TEAM NAME: MRUGAVANI

39TH ALL INDIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION IN COMMEMORATION OF

GOLDEN JUBILEE CELEBRATION OF DR. AMBEDKAR GOVERNMENT LAW
COLLEGE, PUDUCHERRY, 2022.

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF VENGADAM

UNDER ART.32 IN THE MATTER OF

WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2022

VALLUM KAVU DEVASOM ……………………………………………. PETITIONER

VERSUS
UNION OF VENGADAM ……………………………………………. RESPONDENT

AND
VALLUM CRAFT ASSOCIATION ……………………………………………. PETITIONER
VERSUS
UNION OF VENGADAM ……………………………………………. RESPONDENT

AND
ADV. MATHUR NATH ……………………………………………. PETITIONER
VERSUS
UNION OF VENGADAM ……………………………………………. RESPONDENT

UNDER ART.134 IN THE MATTER OF

Criminal Appeal No. of 2022

-IN-
SLP No. 123 of 2022

MR.X, MR.Y, MR.Z ……………………………………………. APPELLANTS

VERSUS
THE STATE OF SATVA ……………………………………………. RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND OTHER HON’BLE JUSTICES
OF THE SUPREME COURT OF VENGADAM
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS………………………………………………………… III

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………………… IV

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………………………………………… V

STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………………………… VI-VIII

ISSUES RAISED…………………………………………………………………… IX

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………………………… X-XI

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED……………………………………………………… 1-25

1. WHETHER THE AMENDMENTS MADE IN SECTIONS 43 (3) (A)

& 44 OF THE WILDLIFE (PROTECTION) ACT, 1972 THEREBY
EXTENDING THE OPERATION OF THE ACT TO ARAYANNA IS
VIOLATIVE OF FREEDOM OF RELIGION OR NOT? ……………...
1-10

2. WHETHER THE SAID AMENDMENTS WOULD AMOUNT TO

VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD OF VALLUM CRAFT
MAKERS OR NOT? …………………………………………………... 11-15

3. WHETHER REGISTERING A CASE OF THEFT ON ACCOUNT OF

POSSESSION AND TRANSPORTATION OF ARAYANNA IS
MAINTAINABLE OR NOT? ..............................................................
16-18

4. WHETHER REGISTERING A CASE UNDER SECTION 124A OF

THE PENAL CODE OF VENGADAM ON ACCOUNT OF A
STATEMENTS MADE IN NEWS DISCUSSION WOULD VIOLATE
THE FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOM OF SPEECH GUARANTEED
IN THE CONSTITUTION OF VENGADAM OR NOT? ...................... 19-25

PRAYER…………………………………………………………… 26

II
 LIST OF ABBREVIATION

AIR All India Reporter

PIL Public Interest Litigation

Hon’ble Honorable

SCR Supreme Court Reports

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

UOI Union of India

ERP Essential Religious Practice

IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature

FIAPO Federation of Indian Animal Protection

Organization
NCRB National Crime Record Bureau

ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political

Rights.
UPCS The Union for Protection and Conservation of Swan

WWF World Wildlife Fund

SCR SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ACGS All Creatures Great and Small

TRAFFIC Trade Records Analysis of Flora and Fauna in

Commerce
SLP Special Leave Petition

CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered

Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

III
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

TABLE OF CASES

1. Acharya Jagdishwaranand vs Commissioner Of Police, Calcutta 1984 AIR 512, 1984 SCR (1) 447
2. Adithayan vs. Travancore Devaswom Board and others, (2002) 8 SCC 106)
3. Animal Welfare Board of India Vs A. Nagaraja, (2014) 7 SCC 547
4. Balram Kumawat v. Union of India & ors (2003) 7 SCC 589.
5. Commissioner of Police v. Acharya Jagdishwarnanda Avadhuta, (2004) 12 S.C.C. 770 (India)
6. Das Rao Deshmukh v. Kamal Kishore Kadam (1996 AIR 391, 1995 SCC (5) 123
7. Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui Etc, Mohd. vs Union Of India And Others AIR 1995 SC 605 A
8. G.R. Simon vs Union Of India on 20 March, 1997 AIR 1997 Delhi 301
9. Gauri Maulekhi Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ors. 2015(4)ABR242, 2015(4)BomCR1.
10. High Court of Delhi in Kanhaiya Kumar vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 2 March, 2016
11. Indian Handicrafts Emporium and Others versus Union of India and Others, (2003) 7 SCC 589
12. Indian Young Lawyers Association and Ors. vs. State of Kerala 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1690
13. Indra Das v. State of Assam, (2011) 3 SCC 380)
14. Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) . vs Union Of India And Ors (2017) 10 SCC 1)
15. Kedar Nath Singh vs State Of Bihar 1962 AIR 955, 1962 SCR Supl. (2) 769.
16. M.J. Sivani And Ors vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 17 April, 1995
17. Mahaveer Nath vs Union Of India on 7 March, 2019(1) WP.5179.2016
18. Masood Alam Etc. Vs. Union Of India & ORS1973 AIR 897, 1973 SCR (3) 268.
19. Mohd Faruk v State of Madhya Pradesh (1969) 1 SCC 853 874.
20. Mohd. Hanif Quareshi & Others : 1958 AIR 731. 1959 SCR 629
21. Moti Lal Vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation - Supreme Court Of India (From: Allahabad)
22. Nikhil Soni V. Union Of India (2015). 2015 Cri LJ 4951.
23. Om Prakash v. State of UP appeal (crl.) 629 of 2006
24. Pradeep Krishen vs Union Of India & Others on 10 May, 1996
25. Prafulla Kumar Das and others Vs. State of Orissa and others [(2003) 11 SCC 614]"
26. Ramesh Sharma Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 2013 (3) SHIMLC 1386
27. Roth v. United States, 1 L Ed 2d 1498 : 354 US 476 (1957).
28. Sanskar Marathe v. State of Maharashtra, 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 587
29. Santosh Singh v. Delhi Administration (1973 AIR 1091, 1973 SCR (3)533),
30. Shayra Bano v Union of India AIR 2017 9 SCC 1 (SC).
31. Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1
32. Sri Venkataramana Devaru v State of Mysore MANU/SC/0026/1957
33. State of Bihar vs. Murad Ali Khan, (1988) 4 SCC 655
34. State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat (2005) 8 SCC534
35. State of Madras Vs. V.G. Row.Union of India [1952] INSC 19 (31 March 1952)
36. Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 221
37. Surendra Narayan Adhicary vs Emperor on 10 May, 1911 Equivalent citations: 16 Ind Cas 327
38. Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay, AIR 1962 SC 853
39. The Commissioner, Hindu ... vs Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar 1954 AIR 282, 1954 SCR 1005
40. The Durgah Committee, Ajmer ... vs Syed Hussain Ali And Others 1961 AIR 1402
41. The State Of Bombay vs Narasu Appa Mali on 24 July, 1951 AIR 1952 Bom 84, (1951) 53 BOMLR 779

IV
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Vengadam has the jurisdiction in this matter under Art. 32
of the Constitution of Vengadam which reads as follows:

Article 32- Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part:

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of
the rights Conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs
in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari,
whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this
Part.

Article 134- Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in regard to criminal matters

(3) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, final order or sentence in
a criminal proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court

(4) 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 of India subject to such conditions and limitations as
may be specified in such law.

V
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The Union of Vengadam is having a written Constitution and a federal democratic pattern of
government.
2. Union of Vengadam is one of the first countries who incorporated specific provisions in their
Constitution for the protection of environment and natural resources.
3. Arayanna is species of swan with peculiar character and Due to the peculiar character and an unusual
habitat, Arayannas cannot be domesticated and hence are not being considered as a pet bird.
4. There is large a number of temples especially in Southern states of Vengadam, where Arayannas are
worshipped along with Goddess Gadadevi.
5. Considering its presence all over the country and its rich and deep-rooted involvement in the cultural
and religious traditions, the Union of Vengadam declared Arayanna as the national bird of
Vengadam in 1986.
6. One of the popular offerings given by devotees in Goddess Gadadevi Temples is Arayattam.
7. In Arayattam festival one of the offerings is a form of dance wearing headdress made up of
Arayanna’s feathers natively known as ‘Vallum’
8. The feathers of Arayannas were also widely used as an ingredient of traditional medicine in most
part of the country. Hence the Arayanna’s feathers and Vallum’s, cloths and ornaments made up of
such feathers has large market.
9. The Vallum’s are made by few families belonging to a small village named as Vallakam in Satva, a
state in Vengadam.
10. In 2007, Geographical Indication Tag was given by the respondent to Vallum based on an application
given by Vallum Craft Associations, Vallakam.
11. The Union for Protection and Conservation of Swan (UPCS) is a national organisation committed to
protection of swans in Union of Vengadam.
12. In nation-wide research conducted in the years 2017-2018, the UPCS identified a drastic decline in
the population of Arayanna during the last decade. The study estimated that, if the current trends
continue, by 2030-35, the Arayannas may go extinct.
13. The study identified several reasons such as habitat loss, increased pollution, changing weather
pattern, hunting and poaching for feathers, etc.
14. In 2019, the UPCS approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Vengadam seeking to issue directions
to Central Government for taking appropriate steps for the protection and conservation of Arayannas.
15. In August 2020 The Hon’ble Supreme Court, directed the Central Government, to make necessary
changes in the existing legal framework including the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

