State of Ramil wadu v. Rahul raghuvanshi (Appellants Memorial)

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONUNDER ARTICLE 132 AND 134 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. _____/ 2021

IN THE MATTER OF

STATE OF RAMIL WADU...................................................... Appellant

v.

RAHUL RAGHUVANSHI ...................................................... Respondent

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTSTABLE OF CONTENTS1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.....................................................2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES......................................................3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.............................................4. STATEMENT OF FACTS.........................................................5. ISSUES RAISED....................................................................I. WHETHER THIS APPEAL PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THEHON’BLE SUPREME COURT?II. WHETHER THE HIGH COURT JUSTIFIED IN SETTING ASIDE THESESSION’S COURT ORDER?III. WHETHER THE CASE HAS ANYTHING PERTAINING TO LIMITATIONACT OR HAS TIME BARRED AS PER THE RELEVANT LEGALPROVISIONS?

A Law Reports : Appeal Cases

AIR All India Reporter

All ER All England Law Reports

ANR Another

BC British Columbia

Bom Bombay

CA Civil Appeal

Cal Calcutta

Cri Criminal

CriLJ Criminal Law Journal

CrPC Criminal Procedure Code

E. England Reports

Fed Federal

Guj Gujarat

Hon ble‟ Honorable

ILR Indian Law Reports

IPC Indian Penal Code

Ltd. Limited

M.P.L Madhya Pradesh Law Journal

MANU Manupatra20 ORS Others

Pat. Patna

QBD Queen s Bench Division‟

SC Supreme Court

SCR Supreme Court Reports

[B]. INDEX OF AUTHORITIESI. CONSTITUTION OF INDIAII. LIST OF STATUTES

The Code of Criminal Procedure,

The Indian Evidence Act,

The Indian Penal Code,

II. LIST OF CASES

FOREIGN CASES

S. Case Title Citation 1. Queen v. McNaughten 8 Eng. Rep. 718 [1843] 2. State v. Andrea Yates 171 S.w 215 3. The State v. Andrea Sneiderman 862 F. ed 1541 (Fe d. Cir. 2012

LIST OF BOOKSS. TITLE1.K. I. VIBHUTE, PSA PILLAI'SCRIMINAL LAW (10THBUTTERWORTHS,2008).ED., LEXISNEXIS2.MODI S,‟ MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE ANDTOXICOLOGY (23RDBUTTERWORTHS, 2006)ED.,LEXISNEXIS3.RATANLAL AND DHIRAJLAL, THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (30TH EDITION,WADHWA ANDCOMPANY, 1896)III. LIST OF JOURNALInsanity defense work group, American Psychiatric Association Statement on Insanity

Defense

IV. LIST OF INTERNET SOURCES

Hallucinations and Delusions – How to respond Canadian Mental Health Association, cmha/hallucinationsand delusions-howtorespond.

Malcom Mckenzie Park, The strange case of Andrea Yates and Dr Park Dietz, Dec 2008, available at papers.ssrn/sol3/papaers.cfm?abstract_id=365241.

[C]. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Appellant has approached the Honorable Supreme Court of India under the Article 132and 134 of the Constitution of India. The Appellant most humbly and respectfully submitsto the jurisdiction of the Honorable Supreme Court of India.

The detention of many labourers exceeded the prescribed time ordained by Cr. AsRahul Raghuvanshi used his clout and influence to suppress the agitation, the familymember of a worker filed a Habeas Corpus petition on 6th February, 2012 Under Article226 and 227 of Shennai High Court challenging the detention of several workers and alsoclaimed compensation.

The Shennai Bench consisting of Chief justice allowed the petition and gave relief to theprayers of the petitioners and also awarded compensation. The Trade Union leader BabuShankar urged the leader of opposition in Tamil Nadu assembly to broach a debate on RahulRaghuvanshi’s undue influence and causing loss to poor labourers. This led to furor in theAssembly demanding resignation of Rahul Raghuvanshi was the post of standing committeefor Education and Environment.

