The counsel on behalf of the Respondent humbly submits that the Due Process of Law has been complied with. The case is of a grievous nature and the involvement of a terrorist in such a case has made it of special importance where the procedural aspect has been set aside for such acts which are not dealt under the general law and order provisions. A terrorist act, as discussed, creates terror in the minds of the people which is a drawback for a democratic country. In such cases, the constitutional validity of any such special penal statute cannot be challenged which specifically deals with the procedure established by law regarding the trial of the offence.
In the instant case, the Government has complied with the due process of law by carrying out a detailed inquiry.99 The accused was produced in the Sessions Court where after the State then preferred an appeal against the sentence given by the Sessions Court to the High Court and after perusing through the facts of the case, the High Court went on to enhance the punishment of life imprisonment to death sentence.100
98 V. B. Raju v. Union Of India & Others, 1980 AIR 1671.
99 Page 6, ¶ 16, Moot Proposition, Army Institute of Law National Moot Court Competition 2016.
-Arguments Advanced- -Respondent-3.1 Act of Government not violative of Article 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of
Bambia, 1950
Parliament has got the legislative competence to enact this law namely the TADA Act and the Special Courts Act of 1984. When the validity of this section is scrutinised in the above background, we can safely hold that the procedure prescribed under this Act cannot be said to be unjust, unfair and oppressive, offending Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.101
The counsel contends that the procedure under the normal penal laws had become grossly inadequate and ineffective to try the distinct group of offenders, i.e., terrorists and disruptionists for the classified aggravated nature of offences and that his submission is fortified by the statistics with regard to the terrorist crimes in the State of Punjab from 1984 to 1992, annexed in the compilation of his written submission before the court and the debates and discussion made in the Parliament at the time of introduction of the Bill (TADA).
It is a well settled principle that stringency and harshness of provisions are not for courts to determine.102
In the case of Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India103, the Supreme Court went on to say that that mere possibility of abuse is not a valid ground to challenge the validity of a statute.
There have been many such instances where it has been argued that fair trial involves only the accused. All the safeguards of constitution should be given to the accused in certain circumstances. But in the case of Talib Haji Hussain v. Madhukar P. Mondkar104, it has
100 Page 7, ¶ 17, Moot Proposition, Army Institute of Law National Moot Court Competition 2016.
101 Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569.
102 N.B. Khare (Dr) v. State of Delhi, 1950 SCR 519; Kathi Raning Rawat v. State of Saurashtra, 1952 SCR 435 ; Kedar Nath Bajoria v. State of W.B., AIR 1953 SC 404; State of Bombay v. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala, 1957 SCR 874.
103 1957 SCR 233.
-Arguments Advanced-
-Respondent-been ruled that fair trial has two objects in view, namely, it must be fair to the accused and also to the prosecution.
In the instant case, the act of the accused has created internal disturbance in the province of Bambia where such acts carried out by the accused has created a state of terror in the minds of the general public. When the security of people at large is at stake, it is the role of the Government as well as the courts to restrict such person who in-still fear in the minds of the general public. In A.K. Roy v. Union of India105, it has been held that liberty of individual has to be subordinated to the good of the people.
The Legislature is free to make classifications in the application of a statute which are relevant to the legislative purpose. The ultimate test of validity is not whether the classes differ but whether the differences between them are pertinent to the subject with respect to which the classification is made.106
Article 14 have been elaborately explained in two earlier decisions of this Court viz.
Chiranjit Lal Chowdhury v. Union of India107 and State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara108 and the principles laid down in those decisions have to be kept in view in deciding the present case. One of these principles is that Article 14 is designed to protect all persons placed in similar circumstances against legislative discrimination, and if the legislature takes care to reasonably classify persons for legislative purposes and if it deals equally with all persons belonging to a well-defined class, it is not open to the charge of denial of equal protection on the ground that the law does not apply to other persons.
105 (1982) 1 SCC 271.