VI
16. The Court observed “the Arayannas are one of the precious natural resources of the country and are
living entities having the status of an artificial legal entity with corresponding rights and duties of a
natural living human being”.
17. Meanwhile three persons were arrested by satva police for transporting 51 live Arayannas and due
to the lack of specific law regulating the possession and transportation of Wild Arayannas in
Vengadam. the police registered a case of theft in December, 2020.
18. The accused persons approached the High Court of Satva, with a petition to quash the said FIR. The
said petition was dismissed by the High Court. Aggrieved by this, the petitioners have preferred an
appeal to this Hon’ble Supreme Court.
19. In January 2021, the Government of Vengadam introduced certain amendments to Wildlife
(Protection) Act, 1972, thereby bringing Arayannas under the purview of Section 43 & 44 and the
Schedule I.
20. The effect of this amendment was a total prohibition of possession, transportation and use of
Arayannas and their feathers as well as other body parts in any form. Even a mere possession of
Arayanna feather in a house would amount to an offence under the Act.
21. Vallum Kavu, is one of the most popular Hindu Temples dedicated to Goddess Gadadevi in the State
of Satva. Arayattam Festival in Vallum Kavu is considered as one of the most important festivals of
this temple and the offering of Arayattam is considered as very auspicious.
22. A good quantity of Arayanna feathers is required for the ceremonies of this temple during the festival
season, i.e. April –May.As a result of the amendments in Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, the temple
administrators, the Vallum Kavu Devasom found it difficult to get the required quantity of Arayanna
feathers.
23. There were several protests staged by devotees and the temple administrators against the said
changes introduced in the Act. Finally, in June 2021, the Vallum Kavu Devasom approached the
Hon’ble Supreme Court challenging the Constitutional validity of the said amendments in the
Wildlife (Protection) Act.
24. The non-availability of Arayanna’s feathers adversely affected the making of ‘Vallums’ and related
products. It is observed that Several persons who were actively involved in making the Vallums and
these products had to quit the field and several persons committed suicide.
25. Finding difficult to continue with the activities related to Vallum’s, in July 2021, the Vallum Craft
Associations, Vallakam filed a petition challenging the Constitutional validity of these recent
amendments in the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
26. During the months of June and July there were nationwide protests against the said amendments in
the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

VII
27. During this exciting situation Adv. Mathur Nath, opined in a national news channel about the recent
amendments during a live news night discussion. He gave hatred speech towards the amendment as:
“…The people who enact the laws should have some sense…it is high-time people should react
against such senseless governments.” And this statement invited severe criticisms from the ruling
party and subsequently, the police of State of Ahali registered case under Section 124A of the Penal
Code of Vengadam. Then he approached the Hon’ble High Court of Ahali with a petition to quash
the F.I.R. in the said case stating it clear that, Section 124A is against his fundamental freedom of
speech. However, the Hon’ble High Court of Ahali rejected the petition.
28. Being aggrieved by this judgment, Adv. Mathur Nath approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court with
a petition challenging the Constitutional validity of Section 124A of the Penal Code.

VIII
 ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE I

Whether the amendments made in Section 43(3)(a) and 44 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act,
1972 thereby extending the operation of the Act to Arayanna is violative of freedom of
religion or not?

ISSUE II

Whether the said amendments would amount to violation of right to livelihood of Vallum
Craft makers or not?

ISSUE III

Whether registering a case of theft on account of possession and transportation of

Arayanna is maintainable or not?

ISSUE IV

Whether registering a case under Section 124A of the Penal Code of Vengadam on account
of a statements made in news discussion would violate the fundamental freedom of speech
guaranteed in the Constitution of Vengadam or not?

IX
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Whether the amendments made in Sections 43 (3) (a) & 44 of the

Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 thereby extending the operation of the
Act to Arayanna is violative of freedom of religion or not?

It is humbly contended that the rights under Article 25 enshrined under the Constitution is not an
absolute right and is subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this
part. It is submitted that all emerging infectious diseases worldwide are of zoonotic origin. they are
transmitted from animals to humans. Zoonoses are responsible for the most recent pandemics in
modern history, including HIV, Ebola, SARS, MERS and, most recently, COVID-19. Moreover,
nothing under Article 25 of the Constitution will prevent the State from making any law for
regulating or restricting any financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated
with religious practice. There are chances for depriving the rights of the species. Hence the govt
come out with this amendment to safeguard the National Bird. Drastically reducing population in
order to safe guard the Endangered species the amendment made by the respondent is constitutional

Whether the said amendments would amount to violation of right to

Livelihood of Vallum Craft makers or not?

It is humbly contended that some wild animals and birds have already become extinct in this country
and others are in the danger of being so. Hence, the state has taken Preventive measures and come up
with the correct amendment in Wildlife protection Act to protect National bird Arayanna before
getting extinct. It is humbly submitted that Article 21 can't be connected with article 19(1)(g) which
well settled in plethora cases. We can't exercise article 19(1)(g) at the cost of the life of other creatures.
Article 21 is extended to non-Humans also as settled in AWBI case. And I further state that Right to
work/occupation/trade/business can't be connected with right to life.

Whether registering a case of theft on account of possession and

transportation of Arayanna is maintainable or not?

It is humbly contended that 3 appellant accused have been arrested in the state of Satva for
transporting 51 Aryannas which is our national bird. Being transporting a national bird / schedule 1
animal it requires prior permission in writing from wild life warden. Even though the substantial
law not take retrospective effect it amounts to theft as transporting a schedule 1 bird requires prior

X
permission u/s 40(2) of Wildlife (Protection)Act, 1972. Moreover, Wild Life Act Empowers a Police
Officer not below the rank of a Sub-Inspector to inspect, conduct search or seize articles as provided
under Section 50(1) clause (a), (b) and (c). Hence the investigation is mandatory, once the possession
is not disclosed then it amounts to dishonest possession. Hence offence under section 379 of IPC
should be made out. And is the cognizable offense. Hence the investigation in this case mandatory.
And the registration of FIR is maintainable.

Whether registering a case under Section 124A of the Penal Code of Vengadam on
account of statements made in news discussion would violate the fundamental
freedom of speech guaranteed in the Constitution of Vengadam or not?

It is humbly submitted that none of the rights which enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) in our
Constitution is an absolute and all the rights are subjected to reasonable restrictions. Without Article
19(2) there may be direct and approximate excitement to public disorder or the use of violence. Hence,
We Cannot give unbridled power like this because the country has witnessed lot of insurgencies in
derivates decades. To maintain internal security and peace the government has placed restrictions
under Article 19(2) Constitution of Vengadam and under Section 124A of Penal Code.

XI
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

WHETHER THE AMENDMENTS MADE IN SECTION 43(3) (A) & OF THE WILDLIFE
PROTECTION ACT, 1972 IS VIOLATIVE OF FREEDOM OF RELIGION OR NOT?

1. It is humbly submitted in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Vengadam that the petition filed by
the Vallum Kavu Devasom Board regarding the amendments in the Wildlife Protection Act
has not violated the right to freedom of religion which is enshrined under the Constitution of
Vengadam.
2. It is well settled that the rights which are enshrined under the Constitution is not an absolute
right and moreover, nothing under Article 25 of the Constitution will protect the State from
making any law for regulating or restricting any financial, political or other secular activity
which may be associated with religious practice (Article 25(2)(a))
3. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not submitted any concrete proof to validate their
contentions regarding the Arayattam festival as an essential religious practice in Vallum kavu
temple either through any textsor through any other forms.
4. It is the bounden duty of the state to protect a creature which is consideredas an endangered
species and furthermore being declared as a national bird, the respondents are obliged to
safeguard the said bird from further declination in the name of religious practices.
5. This hon’ble Court in the earlier occasion has directed the respondents to make the necessary
amendments in the existing legal framework of Wildlife Protection Act in the case which was
filed by The Union for Protection and Conservation of Swan (UPCS).
6. It is further submitted that while interpreting Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, this hon’ble
Court have always considered the facts and circumstances of the case and evolved the doctrine
of “essentiality”. This hon’ble Court have tested whether the religious practice followed by
subjects is an integral and essential part for the said religion. [1]

7. It is further stated that Article 25(2)(b) of the Constitution allows the State to make laws for
providing for social welfare and reform or throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a
public character to all classes and sections of Hindus. Though Article 26(b) of the Constitution
avails the rights to denominations to manage its own affairs, it is being controlled by Article
25(2)(b) of the Constitution. Therefore, as settled in Sri Venkataramana Devaru vs The State
of Mysore 1957, there should be harmonious relationship between the above said two articles.

