation and was an attack on the integrity, security and sovereignty of the
nation.

As stated in the case of Madan Singh v. State Of Bihar72 Terrorism is one of the
manifestations of increased lawlessness and cult of violence. Violence and crime constitute a
threat to an established order and are a revolt against a civilised and orderly society.... There
may be death, injury, or destruction of property or even deprivation of individual liberty in
the process but the extent and reach of the intended terrorist activity travels beyond the effect
of an ordinary crime capable of being punished under the ordinary penal law of the land and
its main objective is to overawe the Government or disturb the harmony of the society or

70
Section 16, The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967
71
Section 15, The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967
72

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page 14

terrorise people and the society and not only those directly assaulted, with a view to disturb
the even tempo, peace and tranquillity of the society and create a sense of fear and
insecurity.

In the case of Civil Liberties and Anr. vs. Union of India,73the Apex Court held Terrorist Formatted: Font: Not Italic
Formatted: Font: Not Italic
acts are meant to destabilise the nation by challenging its sovereignty and integrity, to raze
the constitutional principles that we hold dear, to create a psyche of fear and anarchism
among common people, to tear apart the secular fabric, to overthrow democratically elected
government, to promote prejudice and bigotry, to demoralise the security forces, to thwart the
economic progress and development and so on.

It is pertinent to note the fact that the assailants who attacked non-Marsis in Kangla were very
muchgreatly influenced by Dr. Sameer74. Further, the bombing in the Central Railway Station
also puts forth the fact that Dr. Sameer was involved in the bombing as Dr Sameers sim card
was found at the blast site.75 The terrorist outfit i.e. Euphorian Revolutionaries that claimed Formatted: Highlight

the responsibility of the blast was a camouflage MRO. The terriost organisation claiming Commented [nk3]: Says a clear case can be made out that the
terrorist org was a camouflage of MRO
responsibility sent the mail claiming responsibility, from a cyber caf situated near the Formatted: Highlight

headquarters of MRO which is also situated located in the capital of Euphoria. All the
persons held responsible for the attack were the members of MRO (namely Dr. Sameer and
Nayyar) and Euphorian Revolutionaries taking responsibility for the same, it is very much
evident that Euphorian Revolutionaries is made of people working in MRO. Dr. Sameer was
behind the plan as stated by the High Court in the factsheet 76 and therefore, should be held
Commented [nk4]: Write first how are they related to mRO,
like about the sim card thing n being founder of the MRO. Then say
that most entities in the pertinent case sameer, nayyyar , ER in one
way or the other can traced out to their links to MRO, an
organisation largely controlly by the accused.

responsible for the act of responsible and High Courts verdict of giving death sentence
should be upheld. Commented [nk5]: Talk here about why if HIGH COUrt has
done a examination of facts, then it holds a lot of value. May be a
case here about the same
Furthermore, Dr. Sameer should be held liable under section 17 and 18 of the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, whoever in Euphoria or other foreign country, directly or
indirectly raises or collects funds, from legitimate or illegitimate source, knowing that such
funds are likely to be used, in full or in part by such person or persons or by terrorist
organisations, etc notwithstanding the fact if the funds were actually used or not the person
will be held liable and punished according to the provisions of section 17.Whoever conspires

73
(2004) 9 SCC 580
74
Fact sheet 5
75
Supra note at 7
76
Fact sheet 9

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page 15

or attempts to commit, or advocates, abets, advices or incites or knowingly facilitates77 the
commission of, a terrorist act or any act preparatory to the commission of a terrorist act and
shall be punished accordingly.

Dr. Sameer through MRO collected funds that are violating of the provisions of The Foreign
Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 and also they were funded by a neighbouring country
Mankistan which is known to sponsor terrorism in Euphoria. This validates the section 17
and 18 as Dr. Sameer was the founder of MRO and knowingly facilitated the terror attack.
through his support by donations, explosives found t the headquarters of MRO78 and
influential speeches. In the case of Raghubir Singh v. I.T. Commissioner, the Apex Court Formatted: Font: Bold, Italic

held:79 "man's intention ought to be judged by his acts and not from what may be in his mind.
It should be ascertained by taking consideration the entire transactions. A man is presumed to
intend the natural and probable consequences of his own acts.

