Vidhi Tyagi

B.A.LL.B(H)
1905170025

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 …….………………………………...... APPELANT

VS.

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

(MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT)

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 1

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 2

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 3

STATEMENT OF FACTS 4

ISSUES RAISED 6

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 7

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 9

1. Can the SC hear the State's appeal against the HC's decision? 9
2. Was the HC right to overturn the lower court's conviction of Rahul Raghuvanshi?
11
3. Does the case involve any time limitations related to the Limitation Act? 12
4. Does Rahul Raghuvanshi require official permission to be prosecuted considering
his position as a state assembly member? 13
5. Is the government obligated to implement the recommendations of the Justice
Viswanathan Commission? 14
PRAYER 15

2
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

IEA Indian Evidence Act

u/s Under Section

Hon’ble Honourable

v./ v/s Versus

Anr. Another

Govt. Government

HC High Court

SC Supreme Court

Sec. Section

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) Abdul Rehman Antuley v. R S Nayak, AIR 1992 SC 1701
2) Bilal Ahmad Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh , AIR 1997 SC 3483
3) Centre for public interest litigation v. Union Of India, AIR 2005 SC 4413
4) Gopal Vinayak Godse v. The Union of India and Ors, AIR1971BOM56
5) K. Veeraswami vs. Union of India & Ors , 1991 SCC (3) 655
6) Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. state of Andra pradesh , 1979 AIR 677
7) Sheela Barsa vs Union Of India , 1986 AIR 1773
8) SP Sampath Kumar vs. Union Of India, AIR 1987 SC 386
9) State of Andhra Pradesh VS. Sree Rama Rao, 1963 AIR 1723
10) State of Maharastra v. R.S. Nayak , AIR 1982 SC 1249

4
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Respondents have approached the Supreme Court in response to the appeal filed by the
Appellant (state) u/a 132 and 134 of the constitution of India challenging the order passed by
the HC.

5
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

 Rahul Raghuvanshi, a prominent businessman who transitioned into politics, resides

in the village of Mylapore in the State of Ramil Wadu.Rahul Raghuvanshi, 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 party.On February 2, 2022, the situation was very chaotic, so the local
police enforced Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code and detained certain
laborers under Section 151 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Many laborers were
detained for longer than the time allowed by Cr.PC. Rahul Raghuvanshi 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 Raghuvanshi's excessive influence and its negative impact on
poor laborers. The Assembly erupted in outrage, calling for the resignation of Rahul
Raghuvanshi from his position as the head of the standing committee on Education
and Environment. Rahul Raghuvanshi remained persistent. This resulted in social
turmoil. Rahul Raghuvanshi 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 Raghuvanshi's speech was considered a hate speech that incited hostility
between two populations, leading to his arrest under section 153A of the IPC. A First
Information Report (FIR) was filed against him on February 17, 2022. The media

6
 provided continuous coverage of the violent episodes. The opposition requested an
investigation into the incidents and strongly advocated for the establishment of a
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 Raghuvanshi was charged under section 153 A of the IPC 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 Raghuvanshi, who was subsequently apprehended and brought before
a magistrate on November 12, 2022. The magistrate acknowledged the complaint and
sentenced Rahul Raghuvanshi 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 Raghuvanshi'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 Raghuvanshi?
3. Does the case involve any time limitations related to the Limitation Act?
4. Does Rahul Raghuvanshi 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 submitted that the present appeal is not maintainable since it does not have a substantial
questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. It submitted that the HC, after a
thorough examination of the evidence and surrounding context, concluded that Raghuvanshi's
speech, while potentially offensive, did not meet the legal threshold of hate speech under
Section 153A IPC. This involved an evaluation of specific words, the speaker's intent, and the
potential for incitement. Challenging such factual findings and context-specific
interpretations does not raise a substantial question of law.

It submitted that "Wild Creatures" as Metaphor, is a not Hate Speech. The phrase "wild
creatures" used by Raghuvanshi was a metaphor employed in the heat of a charged political
climate. It should not be interpreted literally or construed as an attempt to dehumanize or
demonize any specific community. Examining the figurative language used in a speech
requires contextual understanding, not a substantial question of law.