1.
Article 25 of Constitution of India 1949
2.
Article 26 of Constitution of India 1949
3.
Sri Venkataramana Devaru v State of Mysore MANU/SC/0026/1957

1
 8. It is further submitted that the use of loudspeaker for calling the Azan [4], the sacrifice of cow
on bakrid [5], Jain practice of santhara a ritual of voluntary and systematic fasting to death [6]
are not considered as essential religious practices by this hon’ble Court and the same has been
banned since there was no conformity with the religion.
9. It is further stated that Animal sacrifice is usually practiced under the garb of religious norms
to appease deities and Gods. However, it is important to consider that no religion in the world is
the preacher of violence or requiresits followers to kill animals. All the deities are kind hearted
and bless humanity to prosper and live in harmony with each other. [7]
10. The doctrine of ERP plausibly be traced to the Chief Architect of our Constitution, Dr.
B.R.Ambedkar and to his famous statement in the Constituent Assembly during debates on the
Codification of Hindu Law: “the religious conception in this country are so vast that they cover
every aspect of life from birth to death…there is nothing extraordinary in sayingthat we ought
to strive hereafter to limit the definition of religion in such amanner that we shall not extend it
beyond beliefs and such rituals as may be connected with ceremonials which are essentially
religious…” [8]
11. In ACHARYA JAGADISHWARANANDA AVADHUTA [9], supra, it has been observed at
paragraph 9 as under: [3]
“The protection guaranteed under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution is not confined to matters
of doctrine or belief but extends to acts done in pursuance of religion and, therefore, contains
a guarantee for rituals, observances, ceremonies and modes of worship which are essential or
integral part of religion. What constitutes an integral or essential part of religion has to be
determined with reference to its doctrines, practices, tenets, historical background, etc. of the
given religion. What is meant by “an essential part or practices of a religion” is now the matter
for elucidation. Essential part of a religion means the core beliefs upon which a religion is
founded. Essential practice means those practices that are fundamental to follow a religious
belief. It is upon the corner stone of essential parts or practices that the superstructure of a
religion is built, without which a religion will be no religion. Test to determine whether a part
or practice is essential to a religionis to find out whether the nature of the religion will be
changed without that part or practice. If the taking away of that part or practice could result in
a fundamental change in the character of that religion or in its belief, then such part could be
treated as an essential or integral part.

4.
Masood Alam Etc. Vs. Union Of India & ORS1973 AIR 897, 1973 SCR (3) 268.
5
. Mohd. Hanif Quareshi & Others : 1958 AIR 731. 1959 SCR 629
6
. Nikhil Soni V. Union Of India (2015). 2015 Cri LJ 4951.

2
 12. There cannot be additions or subtractions to such part because it is the very essence of that
religion and alterations will change its fundamental character. It is such permanent essential
parts which are protected by the Constitution. Nobody can say that an essential part or practice
of one's religion has changed from a particular date or by an event. Such alterable parts or
practices are definitely not the “core” of religion whereupon the belief is based and religion is
founded upon. They could only be treated as mere embellishments to the non-essential (sic
essential) part or practices.
13. In plethora of cases this hon’ble Court has played a role in protecting the rights of animals
maintaining a safe environment. This hon’ble Court has tried to maintain a balance and harmony
between the protection of animal and religious practices.

14. Gauging the rights availed to animals can be only done through the interpretation of statutes
made in various judgments. The fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 (Right to life
and liberty) was given a new dimension by this hon’ble Court in Animal Welfare Board of
India Vs A. Nagaraja and Ors. Through this case, the Court incorporated non-humans within
the ambit of Article 21. This inclusion of animals within the ambit of Article 21 can strike
down many laws and regulations pertaining to animals as unconstitutional and one such thing
is the permissibility of ritual sacrifice. [10]
15. It is further submitted that through the provisions in Article 51A(g) of the Indian Constitution
[11]
, the Constitution casts the duty to protect and improvethe natural environment including
forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures.
16. INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION [12] surveyed the development of law relating
to essential religious practice and the extent of its constitutional patronage consistent with the
long-standing view. Ordinarily, a religious practice in order to be called an ‘essential religious
practice’ should have the following indicia:
(i) Not every activity associated with the religion is essential to such religion. Practice
should be fundamental to religion and it should be from the time immemorial.
(ii) Foundation of the practice must precede the religion itself or should be co- founded at
the origin of the religion.
(iii) Such practice must form the cornerstone of religion itself. If that practice is not observed
or followed, it would result in the change of religion itself and, Such practice must be
binding nature of the religion itself and it must be compelling. That a practice claimed
to be essential to the religion has been carried on since time immemorial or is grounded

7.
Ramesh Sharma Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 2013 (3) SHIMLC 1386
8.
[Constituent Assembly Debates VII: 781]
9.
Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta & Ors. (supra) 1984 AIR 512, 1984 SCR (1) 447

3
 in religious texts per se does not lend to it the constitutional protection unless it passes
the test of essentiality as is adjudged by the Courts in their role as the guardians of the
Constitution.
17. Since SHAYARA BANO, there has been a paradigm shift in the approach to the concept of
essential religious practice. In INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, this branch of
law marched further when the Apex Court added another dimension to the concept of essential
religious practice, by observing at paragraphs 289 & 291 as under: “For decades, this Court has
witnessed claims resting on the essentiality of a practice that militate against the constitutional
protection of dignity and individual freedom under the Constitution. It is the duty of the courts
to ensure that what is protected is in conformity with fundamental constitutional values and
guarantees and accords with constitutional morality. While the Constitution is solicitous in its
protection of religious freedom as well as denominational rights, it must be understood that
dignity, liberty and equality constitute the trinity which defines the faith of the Constitution.
Together, these three values combine to define a constitutional order of priorities. Practices or
beliefs which detract from these foundational values cannot claim legitimacy. [13]
18. Our Constitution places the individual at the heart of the discourse on rights. In a constitutional
order characterized by the Rule of Law, the constitutional commitment to egalitarianism and
the dignity of every individual enjoins upon the Court a duty to resolve the inherent tensions
between the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom afforded to religious denominations
and constitutional guarantees of dignity and equality afforded to individuals. There are a
multiplicity of intersecting constitutional values and interests involved in determining the
essentialityof religious practices. In order to achieve a balance between competing rights and
interests, the test of essentiality is infused with these necessary limitations.” [14]
19. Thus, a person who seeks refuge under the umbrella of Article 25 of the Constitution has to
demonstrate not only essential religious practice but also its engagement with the constitutional
values that are illustratively mentioned at paragraph 291 of the said decision [15]. It’s a matter of
concurrent requirement. It hardly needs to be stated, if essential religious practice as a
threshold requirement is not satisfied, the case does not travel to the domain of those
constitutional values. [15]
20. In a plethora of judgments, the Court has laid down the test to determine the reasonability of
restrictions. It has held that for a restriction to be valid, it must have a direct and proximate
nexus with the object which the legislation seeks to achieve and the restriction must not be in

10
.Animal Welfare Board of India Vs A. Nagaraja, (2014) 7 SCC 547
11
.Article 51(A)(g) of Constitution of India 1949
12
.Indian Young Lawyers Association and Ors. vs. State of Kerala 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1690

4
 excess of that object i.e., a proportionate balance has to be maintained. While noting that the
judges should base their decision not on the social morals but as per the Constitution, the
Supreme Court in State of Madras vs. V.G. Row [16] held that in forming their own conception
of what is reasonable, the judges must be guided by a sobering reflection that the "Constitution
is meant not only for people of their way of thinking but for all…".

21. In Mohd. Faruk vs. State of M.P., [17] while holding a Municipality's ban on slaughter of bulls
to be illegal, a 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court observed: "The sentiments of a section of
the people may be hurt by permitting slaughter of bulls and bullocks in premises maintained
by a local authority. But a prohibition imposed on the exercise of a fundamental right to carry
on an occupation, trade or business will not be regarded as reasonable, if it is imposed not in
the interest of the general public, but merely to respect the susceptibilities and sentiments of a
section of the people whose way of life, belief or thought is not the same as that of the
claimant".

22. In 2004, a 2-judge bench of the Supreme Court in Om Prakash & Others vs State of Uttar
[18]
Pradesh upheld the prohibition of sale of eggs in Rishikesh, Haridwar and Muni ki Reti.
The plea was filed by the hotel owners residing in the cities citing their right to profession
under Article 19(1)(g). The Court held that the ban formed a reasonable restriction under
Article 19(6) and said that since trade of food items were unrestricted in adjoining towns and
villages, hence there was "no substantial harm caused to those engaged in such trade".
Interestingly, the Court also cited Article 51A which provides for the citizen's fundamental
duties. The Court's decision was based on the fact that these were pilgrimage places and that
the ban had been in existence for a long period, over 5 decades. The Court observed: “The
reasonableness of complete restriction imposed on trade of non-vegetarian food items has,
therefore, to be viewed from the cultural and religious background of the three municipal
towns.... Geographical situation and peculiar culture of the three towns justify complete
restriction on trade and public dealing in non-vegetarian food items including eggs within the
municipal limits of the towns" [19][20].
FACTS AND FIGURES

23. In a nation-wide survey on religious attitudes, behaviors and beliefs conducted by Pew
Research Center, a non-profit based in Washington DC,the report found that 91% of Hindus felt
they have religious freedom, while85% of them believed that respecting all religions was very
important ‘to being truly Indian’. Also, for most Hindus, religious tolerance was not justa civic
.
13.
Shayra Bano v Union of India AIR 2017 9 SCC 1 (SC).
14.
Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) . vs Union Of India And Ors (2017) 10 SCC 1)
15
. https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/75-resham-v-state-of-karnataka-15-mar-2022-412165.pdf