Rahul Raghuvanshi did not relent. This lead to social unrest and there were protestmarches across the city, agitation which led to Gheraos and Bandhs. The Home ministertried to control the situation with Rapid Action Force and Local constabulary. In the courseof this chaos Rahul Raghuvanshi made a public speech at Tradulai Swamy stadium on 14thMay 2012 in the course of his speech he called the agitators of Samaj Sanghtans as ‘wildcreatures’ and urged the Janata Morcha workers to give a ‘fitting reply’ to the protesters.

This caused a furor and there was law and order problem which resulted in casualties anddamage to property. Rahul Raghuvanshi was held responsible for whatever transpired andhe was compelled to resign from the committees he was part of and the portfolio he held.There was round the clock coverage of the incidents of violence by the media. Theopposition demanded an inquiry of the incidents and insisted on setting up a commission.

A Commission was constituted in August, 2012 by the Ruling Party i Janata Morchaunder the auspices of retired judge, Justice Vishwanath to enquire and investigate into thismatter. The commission submitted its report before the House on 17th August, 2013 of theincidents of February, 2012 was elections hence the commission report was debatedfiercely then kept in abeyance. Samaj Sanghatan captured Power and Muthuswamy Nair

became the Chief Minister in 21 December 2013 and the commission report was againdebated with disruptions in the House.

The speech delivered by Rahul Raghuvanshi was regarded as a hate speech causingenmity between two communities hence he was booked under sec 153 A of IPC for whichPunishment in 3 years, after a lot of pandemonium the Commission report was implementedon 31st December, 2013. The home minister demanded arrest of Rahul Raghuvanshi andRahul Raghuvanshi was arrested and produced before magistrate on 11th January 2014. Themagistrate took cognizance of the complaint and convicted Rahul Raghuvanshi for 3 yearsimprisonment.

The order was challenged in court of sessions/district court, in May, 2015 the order wasupheld and eventually it was challenged in Chennai High Court. The High Court admittedthe appeal and overruled conviction on 16th November, 2015 of Rahul Raghuvanshi andfound that lower courts made gross error in passing such orders. State challenged the HighCourt order of acquittal in the Supreme Court of India.

HENCE THE PRESENT MATTER RESTS BEFORE THIS HONORABLECOURT[F] SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTSI. WHETHER THIS APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLESUPREME COURT?

It is humbly submitted before The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that this appealpetition is maintainable in this Court under Article 132 and 134 of Constitution ofIndia. Also the fact that the accused is liable for hate speech under section 153 A ofIndian Penal Code (because both the Mens Rea and as well as the Actus Reus werepresent) was neglected when the accused was acquitted of the charge.

II. WHETHER THE HIGH COURT IS JUSTIFIED IN SETTING ASIDE THESESSION’S COURT ORDER?

It is humbly submitted before The Hon’ble Court that the High Court is not justified insetting aside the session’s court order. It is submitted that in order to constitute anoffence under Section 153A of the IPC, it is expedient that only mere words should notbe looked into but sometimes the intention is obscured as well as it may possess an

underlying hidden meaning which also needs to be looked into. Applying the saidprinciple to the speech of the respondent, it becomes explicitly clear that even thoughthe outward appearance of the speech might seem innocuous, still the true meaningneeds to be ascertained on the basis of the surrounding situation and circumstancesengulfng the speech due to which investigation is required to ascertain the said hiddenmeaning.

III. WHETHER THE CASE HAS ANYTHING PERTAINING TO LIMITATIONACT OR HAS TIME BARRED AS PER THE RELEVANT LEGALPROVISIONS?

It is humbly submitted before The Hon’ble Court that this case has nothing pertainingto Limitation act or is time barred as per the relevant legal provisions.