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

It is submitted that the HC is justified in setting aside the session court’s order. The HC was
correct in acquitting him since the prosecution failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt
that Rahul Raghuvanshi's speech directly incited violence or intended to cause enmity
between communities.
It is submitted that the speech was ambiguous and the speech might not have explicitly called
for violence or hatred, even if it used inflammatory language. Moreover, there is an absence
of a causal link the appellant have not been able to prove that the violence was a direct
consequence of the speech and not due to other factors.

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

9
It is submitted that there is a Prejudicial delay in filling the appeal and also in dealing with
the matter. The nine-month delay in arrest, potentially due to political motives, prejudiced
their ability to defend themselves effectively. Memories might fade, and witnesses might
become unavailable.
Moreover, there is a violation of right to fair trial. The delay violated Rahul Raghuvanshi's
right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

4) Does Rahul Raghuvanshi require official permission to be prosecuted considering

his position as a state assembly member?

It is submitted that Rahul Raghuvanshi is a Public Servant under Section 197(1). As a

Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA), Rahul Raghuvanshi holds a civil post under
the State and is considered a public servant under Article 12 of the Constitution and Section
21 of IPC.
It is submitted that since he is a Public Servant the offense Allegedly Committed 'While
Acting in Discharge of Official Duty'. The speech by Rahul Raghuvanshi, delivered at a
public stadium, can be interpreted as an attempt to fulfill his perceived duty as an MLA
towards his party and supporters.

5) Is the government obligated to implement the recommendations of the Justice

Viswanathan Commission?

It is submitted that the government is bound by the findings of Justice Viswanathan

commission as regards its implementation. It is submitted that there is a needs for statutory
backing for Commission's Mandate. The commission was constituted under a specific law or
statutory provision, its findings might carry more weight and potentially be binding on the
government. The legislation might outline the commission's purpose and mandate with
specific directives for the government to act upon its recommendations.

10
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

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

It is submitted that the present appeal is not maintainable since it does not have a substantial
question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. Article 132 1 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.

Article 1342 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 in State of Andhra Pradesh VS. Sree Rama Rao 3, SC held that “A
certificate from the HC is not just a procedural requirement; the HC must carefully consider
before issuing such a certificate.”

Furthermore, it is submitted that in SP Sampath Kumar vs. UOI 4, it was held that An appeal
under Article 132 is permissible only when a certificate issued by the HC states that the case
pertains to a significant legal issue.

It submitted that the HC, after a thorough examination of the evidence and surrounding
context, concluded that Raghuvanshi's speech, while potentially offensive, did not meet the
legal threshold of hate speech under Section 153A of IPC. This involved an evaluation of
specific words, the speaker's intent, and the potential for incitement. Challenging such factual
findings and context-specific interpretations does not raise a substantial question of law.

1
Constitution Of India, 1950
2
Constitution Of India, 1950
3
State of Andhra Pradesh VS. Sree Rama Rao, 1963 AIR 1723
4
SP Sampath Kumar vs. UOI, AIR 1987 SC 386
11
It submitted that "Wild Creatures" as Metaphor, is a not Hate Speech. The phrase "wild
creatures" used by Raghuvanshi was a metaphor employed in the heat of a charged political
climate. It should not be interpreted literally or construed as an attempt to dehumanize or
demonize any specific community. Examining the figurative language used in a speech
requires contextual understanding, not a substantial question of law.

Therefore, based on the arguments presented above, the appeal against the HC's acquittal
does not raise a substantial question of law under Articles 132 and 134A. The HC's judgment
involved applying existing legal principles to a specific factual context and interpretation of
the speech. There are no significant legal issues of general public importance requiring the
SC's intervention. Therefore, the appeal should be declared not maintainable.

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

Raghuvanshi?

It is submitted that the HC is justified in setting aside the session court’s order. The HC was
correct in acquitting him since the prosecution failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt
that Rahul Raghuvanshi's speech directly incited violence or intended to cause enmity
between communities.