5
 virtue but also a religious value, with 80% of them stating that respecting other religions was
an integral aspect of ‘being Hindu’. Other religions showed similar numbers for freedom of
religion and religious tolerance. While 89% of Muslims and Christians said they felt free to
practice their religion, the comparative figures for Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains were 82%, 93%,
and 85% respectively.[21]
24. On the question of religious tolerance, 78% of Muslims felt it was an essential aspect of being
Indian, while 79% deemed it a part of their religious identity as Muslims. Other religious
denominations scored similarly high on religious tolerance. [21]
25. Keeping in sight the immoral nature of the religious practice this hon’ble Court decided to limit
as well as protect the religious practice based on the essentiality and non-essentiality. The
doctrine of essentiality thus was invented by a seven-judge Bench of this hon’ble Court in the
‘Shirur Mutt’ case in 1954.[22]
26. It is further submitted that the existence of various rites and ceremonies like fasting, following
unique clothing styles, or discretely offering prayer can be considered as a pious or sacred act
by choice but the same cannot be considered as a mandatory practice. This hon’ble Court in
Ismail Faruqui Case stated that visiting a mosque is not an integral part of religious practice
and namaz can be read at any place. [23]
27. It is further submitted that Article 25 of the Indian Constitution draws a thin line between
freedom of religion and practice of religion which state that any practice that violates public
order, health, or morality has enough reason to be restricted and considered not essentiality.
The main purpose of this doctrine of essentiality is to allow the practice of religious belief
without violating the law of nature.
28. It is well settled in the Anand Marga Case [24] the court prohibited the practiceof rites like tandav
dance in public and uing lethal weapons and skulls asimmoral and against the public order.
29. It is further stated that Section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, 1960
emphasizes on the acts which are recognized as cruelty to animals. Although this section
considers the unnecessary cruel killing of animals as a punishable offence. Section 11 (3)(e)
states that unless there is the infliction of unnecessary pain and suffering to an animal, killing
an animal to provide food for mankind shall be an exception to the PCA Act.Section 28 is the
only section under the PCA Act which is pertaining to animal sacrifice. The section states that
no provision laid down under the PCA Act shall render killing of an animal; in a manner
.
16.
State of Madras Vs. V.G. Row.Union of India [1952] INSC 19 (31 March 1952)
17.
Mohd Faruk v State of Madhya Pradesh (1969) 1 SCC 853 874.
18
. Om Prakash v. State of UP appeal (crl.) 629 of 2006
19.
Article 51A of Constitution of India 1949
20.
Article 19 of Constitution of India

6
 required by the religion of any community as an offence. [25][26]
30. Zoonotic diseases are a stark reminder of how people and nature are interconnected. From
Forest to Market: How Pandemics are Fueled by Nature Loss visualizes how the increased risk
of serious outbreaks is driven by human activities that encroach unsustainably into wild places
and by the sales or consumption of certain wild animals.
31. It is humbly submitted that Over 60% of all emerging infectious diseases worldwide are of
zoonotic origin – meaning they are transmitted from animals to humans. Zoonoses are
responsible for the most recent pandemics in modern history, including HIV, Ebola, SARS,
MERS and, most recently, COVID-19. Deforestation, particularly for new roads and
expanding agriculture, as well as livestock production and Illegal or unregulated wildlife trade,
brings humans into close contact with wildlife and increases the risk of zoonotic transmission.
While the poaching of elephants and tigers for their parts has garnered worldwide attention,
countless other species that can have high zoonotic disease risk are similarly exploited for meat
consumption or as exotic pets.
32. It is submitted that In India According to an International Livestock Research Institute study,
13 zoonoses are cause of 2.4 billion cases of human disease and 2.2 million deaths per year.
The highest zoonotic diseases burden with wide spread diseases burden are in Ethiopia,
Nigeria, Tanzania, and India. [27]
33. The High Court of Uttarakhand interpreted and established a relation between Section 11(3)(e)
and Section 28 of the PCA Act in the case of Gauri Maulekhi Vs State of Uttarakhand. HC
held that if an animal is sacrificed, it should be done in a manner prescribed by the religion of
anycommunity, but such sacrifice should solely be for arranging food for mankind and no
other purpose. [28]

34. It is further submitted that when the Fundamental Duties under Article 51A was incorporated in
the Constitution, the intent was to impose responsibilities amongst the citizens although being
legally unenforceable.The duties laid down under Article 51A are essential to be abided by
eachcitizen for the wholesome development of the country.

35. The fundamental duties in connection with our study are Article 51A(g) and Article 51A(h).
The former imposes a duty to prevent and improve the natural environment and to have
compassion for all living creatures.Whereas, the latter directs the citizens to develop a

21.
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/indians-value-religious-freedom-and-tolerance-but-not-great-at-integration-
finds-pew-survey/article35045347.ece
22
The Commissioner, Hindu ... vs Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar 1954 AIR 282, 1954 SCR 1005
23
Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui Etc, Mohd. vs Union Of India And Others AIR 1995 SC 605 A
24
. Acharya Jagdishwaranand ... vs Commissioner Of Police, Calcutta
1984 AIR 512, 1984 SCR (1) 447

7
 scientific temper, havehumanism and inculcate a spirit of inquiry and reform. By including
the word ‘scientific temper’ in the Constitution, maybe the legislature sought to eliminate India
from the shackles of superstition and blind faith like an animal sacrifice to appease deities. [29]

36. The fundamental duties even have its implications on perception and interpretations made by
judges on certain age-old traditions etc. In RameshSharma Vs State of Himachal Pradesh, HC
noted that ritual of animal sacrifice was prevalent only in the prehistoric times and in this era
these practices were merely based on superstition and ignorance. [30]

37. In the case of N. Adithayan vs. Travancore Devaswom Board and others, this hon’ble Court
highlighted that even though the tradition has been followed from the pre-constitution period,
it cannot be considered as a source of law. N. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also highlighted
that the agenda of drafters of the Constitution was to in still scientific temper amongst the
citizens and to liberate the country from blind faith and superstition. [31]

38. It is settled in Sabarimala case the devotees of Ayyappa did not pass the constitutional test to
be declared a separate religious identity. He said that they are Hindus. Thus, the temple's
denominational right to manage its own internal affairs, under Article 26(b), was subject to the
State's social reform mandate under Article 25(2)(b). Article 25(2)(b) provides that the State
[32]
can make laws to reform Hindu denominations . Specifically, Article 25(2)(b) allows the
State to make any law that opens a public Hindu institution to all 'classes and sections' of
Hindus.

39. The courts have put in place in Sabarimala Temple issue what is known as the “essential
practices” test, used to decide a variety of cases. The court has used this test to decide which
religious practices are eligible for constitutional protection.

40. It is further stated that religion cannot be construed in the context of Articles 25 and 26 in its
strict and etymological sense. This hon’ble Courtheld that every religion has basic fundamental
principles to be followed bythe followers without which the following of a religion is in vain,
still suchessential requirements can be examined by the Supreme Court of India andeven if a
particular activity constitutes the essential part of a religion, its utility can be examined by the
[33]
court. Belief must be of an essence of that religion.

25
. Section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, 1960
26
. Section 11(3) (e) of Prevention of cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, 1960
27.
http://www.emro.who.int/fr/about-who/rc61/zoonotic-diseases.html
28
. Gauri Maulekhi Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ors. 2015(4)ABR242, 2015(4)BomCR1.
29.
Article 51A(g) and Article 51A(h) of Constitution of India 1949
30
.Ramesh Sharma Vs State of Himachal Pradesh, MANU/HP/0934/2014)
31
.Adithayan vs. Travancore Devaswom Board and others, (2002) 8 SCC 106)
32
. Article 25(2)(b). Article 25(2)(b) of Consitution of India 1949

8
 41. In the case of State of Bombay v. Narasu Appa Mali, it was held that: [34]
A sharp distinction must be drawn between religious faith and belief and religious practices.
What the state protects is religious faith and belief. If the religious practices run to counter to
public order, morality or health or a policy of social welfare upon which the state has embarked,
then the religious practices must give away before the good of people of the state as whole.
42. It must be remembered that when there is a violation of the fundamental rights, the term morality
naturally implies constitutional morality and any view that is ultimately taken by the
Constitutional Courts must be in conformity with the principles and basic tenets of the concept
of this constitutional morality that gets support from the Constitution. Constitutional morality
in a pluralistic society and secular polity would reflect that the followers of various sects have
the freedom to practice their faith in accordance with the tenets of their religion.
43. The State can intervene or regulate freedom of religion and the practices. There several
legislations passed by the parliament in regulating various religious practices. A religious
practice is associated with personal law. However, the personal law operates under the
authority of the legislation and not under the religion and therefore, the personal law can
always be superseded or supplemented by legislation. Article 25 of the Constitution allow the
state to regulate secular Activities connected to religion.
44. In the case of Durgah Committee v. Hussain Ali, the court held that: Articles 25 and 26
provide only essential and integral parts of religionimmunity from state intervention. It also
held that the immunity is provided not only to matters of doctrines or belief; but it extends
to acts done infurtherance of religion such as rituals, observances, ceremonies, modes of
worship which are considered to be fundamental parts of the religiouspractices. The Court
also made an observation which stated that noimmunity would be provided to superstitious,
peripheral and unnecessaryreligious practices. [35]
45. In order to determine whether a particular act constitutes an essential religious function or not,
[36]
reliance needs to be placed on the doctrines and religious texts of that particular religion.
46. In Mohammad Hanif Qureshi Vs. State of Bihar the Supreme Court heldthat the prohibition on
cow slaughter is not in violation to the freedom of religion of Muslims and declared that cow
slaughter is not an integral partof the religion. In that case, there arose a chaotic situation to
differentiate a secular act and a religious act. [37]

33.
Commissioner of Police v. Acharya Jagdishwarnanda Avadhuta, (2004) 12 S.C.C. 770 (India)
34
.The State Of Bombay vs Narasu Appa Mali on 24 July, 1951 AIR 1952 Bom 84, (1951) 53 BOMLR 779
35.
The Durgah Committee, Ajmer ... vs Syed Hussain Ali And Others 1961 AIR 1402
36
. Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay, AIR 1962 SC 853
37
. Mohd. Hanif Quareshi & Others vs The State Of Bihar 1958 AIR 731, 1959 SCR 629

9
 47. It is next to be noted that the expression ‘freedom of conscience’ stands injuxtaposition to the
words “right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion”. If these two parts of Art. 25(1)
are read together, it would appear, by the expression ‘freedom of conscience’ reference is made
to the mental process of belief or non belief, while profession, practice and propagation refer
to external action in pursuance of the mental idea or concept of the person...It is also to be
noted that the freedom of conscience or belief is, by its nature, absolute, it would become
subject to State regulation, in India as in the U.S.A. as soon as it is externalized i.e., when such
belief is reflected into action which must necessarily affect other people.