IV. WHETHER THE SANCTION IS REQUIRED FOR PROSECUTION OFRAHUL RAGHUVANSHI AS HE IS MEMBER OF STATE ASSEMBLY?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the sanction is required forprosecution of Rahul Raghuvanshi as he is member of state assembly.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCEDI. WHETHER THIS APPEAL IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLESUPREME COURT?

It is most humbly submitted before The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that thisappeal petition under section 132 and 134 of the Constitution of India is maintainable.Article 132 of The Constitution of India reads as follows:An Appeal to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final order of The HighCourt, whether in civil, criminal, or other proceedings, if the High Court certifies thatthe case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of theConstitution.Article 134 of The Constitution of India reads as follows:An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, final order or sentence ina criminal proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court has onappeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to death;or has withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any court subordinate to itsauthority and has in such trial convicted the accused person and sentenced him todeath; or

(c) Certifies under Article 134A that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court: Provided that an appeal under sub clause (c) shall lie subject to such provisions as may be made in that behalf under clause

( 1 ) of Article 145 and to such conditions as the High Court may establish or require

(2) Parliament may by law confer on the Supreme Court any further powers to entertain and hear appeals from any judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court in the territory subject to such conditions and limitations as may be specified in such law.

The power of the court to hear appeals in this article is much wider and general. It vests in the SC plenary jurisdiction in the matter of entertaining and hearing appeals against:

(i) Any judgment, decree, determination, or order,(ii) In any cause or matter,(iii) Passed or made by any court or tribunal

The appellant in the present case has filed the appeal under article 132 and 134 as theHigh Court has acquitted the accused (respondent) for the offence of murder and henceis maintainable.In Delhi Judicial Service Association Vs. State of Gujarat 1It was held by The Supreme Court that :- Under Article 132 there is no room for anydoubt that this Court has wide power to interfere and correct the judgment and orderspassed by any court or tribunal in the country. In addition to the Appellate power, thecourt has special residuary power to entertain appeal against any order of any court inthe country. The plenary jurisdiction of this Court is to grant leave and hear appealsagainst any order of the court or tribunal, confers power of special superintendenceover all courts and tribunals including subordinate courts of Magistrate and DistrictJudge. This court has, therefore, supervisory jurisdiction over all courts in India.

In an another case of Arunachalam vs. P.S. Sadhanantham 2 , it was again held bythe SC that:- Article 132 of the constitution of India invests the Supreme Court with aplentitude of plenary, appellate power, over all courts and Tribunals in India. Thepower is plenary in the sense that there are no words in Article 136 itself qualifyingthat power. But, the very nature of the power has led the court to set limits to itselfwithin which to exercise such power.

1991 AIR 2176, 1991 SCR (3) 9361979 AIR 1284(1998) 2 SCC 488, 499 AIR 1988 SCII. WHETHER THE HIGH COURT IS JUSTIFIED IN SETTING ASIDE THESESSION’S COURT ORDER?

It is humbly submitted before The Hon’ble Court that the High Court is not justified insetting aside the session’s court order.

Section 153A of IPC, violation of which forms the basis of registering the crimeagainst the Respondent reads thus :

“[153A. Promoting enmity between diferent groups on grounds of religion, race, placeof birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance ofharmony.—

(1) Whoever — (a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visiblerepresentations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion,race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other groundwhatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between diferentreligious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, or

(b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony betweendiferent religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, andwhich disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity, [or]

[(c) organizes any exercise, movement, drill or other similar activity intending that theparticipants in such activity shall use or be trained to use criminal force or violence orknowing it to be likely that the participants in such activity will use or be trained to usecriminal force or violence, or participates in such activity intending to use or be trainedto use criminal force or violence or knowing it to be likely that the participants in suchactivity will use or be trained to use criminal force or violence, against any religious,racial, language or regional group or caste or community and such activity for anyreason whatsoever causes or is likely to cause fear or alarm or a feeling of insecurity