Furthermore,Moving on, Dr. Sameer is also rightly convicted for the offences committed by
him and should be held liable under section 39 and 40 of The Unlawful Activities Commented [nk6]: What do these sectiosn say. Writ in Foot
note or in the body of the memo
(Prevention) Act. Dr. Sameer through his speeches not only has able to influenced 1 million
people to change their religion to Marsi butand also reportedly the influenced for the assailant
who took responsiblilitye for Kangla attacks. Additionally, the High Court of Hapenisa in the Formatted: Font color: Text 2

very same manner held him to be he was the man behind the bomb attacks in the Central
Railway Station as held y the High Court80 as not only explosives were found in the MRO
and sobut also was his Sim card found at the site. Therefore, he with intent supported the Formatted: Font color: Text 2

terrorist organisation Euphorian Revolutionaries. For this he has been rightlyis convicted
under Section 39 which says that whoever, with intent to further the activity supports a
terrorist organisation, who with intention to further the activity of a terrorist organisation,
arranges, manages or assists in arranging or managing a meeting which he knows is to
support or further the activity of the terrorist organisation.81

Dr. Sameer should be punishable under section 40 of the act as the donations that were
received by the neighbouring country of Mankistan were believed to be used to sponsor
terrorism which can be further elide upon as explosives were found in the MRO and also the
other donations were misused and are violative of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act,

77
Section18, The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
78
Supra note at 7
79
1948 16 ITR 433 Nag
80
Supra note at 78
81
Section 39, The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page 16

as stated in the section 40 of the act that if a person is suspected of raising funds for terrorist
organisation with intention to further terrorist activity which might be used for terrorism shall
punished.

Hence, from the above argumentsWith the present state it is clear that Dr. Sameer is
responsible for the terrorist act, funding the terrorist act, conspiracy of the same and also
supported the terrorism outfit by the name of Euphorian Revolutionaries and raised funds for
the organisation and for such acts the decision of the High Court of giving him death penalty
should be upheld.

D. That the accused is guilty under Sections 3,4(a) (b) and 6 of The Explosives
Substances Act of 1908.

In the case of H.D. Sikand v. Central Bureau of Investigation82 the instant case totally
dependent upon circumstantial evidence dealing with section 3and 483 Before a person is
convicted entirely on circumstantial evidence, the court must be satisfied not only that those
circumstances are consistent with his having committed the act, but also that the facts are
such, so as to be inconsistent with any other rational conclusion other than the one that the
accused is the guilty person. Motive, being presumptive evidence, is a weak evidence and by
itself cannot from a chain of circumstances so complete that the only inference possible is the
guilt of accused, ruling out his innocence. Prosecution failed to pass such tests to bring home
the guilt of the accused. Accused was acquitted in the present case. Commented [nk7]: Refer to the factsheet. Write at least two
paras. One law. Other law ka relation to facts.

82
2017 (1) AICLR (S.C.) 266
83
The Explosive Substances Act, 1908

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page 17

CONTENTION 2: THAT THE BAN IPOSED ON MRO AND ITS TV CHANNEL IS
JUSTIFIED OR NOT?

It is humbly submitted before on honble Apex Court that the ban imposed on MRO and its
TV Channel is justified.
Article 1984: all the citizens shall have inter alia the right- Commented [nk8]: Since these thre are not the only rights
Formatted: Font: Italic
A) to freedom of speech and expression
B) To assemble peaceably and without arms
C) To form associations or unions.
Art. 19 (1) A Freedom of Speech and Expression: this freedom means the right to express
ones convictions and opinions freely.85 Freedom of speech plays a crucial role in the
formation of public opinion on social, political, and economic matters.

It cannot be ignored that India is a country with vast disparities in language, culture, and
religion and unwarranted and malicious criticism in faith of others cannot be accepted.86
Similar is the country Euphoria with the diverse population. Giving speeches which resulted
in the change of religion of around 1 million people, the clear motive behind this was to
create unrest in the society and to divert peoples attention towards the most sensitive issue
that is the Religion. All this was done because there was conspiracy to commit henious Formatted: Underline, Font color: Red

helirious crimes like greviousgrievous hgurt, murder and terrorist attacks. Formatted: Font color: Text 2

In the case of M/s. Star India Pvt. Ltd. V. State of Punjab87 it was stated that the freedom to
speak ones mind is inherint in any democracy and is, therefore, protected y the constitution
but freedom is not absolute and is subject to provisions like 295A88 freedom of speech must
therefore take into consideration the sentiments of communities likely to be affected. Iin the
present case, the speeches by Dr. Sameer resulted into outraging the sentiments of different
communities.

Freedom of Speech and Expression guranted under Art. 19 (1) (a) means the right to express Formatted: Font color: Text 2

ones convictions and opinions by words of mouth, writing, printing, picture or in any other
manner.89 No individual has the right to utilise them at his choice and pleasure.90 Dr. Sameer

84
Article 19 of the constitution of India
85
LIC v. Manubhai D. Shah Prof, AIR 1993 SC 171 (para5)
86
Baragur Ramachandrappa v. State of Karnatka, (2007) 5 SCC 11, 18(para9)
87
2010(3) RCR(Criminal) 207(P&H)
88
295A of IPC
89
PUCL v. union of India (1997) 1 SCC 301

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page 18

used to invite scholars of other religion on his T.V channel and used to outplay his opponents
by portraying the superiority of his religion. He did not use the freedom of speech and
expression in the right manner as his motive was not to express his opinion about religion but
was to do debate to show which religion is better than the other.