49
Animal Welfare Board Of India vs A. Nagaraja & Ors on 7 May, 2014
50
State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat (2005) 8 SCC534
51
. Balram Kumawat vs Union Of India & Ors. on 27 August, 2003
52
. Pradeep Krishen vs Union Of India & Others on 10 May, 1996
53
. http://www.emro.who.int/fr/about-who/rc61/zoonotic-diseases.html
54
.https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/jaipur-news/rajasthan-hc-allows-salman-khan-s-transfer-plea-in-1998-
blackbuck-poach-101647861871202.html
55.
https://birdfriendlyiowa.org/Pages/BirdFriendlyIowa.aspx?pg=6

10
 2. WHETHER THE SAID AMENDMENTS WOULD AMOUNT TO VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO
LIVELIHOOD OF VALLUM CRAFT MAKERS OR NOT?

1. The amendment in this Act was necessitated as rapid decline of Vengadam's wild animals and
birds, one of the richest and most varied in the world, has been a cause of grave concern. Some
wild animals and birds have already become extinct in this country and others are in the danger
of being so.
2. The working hence, to prevent the decrease in the population of endangered bird named Arayanna
the Wildlife (Protection) Act was suitably amended in 2021. The effect of this Amendment was
total prohibition of possession, transportation and use of Arayannas and their feathers as well as
other body parts in any form. Even a mere possession of Arayanna feather in a house would
amount to an offence under the Act.
3. It is humbly submitted that according to the latest report, published by IUCN Red List has
declared the animal endangered because of the constant decrease of its population since 2010.
According to the report the total number of Asiatic Lions left in the country are now just 650. The
current tiger population in Vengadam is estimated to be Around 1706 according to a WII-NTCA
survey. [38]
4. IUCN Red List of Endangered Species lists, 182 species of Indian birds in the categories of
Critically Endangered, Vulnerable, and Near Threatened.
5. Art. 51-A (g) of Indian Constitution imposes a fundamental duty on every Indian citizen to protect
and improve wildlife in the country. Hence Preventive measures have to be taken before the
species are entered into endangered list. [39]
6. Birds are a part of the balance of nature. Birds have ecological value as important elements of
natural systems. Birds provide insect and rodent control, plant pollination and seed dispersal
which result in tangible benefits to people.
7. Changes in bird populations are often the first indication of environment problems. Whether
ecosystems are managed for agricultural production, wildlife, water, or tourism, success can be
measured by the health of birds. [40]

49
Animal Welfare Board Of India vs A. Nagaraja & Ors on 7 May, 2014
50
State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat (2005) 8 SCC534
51
. Balram Kumawat vs Union Of India & Ors. on 27 August, 2003
52
. Pradeep Krishen vs Union Of India & Others on 10 May, 1996
53
. http://www.emro.who.int/fr/about-who/rc61/zoonotic-diseases.html
54
.https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/jaipur-news/rajasthan-hc-allows-salman-khan-s-transfer-plea-in-1998-
blackbuck-poach-101647861871202.html
55.
https://birdfriendlyiowa.org/Pages/BirdFriendlyIowa.aspx?pg=6

11
 8. A decline in bird numbers tells us that we are damaging the environment through habitat
fragmentation and destruction, pollution and pesticides, introduced species and many other
impacts.
9. Further on the basis of Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora (CITES), collection of endangered species of animals and plants has been prohibited.
10. The issue of illegal poaching and trading has not been effective as it is still prevalent in many
parts of Vengadam such as the smuggling of ivory tusk in Karnataka and Odisha. [41]
11. According to the World Wide Fund (‘WWF’) for Nature’s wildlife trade monitoring network
(TRAFFIC), the demand for wildlife doubled during lockdown since people took up trading in
wildlife as an alternative source of income. There was also an increase in the demand for meat
consumption.
12. It is submitted that the program conducted by the Oxford Martin Programme on Wildlife Trade
reports a systematic review of online media reports over the 2013-2018 period and recorded at
least 46 instances of illegal peafowl trade being detected by enforcement agencies. These included
32 cases of poaching of an estimated 400 birds, and 14 seizures of plucked feathers totaling over
370 kg. These seizures were distributed across 12 states, and on four occasions were made at
international airports (Figure 1), clearly reflecting the large scale and organized, commercial
nature of the trade. And yet, our results must only be interpreted as a highly conservative estimate
of the trade, given that, only a fraction (perhaps around 10%) of illegal trade is detected by
agencies, and an even smaller percentage is reported in media. [41]
13. In Mahaveer Nath Vs. Union of India (2019) it is well settled that, the constitutional validity of
Sections 9 and 11 was challenged on the ground that the restrictions mentioned under those
Sections deprived the petitioner of his right to livelihood. The Court observed that Article 19(1)(g)
is not an absolute right but a qualified right and reasonable restrictions can be imposed on the
same for the general welfare of the public.
14. Even otherwise, as held in "Prafulla Kumar Das and others Vs. State of Orissa and others [(2003)
11 SCC 614]" that:"45. ...A mere hardship cannot be a ground for striking down a valid legislation
unless it is held to be suffering from the vice of discrimination or unreasonableness. A valid piece

49
Animal Welfare Board Of India vs A. Nagaraja & Ors on 7 May, 2014
50
State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat (2005) 8 SCC534
51
. Balram Kumawat vs Union Of India & Ors. on 27 August, 2003
52
. Pradeep Krishen vs Union Of India & Others on 10 May, 1996
53
. http://www.emro.who.int/fr/about-who/rc61/zoonotic-diseases.html
54
.https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/jaipur-news/rajasthan-hc-allows-salman-khan-s-transfer-plea-in-1998-
blackbuck-poach-101647861871202.html
55.
https://birdfriendlyiowa.org/Pages/BirdFriendlyIowa.aspx?pg=6

12
 of legislation can be struck down only if it is found to be ultra vires to article 14 of the constitution
of India and not otherwise.
15. M. J. Sivani v. State of Karnataka & Ors, the Supreme Court held that right to life under Article
21 does protect livelihood but added a rider that its deprivation cannot be extended too far or
projected or stretched to the avocation, business or trade injurious to public interest or has
insidious effect on public morals or public order. It was, therefore, held that regulation of video
games or prohibition of some video games of pure chance or mixed chance and skill are not
violative of Article 21 nor is the procedure unreasonable, unfair, or unjust.
16. In Balram Kumawat v. UOI (2003), the court re-emphasized that the act puts a complete ban on
the trade of African elephant ivory and there cannot be a legitimate claim of violation of the right
to freedom of trade under Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) since the ban is a reasonable restriction
under Article 19(6). [46]
17. In R. Simon vs. Union of India, the Petitioner challenged 1991 Amendment which prohibited
trade in animal articles. It was contended that the said Act is colorable legislation as it indirectly
takes away fundamental right to carry on any trade or business under Art. 19(1)(g), which cannot
be done directly. While rejecting the contentions the Delhi High Court held that every animal is
important in maintaining ecological balance and it is the duty of every Indian citizen to protect
and improve the wildlife in the country. [47]
18. Further, no fundamental right is absolute and the same can be restricted in public interest. Wildlife
protection is very much in public interest. Hence the Hon’ble Court declared the 1991
Amendment is constitutional. Similar decision has been given in the case Ivory Traders and
Manufacturers Association vs. Union of India.
19. In Indian Handicrafts Emporium vs. Union of India, the petitioner had challenged the
constitutional validity of 1991 Amendment, which prohibited trade in imported ivory. The
Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of this amendment under Art.19 (6). The Court
observed that a trade, which is dangerous to ecology, may be regulated or totally prohibited.
Balancing the social interest and the fundamental rights, a total prohibition is reasonable. [48]

