Good Morning Sir.

Before we begin with the pleadings, I would like to know if

you would like to be addressed as Your Lordship
yes
Much Obliged
Good Morning, Your Lordship. My name is Gayathri Anil. I shall be the counsel
for the respondent, the Union of Indiana, in the case of Mr. A vs Union of Indiana
and Ors.

If it may please your Lordship, counsel would like to proceed with the issues at
hand.
yes

Much obliged
The issues established by the counsel are as follows
1) Whether the Indiana Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 in compliance with the
constitution and is valid?
i) The Act does not violate the Right to Privacy
ii) The Act does not violate the Right to self- incrimination

2) Whether sedition, as defined in the Indiana Penal Code, 1860, opposes and violates
Freedom of Speech and Expression, rendering it invalid and against constitutional laws?
(i) Sedition, as outlined in the Indiana Penal Code, 1860, does not infringe upon freedom
of speech and represents a reasonable restriction on it.
(ii) The state possesses the authority to place limitations on freedom of speech, particularly
to avert the risk of public unrest and fulfill its obligation to uphold peace and harmony.

Right to Privacy
It is humbly submitted that the Supreme Court should maintain its stance on the constitutionality
of the Indiana Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022.
  Individual informational privacy is not an absolute right under the law, 1as the
government has a valid interest in collecting citizens' information for purposes such as
national defense and security.
 The landmark ruling, Puttuswamy judgement introduced the proportionality test, which
involves evaluating legislation based on four key criteria: a legitimate objective, a
rational connection between the objective and the infringement on privacy, necessity, and
a balance of fundamental rights.
 Privacy infringements must be well-founded, with a clear and compelling public interest,
and the government's actions is not to go beyond what is absolutely necessary to achieve
those objectives.
 Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Bill, its
primary objective was to provide legal authorization for law enforcement agencies to
conduct various measurements and data collection activities
 It essentially facilitates the precise identification of individuals involved in criminal
activities
 The Act's objective pertains to the efficient investigation and prevention of criminal
activities, which is a compelling public interest. It sets out clear guidelines and
limitations on how and when personal information can be accessed, protecting
individuals from undue intrusion while still allowing law enforcement agencies to fulfill
their vital responsibilities.
 Therefore, the Act is not opposed to, or in violation of the Right to privacy.

Right to self incrimination

 The Right against Self-Incrimination essentially means that an individual cannot be

forced to testify or provide evidence that would incriminate themselves.
 Article 20(3) of the Indiana Constitution, 1950 states the law against self incrimination.

 As noted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the landmark case of The State of Bombay v.
Kathi Kalu Oghad and Ors, when scrutinizing the Indiana Criminal Procedure
(Identification) Act, 2022, this same rationale and interpretation do not apply. The term
“measurements” as has been defined under the Act does not amount to providing
evidence, against oneself (personal testimony).

1
Modern Dental College and Research Centre v. State of M.P., (2016) 7 SCC 353.
  They are rather objective in nature and do not amount to testimonial evidence and do not
satisfy the facets of self incriminating evidence such as statements.

 The Act is designed to serve a government interest, which is to enhance the accuracy and
efficiency of criminal investigations and the criminal justice system as a whole.

 . It was stated by the court in the case, Express Newspapers v. Union of India that giving
thumb impressions of foot, palm, fingers or specimen writings or showing parts of the
body by way of identification are not included in the expression “to be a witness.”

 Courts have consistently upheld the right against self-incrimination in cases involving
testimonial compulsion, but this right does not extend to preventing the collection of non-
testimonial data for purposes of security.

2 issue-

Sedition does not infringe upon freedom of speech and represents a reasonable restriction on
it.

It is humbly submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court must not declare sedition as opposing to
freedom of speech and expression and unconstitutional.

 Sedition is any act or attempt to bring hatred or contempt against the government of India
by words, signs, or visible representations.

 In the landmark case of Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962)2, the Supreme Court of
India provided crucial insights into the interpretation and limitations of the sedition law.
Not all forms of criticism against the government amount to sedition but any act that
involves incitement to violence or public disorder.

 The Supreme Court also highlighted the need to strike a balance between the right to
freedom of speech and expression (protected under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution)
and the restrictions imposed under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, which allows for
restrictions on this right for the interests of public order.

2
Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962) 1962 AIR 955.
  . India has ratified international human rights agreements that recognize the right to
freedom of expression but also allow for restrictions when necessary to protect public
order and national security.

 The counsel contends that the very existence of the state depends on the effective
functioning and security of the government. So safeguarding the government from
subversion by lawful means is essential for maintaining the stability of the state.

 In the case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India 3, the right to free speech and expression is
constrained when it reaches the point of incitement.

 Incitement falls within the purview of reasonable restrictions permissible under Article
19(2) of the Constitution of India. In such cases, the state has a legitimate interest in
imposing restrictions to prevent harm to public order, security, or the rights and freedoms
of others.

The state possesses the authority to place limitations on freedom of speech, particularly to
avert the risk of public unrest and fulfill its obligation to uphold peace and harmony.

 In India, the right to freedom of speech and expression is typically protected as a

fundamental right under the constitution but is not absolute.

 India is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),
multinational treaty that requires countries to uphold the civil and political rights of
individuals

 Article 19(3) of the ICCPR outlines that these freedoms can be subject to limitations as
long as these restrictions are legally prescribed and are necessary to protect the reputation
of others or ensure national security, public health, public order, or moral standards.

If it may please your Lordship, I would like to proceed with the prayer

3
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1.
 PRAYER:

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

1. UPHOLD the constitutionality of sedition as an indispensable provision of the Indiana Penal

Code, 1860 and non- violative of the Right to Privacy.
2. UPHOLD the constitutionality and validity of the Indiana Criminal Procedure (Identification)
Act, 2022

AND/OR

Pass any such order, direction, or relief as it may deem fit in order to uphold the principles of

Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

And for this act of kindness, the Petitioner shall forever humbly pray.

(Counsel for the Respondent)