The valuable and cherished right to freedom of speech and expression may at times have to
be subjected to reasonable subordination to social interests, needs and necessities to preserve
the very core of democratic life.91 The true source of right is duty is when the courts are
called upon to examine the reasonableness of legislative restriction on the exercise of
freedom, the fundamental duties under Art. 51-A are of relevant consideration. It requires the
citizen to uphold the sovereignty, integrity and unity of the nation. The restrictions placed on
fundamental right would have to be examined with reference to the concept of fundamental
duties and non interference with the liberty of others.92

Clause (2) enables the legislature to impose restrictions on the freedom of speech and
expression93 when there is threat to sovereignty and integrity94 of the nation. Freedom of
speech plays a crucial role in the formation of public opinion on social and political matters.95
In the present case the freedom of speech used by Dr. Sameer was in violation of Art. 19
because his speeches incited the people to change their religion and his debates had a
malicious intent as it was used harm the secular fabric of the nation and hence, target the
integrity and sovereignty of the nation covered under Art. 19(2).

Art. 19(1)(c) guarantees to the citizens to form associations and unions. A law empowered
the State Government to declare an association unlawful on the ground that such association
constituted a danger to the public peace or interfered with the maintenance of public order.96
Under Art. 19(4), reasonable restrictions in the interests of public order or morality or
sovereignty and integrity may be imposed on this right by law.97 In the present case the
organisation which was an association of people was indulged in ill legal activities. The
RDX, detonators and other explosive substances found from the official premises of the
90
Secretary, Minister of Information and Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal, (1992) SCC 161 ( 20 (1)
(b) )
91
Vol. 1, Durga Das Basu, Shirter Consitution of India, LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur, pg. 280, 14th
ed. (2009)
92
Ramlila Maidan Incident, In re (2012) 5 SCC 1
93
Article 19 (2) of the Constitution of India
94
Supra note: 10
95
Vol. 1, M.P Jain, India Constitution of Law, LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur, pg.1414, 6th ed.(2010)
96
Ibid
97
Supra note 10

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page 19

MRO headquarters clearly indicates their wrongful intention and their engagement in ill
activities.

Further, Art. 2598 provides all persons equal right to freely profess, practice and propagate
any religion but subject to public order, morality and health. The freedom of religion is
subject to the interest of public order so that it would not authorise the outrage of the
religious feelings of another class, with a deliberate intent.99

Article 25 by giving right to propagate ones religion does not grant right to convert other
people to ones own religion, but to transmit of spread ones religion by an exposition of its
tenants.100 In the present case the member of the organisation, Dr. Sameer, with his speeches
and debates on the TV channel influenced people as a result of it 1 million from other
religion converted to Marsi religion. This clearly shows that the aims and objects of the
organisation and its members were to destroy the communal harmony and were in violation
of the fundamental right provided under Art 25.

Art. 21 gives the right to life and personal liberty except according to the procedure
established by the law.101 But this freedom cannot be enjoyed at the cost of the life and liberty
of the others.The Apex Court in the case of S.S. Ahuwalia v. Union of India102 and others
held that in the expanded meaning attributed to Article 21 of the Constitution, it is the duty of
the State to create a climate where members of the society belonging to different faiths, caste
and creed live together and, therefore, the State has a duty to protect their life, liberty, dignity
and worth of an individual which should not be jeopardized or endangered. In the case at
hand the ban on MRO and its TV channel has been correctly imposed by the state in the light
of equity and justice. It was very necessary to do so as there was threat to the life of people
and also there was disharmony among the people of different religions because of the debates
on the TV channel. People were greatly influenced by the MRO and its TV channel.

So, it is humbly submitted that the ban imposed on MRO and its TV channel by the
Government of Euphoria is not in violation of Freedom of speech and expression, personal
liberty, freedom of religion and to form association. It is of paramount importance for the

98
Article 25 of the constitution
99
Cf. Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P, AIR 1957 SC 620
100
Satya Ranjhi Majhi v. State of Orissa and ors.
101
Article 21 of the Constitution
102
(2002) 6 Bom CR 157

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page 20

government to take step when the life and liberty of people and sovereignty and integrity of
the nation is in danger and there is disharmony in the society.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page 21

 PRAYER

In the light of the facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited,
the counsel for the Petitioner humbly prays before this Honble Supreme Court of India to
adjudge and declare:-

That Dr. Sameer should be held guilty for offences as duly charged by the NIA
Special Court and upheld by Honble High Court and should be given death
sentenced.

Further the ban imposed by Government of Euphoria on MRO and its TV

channel is justified and the same should be upheld.

And pass any other order as this Honble Court may deem fit and for this act of kindness, the
counsel for the Respondent, as in duty bound shall forever pray.

HUMBLY SUBMITTED
SD/-
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT Page 22