49
Animal Welfare Board Of India vs A. Nagaraja & Ors on 7 May, 2014
50
State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat (2005) 8 SCC534
51
. Balram Kumawat vs Union Of India & Ors. on 27 August, 2003
52
. Pradeep Krishen vs Union Of India & Others on 10 May, 1996
53
. http://www.emro.who.int/fr/about-who/rc61/zoonotic-diseases.html
54
.https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/jaipur-news/rajasthan-hc-allows-salman-khan-s-transfer-plea-in-1998-
blackbuck-poach-101647861871202.html
55.
https://birdfriendlyiowa.org/Pages/BirdFriendlyIowa.aspx?pg=6

13
 20. In the case of Animal Welfare Board of India vs A. Nagaraja & Ors on 7 May 2014, this Hon’ble
Supreme Court observes that, Article 51A(g) states that it shall be the duty of citizens to have
compassion for living creatures. [49]
21. Gauging the rights availed to animals can be only done through the interpretation of statutes made
in various judgments. The fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 (Right to life and
liberty) was given a new dimension by this hon’ble Court. Through AWBI vs Nagaraja case, the
Court incorporated non-humans within the ambit of Article 21. This inclusion of animals within
the ambit of Article 21 can strike down many laws and regulations pertaining to animals as
unconstitutional.
22. In State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat (2005) 8 SCC534, this Court held that
by enacting Article 51A(g) and giving it the status of a fundamental duty, one of the objects
sought to be achieved by Parliament is to ensure that the spirit and message of Articles 48 and 48-
A are honored as a fundamental duty of every citizen. Article 51A(g), therefore, enjoins that it
was a fundamental duty of every citizen “to have compassion for living creatures”, which means
concern for suffering, sympathy, kindliness etc., which has to be read along with Sections
3, 11(1)(a) & (m), 22 etc. of PCA Act. [50]
23. In the case of Babran Kumawat vs. Union of India, the petitioner was the manufacturer of
Mammoth ivory. Mammoth animal had already disappeared in Alaska and Siberia due to climatic
conditions. The question was can it be considered as an imported ivory under the 1991
Amendment Act. The Supreme Court held that 1991 Amendment prohibits trade of ivory of every
description. It may be an elephant ivory or mammoth ivory. Hence, the petitioner cannot carry on
the trade in mammoth ivory. [51]
24. In Pradeep Krishen vs. Union of India the petitioner challenged the order of M.P. government by
which permission was given to the villagers living near the sanctuaries and national parks to
collect tendu leaves through contractors. In state of M.P. 11 areas have been declared as
sanctuaries and national parks covering around 12.4% of total forest cover in M.P. The petitioner
contended that a number of trees in these areas have been destroyed due to the entry of villagers.
The Supreme Court directed the Madhya Pradesh government to take urgent steps to prohibit
entry of villager and tribals in national parks and sanctuaries. [52]

49
Animal Welfare Board Of India vs A. Nagaraja & Ors on 7 May, 2014
50
State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat (2005) 8 SCC534
51
. Balram Kumawat vs Union Of India & Ors. on 27 August, 2003
52
. Pradeep Krishen vs Union Of India & Others on 10 May, 1996
53
. http://www.emro.who.int/fr/about-who/rc61/zoonotic-diseases.html
54
.https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/jaipur-news/rajasthan-hc-allows-salman-khan-s-transfer-plea-in-1998-
blackbuck-poach-101647861871202.html
55.
https://birdfriendlyiowa.org/Pages/BirdFriendlyIowa.aspx?pg=6

14
 25. It is observed that Over 60% of all emerging infectious diseases worldwide are of zoonotic origin
– meaning they are transmitted from animals to humans. Zoonoses are responsible for the most
recent pandemics in modern history, including HIV, Ebola, SARS, MERS and, most recently,
COVID-19. Deforestation, particularly for new roads and expanding agriculture, as well as
livestock production and Illegal or unregulated wildlife trade, brings humans into close contact
with wildlife and increases the risk of zoonotic transmission.[53]
26. The recent conviction of Salman Khan by a Jodhpur Court for killing a black buck has send a
clear signal about the commitment of lower judiciary also for protection of wild life in our country
and it has also proved that in our country nobody is above the law.[54]
27. I further state that the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service estimated that $18.5 million was spent on
recovery of the Northern Spotted Owl in 1995, and that is just one of many but essential, recovery
efforts. [55]
28. Canadian astrophysicist and popularizer of science, Mr. Hubert Reeves criticize the Man as the
most insane species, stating he worships an invisible God and destroys a visible Nature.

49
Animal Welfare Board Of India vs A. Nagaraja & Ors on 7 May, 2014
50
State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat (2005) 8 SCC534
51
. Balram Kumawat vs Union Of India & Ors. on 27 August, 2003
52
. Pradeep Krishen vs Union Of India & Others on 10 May, 1996
53
. http://www.emro.who.int/fr/about-who/rc61/zoonotic-diseases.html
54
.https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/jaipur-news/rajasthan-hc-allows-salman-khan-s-transfer-plea-in-1998-
blackbuck-poach-101647861871202.html
55.
https://birdfriendlyiowa.org/Pages/BirdFriendlyIowa.aspx?pg=6

15
 3. WHETHER REGISTERING A CASE OF THEFT ON ACCOUNT OF POSSESSION AND
TRANSPORTATION OF ARAYANNA IS MAINTAINABLE?

1. I humbly submitted that the Union Vengadam is rich in its wild life and forefront of environmental
protection movements in the world and has taken part in international negotiations for creating
international environmental laws.
2. In Vengadam, a long time back an attempt was made to save wildlife by way of enacting Indian
Forest Act, 1927. It provided for hunting restrictions in protected and reserved forests. Before that
also in order to protect wild birds, the Britishers had enacted Wild Birds Protection Act, 1887. Art.
51-A (g) of Indian Constitution imposes a fundamental duty on every Indian citizen to protect and
improve wildlife in the country.
3. It is state that as per section 40(2) of Wild Life Protection Act it its cleared that No Person shall
after commencement of this Act acquire, receive, keep in his control, custody or possession, sell,
offer for sale or otherwise transfer or transport any animal specified in Schedule I or Part II of
Schedule II or any uncured trophy or meat derived from such animal, or the salted or dried skins
of such animal or the musk of a musk deer or the horn of a rhinoceros, except with the previous
permission in writing of the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorized officer. So, it is clear from
this the permission for transporting Arayanna is not in the hands of the petitioner hence the
possession of Arayanna is highly doubtful. So, it is clear from the section that they acted against
section 40(2) of Wild Life Protection Act.[56]
4. As per section 50(1) of Wildlife (Protection)Act,1972 it is well defined that it is lawful also for
any Police Officers not below the rank of a Sub-Inspector may, if he has reasonable grounds for
believing that any person has committed an offense against this Act as per section 50(3) the police
can stop and detain any person, whom he sees doing any act for which a license or Permission is
required under the provisions of this Act, for the purpose of requiring such person to produce the
license or permit and if such person fails to produce the license or permit, as the case may be, he
may be arrested without warrant. So as stated above without getting permission from the Chief
Wildlife Warden it clearly known as a unlawful transportation of Arayannas and the arrest of the
3 persons by the respondent Police is maintainable. [57]
5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held in Motilal Vs Central Bureau of Investigation that

56.
Section 40(2) of Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972
57.
Section 50(1) and 50(3) of Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972

16
 the Wild Life Act Empowers a Police Officer not below the rank of a Sub-Inspector to inspect,
conduct search or seize articles as provided under Section 50(1) clause (a), (b) and (c). [58]
6. It is stated that the Appellant Accused were arrested by the Police from the state Satva for
transporting 51 live Arayannas. For such effective measures the petitioner was caught under red-
handed. Hence the Satva Police registered a case for theft under section 379 of penal Code of
Vengadam, 1860.
7. I state that, under Sec 378 IPC, it is clearly indicates that, to convict a person of theft he must
comply all the following essential ingredients. The ingredients are:

• There should be Dishonest intention to take the property;

• The property must be moveable;
• It should be taken out of the possession of another person;
• It should be taken without the consent of that person;
• There must be some moving of the property to accomplish it's taking; [59]
8. Hence the investigation is mandatory, once the possession is not disclosed then it amounts to
dishonest possession. Hence offence under section 379 of IPC should be made out. And is the
cognizable offense.
9. That this Hon’ble Court has on previous occasion taken note of the wildlife crimes as a reason of
depletion of animal life in the country.
(a)In State of Bihar vs. Murad Ali Khan, (1988) 4 SCC 655, this Hon’ble Court has observed:
“8….The preservation of the fauna and flora, some species of which are getting extinct at an
alarming rate has been a great and urgent necessity for the survival of humanity and these laws
reflect a last-ditch battle for the restoration, in part at least, a grave situation emerging from a
long history of callous insensitiveness to the enormity of the risks to mankind that go with the
deterioration of environment…
9”. The largest single factor in the depletion of the wealth of animal life in nature has been the
civilized man operating directly through excessive commercial hunting or more disastrously
indirectly through invading or destroying natural habitats.” [60]
10. In Indian Handicrafts Emporium and Others versus Union of India and Others, (2003) 7 SCC 589
it has been held: - [61]
“27... Protection and conservation of wild animal is essential for very existence of human life. A
trade in wild animal which is sought to be prohibited with an object to oversee survival of human

58.
Moti Lal Vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation - Supreme Court Of India (From: Allahabad)
59
. Section 378 of Indian Penal Code 1860
60
. State of Bihar vs. Murad Ali Khan, (1988) 4 SCC 655
61
. In Indian Handicrafts Emporium and Others versus Union of India and Others, (2003) 7 SCC 589

17
 beings must be given its full effect...”It was also observed: -
“52. We cannot shut out eyes to the statements made in Article 48A of the Constitution of India
which enjoins upon the State to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests
and wild life of the country. What is destructive of environment, forest and wild life, thus, being
contrary to the Directive Principles of the State Policy which is fundamental in the governance of
the country must be given its full effect. Similarly, the principles of Chapter IVA must also be given
its full effect. Clause (g) of Article 51A requires every citizen to protect and improve the natural
environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life and to have compassion for living
creatures….” [62]
11. It is further submitted that section 56 of this Act is not prevent any person from being prosecuted
under any other law for the time being in force, for any act or omission which constitutes an offense
against this Act or from being liable under such other law to any higher punishment or penalty
than that provided by this Act. The expression “any act or omission which constitutes any offense
under this Act” in section 56 of the Act, merely imports the idea that the same act or omission
might constitute an offence under another law or laws also. [63] [64]
12. For such effective measures the petitioner was caught under red-handed. Hence the section 379 of
IPC was invoked and later part of investigation of offences may be included. Hence the
investigation in this case mandatory. And the registration of FIR is maintainable.