It is submitted that the speech was ambiguous and the speech might not have explicitly called
for violence or hatred, even if it used inflammatory language.

Moreover, there is an absence of a causal link the appellant has not been able to prove that
the violence was a direct consequence of the speech and not due to other factors.

It is submitted that the lower court while convicting Rahul has committed Procedural lapses.
The HC have found serious procedural errors in the lower courts' proceedings, such as:

 Violation of due process: The courts have provided Rahul Raghuvanshi with a fair
trial or adequate opportunity to defend himself.
 Improper application of law: The lower courts might have misinterpreted Section
153A of the IPC or made errors in applying it to the specific case.

In Bilal Ahmad Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh5, it was held that, “Both Section 153-A and
Section 505(2) of the IPC aim to promote peace and harmony among different groups and
communities. For someone to be charged under these two clauses, there must be a minimum

5
Bilal Ahmad Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh , AIR 1997 SC 3483
12
of two distinct organizations involved. Simply provoking the emotions of one group without
acknowledging another group or community will not violate these regulations.”

In Gopal Vinayak Godse v. The UOI and Ors. 6 upholding the constitutionality of Section 99A
CrPC and 153A IPC, it was held that “Charging someone under Section 153A IPC requires
more than just using odd isolated passages or connecting sentences through inferential
reasoning.”

The court further stated that, “Strictly following historical accuracy is not sufficient as a
defense against a prosecution under Section 153A. The more truthful the writing, the
stronger its impact on readers' brains, especially if the writing is intended to cause harm”.

In the present case to Rahul is being framed by the different group of people for
misunderstanding the speech made by him at Tradulai Swamy stadium on 16th February
2022 in the course of his speech he called the agitators of Samaj Sanghtans as ‘wild
creatures’ and urged the Janata Morcha workers to give a ‘fitting reply’ to the protesters. It is
submitted that the speech made by him is wrongly interpreted by the people as hate speech
and therefore HC is justified in setting aside the session court’s order

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

It is submitted that there is a Prejudicial delay in filling the appeal and also in dealing with
the matter. The nine-month delay in arrest, potentially due to political motives, prejudiced
their ability to defend themselves effectively. Memories might fade, and witnesses might
become unavailable.

Moreover, there is a violation of right to fair trial. The delay violated Rahul Raghuvanshi's
right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

In the case of Sheela Barsa vs UOI7, the SC held that “Without an interim order from a
higher court or the accused's intentional delay, the basic right to a speedy trial would be
clearly violated if a defendant's case is not tried quickly and stays pending before the
Magistrate or the Sessions Court for an excessive amount of time. The prosecution may face
the possibility of being overturned if such a delay occurred.”

6
Gopal Vinayak Godse v. The UOI and Ors, AIR1971BOM56
7
Sheela Barsa vs UOI, 1986 AIR 1773
13
Moreover, in Abdul Rehman Antuley v. R S Nayak8, the SC held that “The right to a speedy
trial under Article 21 is applicable throughout all stages, including investigation, inquiry,
trial, appeal, revision, and retry. The Court established specific criteria for speeding the trial
of a defendant in a criminal case but declined to specify a deadline for the trial's completion.
The Court determined that in some cases, the seriousness of the offense and the surrounding
circumstances may warrant not dismissing the legal proceedings in order to serve the
interests of justice. If necessary, the court might issue an order to ensure that the trial is
completed within a specified timeframe and may also decrease the punishment.”

It is submitted that in the present case there have been a huge amount of delay in filling the
FIR then constituting a committee and then furthermore the delay in arrest cannot be ignored
that too was done on the order of the home minister. The procedural delay also should be
taken into account the trial has been going on since a long time and it’s a waste of the courts
time and violation of Rahul’s right to speedy trial.

4. Does Rahul Raghuvanshi require official permission to be prosecuted

considering his position as a state assembly member?