106 [90 L Ed 6 : 326 US 207 (1945)].
107 1950 SCR 869.
108 1950 SCR 62.
-Arguments Advanced-
-Respondent-In the case of State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar109, Fazi Ali,J., observed the following:
“The guaranty of the equal protection of the laws means the protection of equal laws. It forbids class legislation, but does not forbid classification which rests upon reasonable grounds of distinction. It does not prohibit legislation, which is limited either in the objects to which it is directed or by the territory within which it is to operate. ‘It merely requires that all persons subject to such legislation shall be treated alike under like circumstances and conditions both in the privileges conferred and in the liabilities imposed.”110
3.1.1 The social media post by appellant will amount to sedition
In the instant case, the accused gave posted in the Social Media website the following message; “go to places where you have come from, anti-tribal activities shall not be tolerated by congregational procession in Badheli; surely, revenge shall be taken”.111
This message given by the accused created a lot of internal disturbance in Jagganagar and Badheli as people who had not yet come over the plight of the Jagganagar riots had got a reasonable inference that will again face a similar situation in the near future. Such an apprehension raised an alarm in the society where all the migrants who had come for various purposes started rushing to railway stations and airport to go back to their places. This created a lot of disturbance in the law and order situation of the state where the Home Minister had to intervene personally to appeal to the people for restoring peace and order in the State. Such an action by the accused trying to disable the State machinery and disturb the tranquillity of the State.
Section 124A deals with ‘Sedition’, Sedition is a crime against society nearly allied to that of treason, and it frequently precedes treason by a short interval. Sedition in itself is a comprehensive term, and it embraces all those practices, whether by word, deed, or writing, which are calculated to disturb the tranquillity of the State, and lead ignorant persons to endeavour to subvert the Government and laws of the country. The objects of sedition 109 AIR 1952 SC 75.
110 WILLIS, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 579, (THE PRINCIPIA PRESS, UNITED STATES, 1936).
111 Page 6, ¶15, Moot Proposition, Army Institute of Law National Moot Court Competition
-Arguments Advanced-
-Respondent-generally are to induce discontent and insurrection, and stir up opposition to the Government, and bring the administration of justice into contempt; and the very tendency of sedition is to incite the people to insurrection and rebellion. Sedition has been described as disloyalty in action, and the law considers as sedition all those practices which have for their object to excite discontent or dissatisfaction, to create public disturbance, or to lead to civil war; to bring into hatred or contempt the Sovereign or the Government, the laws or constitutions of the realm, and generally all endeavours to promote public disorder.112
After a brief perusal of the facts as well as the law involved, it can be easily inferred that the acts carried out by the Appellant are illegal and penal in nature. The appellant has tried to proceed with a legal procedure illegally by conforming to violence which strained the public law and order situation of the State. Starting from the attack on the police station which killed more than 136 members till the Parliament attacks, the circumstantial evidence proves that the appellant has conspired the series of attacks to weaken the government machinery and overawe the same. Such attacks on the Government did raise a question on the security of the state and the security which it provides to the common people. This has created ripples of disturbance across the province. To preserve the security of the State and the common citizens, it is the need of the hour to stand together against terrorism and terrorism related activities. Such activities cannot be tolerated and a strict procedure should be followed to restrict such mis-happenings in the future. To create a deterrent, the honourable Supreme Court should confirm the sentence awarded by the High Court.
112 Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955.
-Prayer -
-Respondent-PRAYER
IN THE LIGHT OF THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND AUTHORITIES CITED, THE APPELLANT HUMBLY PLEADS BEFORE THE HON’BLE COURT TO:
1. UPHELD THE DECISION OF THE SESSIONS COURT AND THE HIGH COURT.
ANY OTHER ORDER AS IT DEEMS FIT IN THE INTEREST OF EQUITY, JUSTICE AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.
FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE APPELLANT FACTION SHALL BE