13. Special Procedure provided under the Act is contrary to the provisions contained in CrPC and as
such the same would prevail in view of Section 4(2) CrPC. From this section it is well settled that,
“All offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt
with according to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force
regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with
such offences”. [65]

14. At the time of arrest of the 3 Persons for transporting 51 live Arayannas, this Hon’ble Supreme
Court had already directed the Central Government to make necessary changes in the existing
legal framework including the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 for the Public Interest Litigation
by the UPCS. Hence, it is the case under preliminary investigation and the fact behind the
Conspiracy and intension of that Appellant should reveal only after the investigation is completed.
And this Hon’ble Supreme Court had repeatedly cited in several judgments that FIR is not an
encyclopedia which must not discloses all the facts and evidences behind the case. Since the
investigation is necessary in this case.

62.
Article 48A of Constitution of India 1949
63.
Section 56 of Wildlife Protection Act 1972
64
.State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan, 1988(4) SCC 655
65
Section 4(2) of Criminal Procedure Code 1973
18
 4. WHETHER REGISTERING A CASE UNDER SECTION 124-A OF THE PENAL CODE
OF VENGADAM ON ACCOUNT OF A STATEMENTS MADE IN NEWS DISCUSSION
WOULD VIOLATE THE FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOM OF SPEECH GUARANTEED IN
THE CONSTITUTION OF VENGADAM OR NOT?

1. It is humbly submitted that registering a case under Section 124-A of the Penal Code on account
on the seditious statements made in news discussion would not violate the fundamental freedom of
speech guaranteed in the Constitution of Vengadam.
2. It is respectfully submitted before this hon’ble Court that the none of the rights which are enshrined
under our Constitution is an absolute right and all the rights are subjected to reasonable restrictions.
3. There are three essential elements of Section 124-A:
a. Bringing or attempting to bring into hatred or contempt or exciting or attempting to excite
disaffection towards the Government of India.
b. Such act or attempt may be done:
i. By words – spoken or written or
ii. By signs, or
iii. By visible representation
c. The act must be intentional.
4. It if further stated that the successful exciting of feelings of disaffection and the unsuccessful
attempt to excite them are put on a par with Section 124-A.
5. It is well settled in Surendra Narayan Adhicary Vs Emperor, 1911 that “an attempt to excite
disaffection may not be successful; in fact, it does not imply success. Whether the intention has
achieved success or not isimmaterial. Its failure is no justification. In this case, a packet containing
some seditious matter was sent by post to the addressee. The same was intercepted and it never
reached its destination. Still, it amounted to an attempt to incite anti-national feelings and commit
sedition”. [66]
6. In the case Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1 the expression "freedom of

66
. Surendra Narayan Adhicary vs Emperor on 10 May, 1911 Equivalent citations: 16 Ind Cas 327
67
. Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1

19
 speech and expression" has been considered as under:- [67]
"13. This leads us to a discussion of what is the content of the expression "freedom of speech
and expression". There are three concepts which are fundamental in understanding the reach
of this most basic of human rights.The first is discussion, the second is advocacy, and the third
is incitement.Mere discussion or even advocacy of a particular cause howsoever unpopular is
at the heart of Article 19(1)(a). It is only when such discussion or advocacy reaches the level of
incitement that Article 19(2) kicks in. It is at this stage that a law may be made curtailing the
speech or expression that leads inexorably to or tends to cause public disorder or tends to cause
or tends to affect the sovereignty & integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly
relations with foreign States, etc."
7. As rightly settled in the High Court of Delhi in Kanhaiya Kumar vs State of Nct Of Delhi on 2
March, 2016 43 “The petitioner claims his right regarding freedom of speech and expression
guaranteed in Part-III under Article 19(1)(a) of Constitution of India. He has also to be reminded
that under Part-IV-A under Article 51A of Constitution of India fundamental duties of every
citizen have been specified along with the fact that rights and duties are two sides of the same coin”
[68]

8. This hon’ble Court has ruled that the provisions of Section 124-A of the Penal Code are not
unconstitutional in Kedar Nath case. “A citizen has a right to say or write whatever he likes about
the Government; or its measures, by way of criticism, or comment so long as he does not incite
people to violence” [69]
9. The principles in the Kedar Nath Singh ruling specify situations in which the charge of sedition
cannot be applied. [70]
a. The expression “the Government established by law’ has to be distinguished from the
persons for the time being engaged in carrying on the administration. ‘Government
established by law’ is the visible symbol of the State. The very existence of the State will
be in jeopardy if the Government established by law is subverted.”
b. “Any acts within the meaning of Section 124-A which have the effect of subverting the
Government by bringing that Government into contempt or hatred, or creating disaffection
against it, would be within the penal statute because the feeling of disloyalty to the
Government established by law or enmity to it imports the idea of tendency to public
disorder by the use of actual violence or incitement to violence.”
c. “Comments, however strongly worded, expressing disapprobation of actions of the

68.
High Court of Delhi in Kanhaiya Kumar vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 2 March, 2016
69
Article 5 1 A ( c ) a n d ( i ) ]
70
Kedar Nath Singh vs State Of Bihar 1962 AIR 955, 1962 SCR Supl. (2) 769.

20
 Government, without exciting those feelings whichgenerate the inclination to cause public
disorder by acts of violence,would not be penal.”

d. “A citizen has a right to say or write whatever he likes about the Government, or its
measures, by way of criticism or comment, so long as he does not incite people to violence
against the Government established by law or with the intention of creating public disorder.”

e. “The provisions of the Sections read as a whole, along with the explanations, make it
reasonably clear that the sections aim at rendering penal only such activities as would be
intended, or have atendency, to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resortto
violence.”
f. “It is only when the words, written or spoken, etc. which have the pernicious tendency or
intention of creating public disorder or disturbance of law and order that the law steps in to
prevent such activities in the interest of public order.”
g. “We propose to limit its operation only to such activities as come within the ambit of the
observations of the Federal Court, that is to say, activities involving incitement to violence
or intention or tendency to create public disorder or cause disturbance of public peace.”
10. This hon’ble Court has upheld the principles laid down in the Kedar nath judgment in Common
Cause Vs Union of India, 2016 SCC Online SC 903 as “the authorities while dealing with the
offences under Section 124-A IPC shall be guided by the principles laid down by the Constitution
Bench in the Kedar Nath Singh case”. [71]
11. It is further submitted that Section 124A is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. When a
statute is impugned under Article 14, it is the function of the court to decide whether the statute is
so arbitrary or unreasonable that it has to be struck down. The mere factor that some hardship or
injustice is caused to someone is no ground to strike down therule altogether if otherwise, the rule
appears to be just, fair and reasonable,and not constitutional. [72]

12. The test of arbitrariness lies in whether the provision is reasonable, and whether there is a nexus
between the restriction imposed by the provision,and the object sought to be achieved by it. Section
124A imposes a restriction on the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression in the
interest of the security of State and for maintenance of public order.Therefore, Section 124A does
not violate Article 14

68.
High Court of Delhi in Kanhaiya Kumar vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 2 March, 2016
69
Article 5 1 A ( c ) a n d ( i ) ]
70
Kedar Nath Singh vs State Of Bihar 1962 AIR 955, 1962 SCR Supl. (2) 769.

21
13. It is further submitted that there cannot be any such thing as absolute or uncontrolled liberty wholly
freed from restraint for that would lead to anarchy and disorder. Article 19 gives a list of individual
liberties and prescribes in the various clauses the restraints that may be placed upon them by law
so that they do not conflict with public welfare or general morality. While it is necessary to maintain
and preserve freedom of speechand expression in a democracy, so also it is necessary to place some
curbson this freedom for the maintenance of restrictions on the exercise of the right to freedom of
speech and expression in the interest of the state.
14. In Santosh Singh v. Delhi Administration (1973 AIR 1091, 1973 SCR (3)533), it was held that the
test of reasonableness of restriction has to be considered in each case in the light of the nature of
the right infringed, thepurpose of the restriction, the extent and nature of mischief required to be
suppressed and the prevailing social order and conditions at the time. There can be no abstract standard
of reasonableness and our Constitution provides reasonably precise general guidance in that matter.
[73]

15. In Das Rao Deshmukh v. Kamal Kishore Kadam (1996 AIR 391, 1995 SCC (5) 123), the Supreme
Court held that distributing and provoking content amongst the people was likely to cause
disharmony and hatred. [74]The right of life and liberty so guaranteed under article 21 subject to the
rule of proportionality. Where individual liberty comes into conflict with an interest in the security
of the state or public order, the liberty of individual must give way to the larger interest of the
nation.