It is submitted that Rahul Raghuvanshi is a Public Servant under Section 197(1). As a

Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA), Rahul Raghuvanshi holds a civil post under the
State and is considered a public servant u/a12 of the Constitution and Section 21 of the IPC.

It is submitted that the offense Allegedly Committed 'While Acting in Discharge of Official
Duty'. The speech by Rahul Raghuvanshi, delivered at a public stadium, can be interpreted as
an attempt to fulfill his perceived duty as an MLA towards his party and supporters.

In Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. state of Andra pradesh 9 SC has emphasised on two significant
aspects of of sanction for prosecution. “First, the proceedings are void from beginning if a
case is initiated without the proper sanction. Consequently, it is the burden of the
prosecution to establish that the sanctioning authority has issued a legal sanction.
Furthermore, in order for a sanction to be imposed, the sanctioning authority must be
convinced that the offense warrants it. When handing down the penalty, the sanctioning body
must have all the information necessary to understand the nature of the crime and use its best
judgment. The granting of sanction is not a meaningless procedure. It is a sacred law that
shields government employees from baseless accusations.”
8
Abdul Rehman Antuley v. R S Nayak, AIR 1992 SC 1701
9
Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. state of Andra pradesh , 1979 AIR 677
14
It is submitted that prior sanction is needed before prosecution as Rahul Raghuvanshi is
considered a public servant and the alleged offense (hate speech) might be linked to his
duties, the State needs to obtain prior sanction for his prosecution under Section 197(1) of the
CrPC.

In the case of K. Veeraswami vs. UOI & Ors.10, it was held that there is a mandatory
requirement of prior sanction for prosecuting public servants under Section 197(1) to protect
them from frivolous or malicious prosecutions.

Moreover, in State of Maharastra v. R.S. Nayak11 it was held that “S.”12

It is submitted that the HC, while upholding Raghuvanshi's right to freedom of speech under
Article 19(1)(a), acknowledged the reasonable restrictions imposed under Article 19(2) to
maintain public order. However, the court determined that the speech, in its entirety and
considering the context, did not cross the threshold of incitement or promotion of enmity.
This interpretation falls within the established legal framework and doesn't raise a substantial
question of law.

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

Justice Viswanathan Commission?

It is submitted that the government is bound by the findings of Justice Viswanathan

commission as regards its implementation. It is submitted that there is a need for statutory
backing for Commission's Mandate. The commission was constituted under a specific law or
statutory provision, its findings might carry more weight and potentially be binding on the
government. The legislation might outline the commission's purpose and mandate with
specific directives for the government to act upon its recommendations.

It is submitted that the findings of Justice Viswanathan commission are Fair, and Public
Interest. Despite the commission being constituted by the ruling party, it is presumed to have
functioned with fairness and objectivity. The purpose of the commission is to investigate the
incident impartially and provide recommendations for the public good.

10
K. Veeraswami vs. UOI & Ors , 1991 SCC (3) 655
11
State of Maharastra v. R.S. Nayak , AIR 1982 SC 1249
12
Centre for public interest litigation v. UOI, AIR 2005 SC 4413.
15
It is submitted that disregarding the commission's findings could lead to a delay in achieving
justice and ensuring accountability. The report represents a significant investment of time and
resources, and ignoring it undermines the purpose of the inquiry.

It is submitted that there is no dangerous precedent or conflicting judgments. The HC's

judgment, based on Justice Viswanathan commission, specific factual context and careful
interpretation of the speech, does not set a dangerous precedent. Each case of hate speech
must be evaluated on its own merits, considering the specific words, context, and potential
for harm. This does not create legal uncertainty or conflict with existing judgments, which
also emphasize context-specific interpretations.

PRAYER

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

1) the SC cannnot hear the State's appeal against the HC's decision
2) the HC was right to overturn the lower court's conviction of Rahul Raghuvanshi
3) the case involves a time limitations related issue and should be dismissed
16
 4) Rahul Raghuvanshi require official sanction to be prosecuted considering his position
as a state assembly member
5) the government is obligated to bound by the recommendations of the Justice
Viswanathan Commission

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 Respondent

17