16. Whereas if we critically analyses the other side of debate, the restrictions which have been imposed
by the impugned provision is in the interest of public order, within the legislative interference. If a
certain provision of law is construed to be consistent with the Constitution and another
interpretation renders the same unconstitutional, the court would lean towards the former
construction. [75]

17. The Explanations provided to the main body of Section 124-A makes it clear that criticism of public
measures or a comment on governmental action however strongly worded would be within the
ambit of the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression. It is only when the words, written
or spoken have a tendency or intention of disturbing the lawand order in the society, the law steps in
to prevent such activities in the greater interest of public order. It is contended that this provision
strikes the correct balance between individual fundamental rights and the interestof public order.
[76]

71.
Kedar Nath Singh vs State Of Bihar on 20 January, 1962.
72
. Article 14 of Constitution of India 1949
73
. Santosh Singh v. Delhi Administration (1973 AIR 1091, 1973 SCR (3)533),
74
. Das Rao Deshmukh v. Kamal Kishore Kadam (1996 AIR 391, 1995 SCC (5) 123
22
18. The provisions of this section 124-A have been construed so as to limit their application to acts
involving intention or tendency to create public disorder or disturbance of law and order. Sedition,
thus embraces all thosepractices which are calculated to disturb the tranquility of the State and lead
ignorant persons to endeavor in the subversion of the Government and the laws of the country.
19. The constitutionality of Section 124-A cannot be questioned as it is the fundamental duty of the
State to maintain peace and public tranquility as envisaged by the drafters of the Constitution. The
security of the State depends upon the maintenance of law and order and offences against the State
need to be punished. The legislation in question has fully protected the freedom of speech and
expression which is the sine qua non of a democratic form of Government. However, this
freedom needs to be guarded against becoming a warrant for denigration and disparagement of a
government which has been formed by a democratic process and under the untenable duty to protect
and maintain public order. [77]
20. Every citizen of the nation is a subscriber to the State. They are given protection and are assured
maintenance by the State and the correspondingduty that arises from the enjoyment of these rights
is that the citizens owetheir allegiance to the State. The concept of statehood has evolved manifold and
has shrunk itself to homogeneous units and the active role often taken by the State to promote
nationalism through emphasis on shared symbols and national identity. On this pretext, we can hold
the view that is unacceptable to make derogatory remarks made in order to hamper such national
identity.
21. This hon’ble Court in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, distinguished clearly between disloyalty
to the Government and commenting upon the measures of the Government without inciting public
disorder by acts of violence and held that:
“24. … Hence any acts within the meaning of Section 124-A which have the effect of
subverting the Government by bringing that Government intocontempt or hatred, or creating
disaffection against it, would be within thepenal statute because the feeling of disloyalty to the
Government established by law or enmity to it imports the idea of tendency to public disorder
by the use of actual violence or incitement to violence. In other words, any written or spoken
words, etc., which have implicit in them theidea of subverting Government by violent means,
which are compendiously included in the term “revolution”, have been made penal by the
section in question. But the section has taken care to indicate clearlythat strong words used to

75.
Indra Das v. State of Assam, (2011) 3 SCC 380)
76
. (Sanskar Marathe v. State of Maharashtra, 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 587)
77
. (Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 221)

23
 express disapprobation of the measures of Government with a view to their improvement or
alteration by lawful means would not come within the section. Similarly, comments, however
strongly worded, expressing disapprobation of actions of the Government, without exciting
those feelings which generate the inclination to cause public disorder by acts of violence,
would not be penal. In other words, disloyalty to Government established by law is not the
same thing as commenting in strong terms upon the measures or acts of Government, orits
agencies, so as to ameliorate the condition of the people or to secure thecancellation or alteration
of those acts or measures by lawful means, that is to say, without exciting those feelings of
enmity and disloyalty which imply excitement to public disorder or the use of violence.”
22. It has been also held that using “fighting words” against another at a public gathering, cannot be
considered as “freedom of speech”. A theoretical advocacy of the abstract doctrine of the violent
overthrow of Government cannot be punished, but action towards that end can be suppressed. [78]
23. It would be perilous to abolish this section124-A as an anachronistic colonial provision. We cannot
forget that dozens of districts in different States face a Maoist insurgency and rebel groups virtually
run a parallel administration. These groups openly advocate the overthrow of the State Government
by revolution. Against the backdrop of this stark reality, the abolition of Section 124-A would be ill-
advised merely because it has been wrongly invoked in some highly publicized cases.
24. Section 124A of the IPC has its utility in combating anti-national, secessionist and terrorist
elements. It protects the elected government from attempts to overthrow the government with
violence and illegal means. Thecontinued existence of the government established by law is an
essential condition of the stability of the State. If contempt of court invites penal action, contempt
of government should also attract punishment. Many districts in different states face a Maoist
insurgency and rebel groups virtually run a parallel administration. These groups openly advocate
the overthrow of the state government by revolution.
25. Against this backdrop, the abolition of Section 124A would be ill-advisedmerely because it has
been wrongly invoked in some highly publicized cases. After many years of indifference, half-steps
and ad hoc measures, both India’s central and state governments have found their foothold against
the Maoist insurgency that at its pinnacle may have seemed invincible.
26. Upon realizing that the Maoist movement was thriving in the lack of state presence in large parts of
central India mostly inhabited by Adivasis in hillyand forested terrains, state agencies began to show
alacrity and serious purpose in making up for such prolonged absence. The state restored the rights
of indigenous communities, particularly the Adivasis, over land (also ending an arbitrary land
acquisition policy that rendered millions homelessin 2013 with a new legislation),

78.
Roth v. United States, 1 L Ed 2d 1498 : 354 US 476 (1957).
79.
https://www.orfonline.org/research/half-a-century-of-indias-maoist-insurgency-an-appraisal-of-state-response-51933/
24
 forest and natural resources; distributed land records (pattas); reformed the justice delivery
systems; and rolled up attractive surrender and rehabilitation schemes. The state aimed, and
succeeded to a significant degree, to puncture the Maoist narrative of “an exploitative state
run by the bourgeoisie”. [79]
27. If the raising of anti-India speeches and slogans are permitted, they may not instantaneously
arouse passion to revolt but may build circumstances which may gain momentum at a subsequent
stage.
28. What would happen to law of defamation if raising anti-India slogans are permitted and
legalized. Sedition law is not a new phenomenon. Almost allcountries have their own sedition
laws which are more stringent than whatwe have in our country. Amongst the countries which
make provision for sedition as criminal act, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Iran, Uzbekistan, Sudan,
Senegal and Turkey are prominent. U.S.A. has a more stringent law of Treason.
29. Section 18 of US Code 2381 provides that whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies
war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States
or elsewhere, is guiltyof treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five
years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000 and shall be incapable of holding any
office under the United States. Compared to Section 124A IPC, this provision is far more
stringent and draconian. [80]
30. Australia too has sedition law with stringent measures and imprisonment up to 12 years. It is
fallacious to hold that mere slogans do not make out acase. This analogy is grossly contradictory
to historical facts.
31. It is observed that from the case Clarence Brandenburg Vs. State of Ohio, 395 U.S. 444
(1969) the U.S. Supreme Court, used a two-pronged test to evaluate speech acts: (1) speech
can be prohibited if it is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and (2) it is
"likely to incite or produce such action called Brandenburg test of U.S. Supreme court. This is
the test adopted in India for determining the speech as a normal or seditious speech. It is well
used in the Arup Bhuyan vs State of Assam 2011 3 SCC 377

78.
Roth v. United States, 1 L Ed 2d 1498 : 354 US 476 (1957).
79.
https://www.orfonline.org/research/half-a-century-of-indias-maoist-insurgency-an-appraisal-of-state-response-
51933/
25
 PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it
is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

1. Declare that the Amendment made in the Section 43(a) and 44 of Wildlife
(Protection) Act 1972 is not violative of freedom of religion enshrined under
Article 26 of the Constitution of Vengadam and the Current Writ Petition liable
to be dismissed;

2. Declare that the Amendment made in the Section 43(a) and 44 of Wildlife
(Protection) Act 1972 is not violative of the right to livelihood of Vallum Craft
Makers and dismiss the petition filed by the petitioner;

3. Declare that the Section 124A of Penal Code of Vengadam is not violating the
fundamental freedom of speech guaranteed under the Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution of Vengadam and make and dismiss the current petition before this
Court;

4. Upheld the order issued by the High Court of Satva and dismiss the Criminal appeal.

AND PASS ANY SUCH OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY
DEEM FIT AND PROPER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN THE INTERESTS
OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE AND THUS RENDER JUSTICE.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE RESPONDENT SHALL, AS IN DUTY BOUND EVER
PRAY.

ALL OF WHICH IS HUMBLY PRAYED,

-(R)

COUNSELS FOR THE RESPONDENT