Rizvi Law College Primera Moot Court Competition 2025-26

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

It is most humbly submitted that the Petitioners have approached the Primera Moot Court of Indinum
under Article 136 of the Constitution. The present Special Leave Petition is filed to challenge the
final order of conviction passed by the High Court of Munir, which violates the Petitioners’
fundamental rights to freedom of speech, expression, and profession under Articles 19(1)(a) and
19(1)(g) of the Constitution1.

The Petitioners humbly submit before this Hon’ble Court that it has the jurisdiction, power, and
authority to preside over the present case.

1
Article 136 in The Constitution of Indinum, 1950
136. Special Leave to Appeal by the Supreme Court
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from
any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in
the territory of India.
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order passed or made by any court or
tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.

6|Page
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 Rizvi Law College Primera Moot Court Competition 2025-26

STATEMENT OF FACTS

 The State of Morya, a progressive state in the Republic of Indinum, is known for promoting liberal
values and artistic expression, including live performances and stand-up comedy.

 Samuel Rahman, a professional stand-up comedian, launched a show titled “Talents of Morya
(TOM)”, encouraging various forms of performance art. The show included disclaimers that the
content might include satire, sarcasm, and dark humor, and attendance implied consent to such
artistic expression.

 On 5th February 2024, during one episode featuring podcast host Tanveer Ahuwalia and artist
Bonnie Bennet, a controversial exchange occurred when Tanveer made a sexually suggestive
remark towards Bonnie, which elicited a mixed audience reaction.

 Uncensored clips of this episode went viral on social media, sparking outrage among conservative
groups, resulting in protests and minor property damage to the show venue.

 The Chief Minister of Morya, Smt. Joshi, filed an FIR under Sections 75(1)(iv) and 79 of the
Indinum Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alleging obscenity, indecency, and acts outraging public morality.

 The Sessions Court of Munir acquitted the accused, holding that the statements were made in jest
within a creative performance context, protected under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution.

 The State of Morya appealed, and on 31st May 2024, the Hon’ble High Court of Munir reversed the
acquittal, convicting the accused and observing that “the accused possess a depraved mind which
influences public decency.”
 Aggrieved by this order, the Petitioners filed a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the
Constitution, challenging the conviction as violative of their fundamental rights under Articles
19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g).

7|Page
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 Rizvi Law College Primera Moot Court Competition 2025-26

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether the Special Leave Petition filed under Article 136 of the Constitution by the Petitioners
is maintainable?

2. Whether the remarks made by Tanveer Ahuwalia fall within the protective ambit of Article
19(1)(a) of the Constitution, despite restrictions under Article 19(2) concerning public order,
decency, and morality?

3. Whether the prohibition imposed on “Talents of Morya” and “Tanveer Talks” violates Article
19(1)(g) of the Constitution despite the permissible restrictions under Article 19(6)?

8|Pa ge
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 Rizvi Law College Primera Moot Court Competition 2025-26

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION UNDET ARTICLE 136 IS

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court that the present petition has been
filed to challenge the final order of conviction passed by the High Court of Munir. The said order
substantially impacts the Petitioners’ fundamental rights, including their right to artistic freedom
and professional livelihood. The discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 exists to prevent
miscarriage of justice and safeguard constitutional liberties. Therefore, the present petition is
maintainable.

2. WHETHER THE REMARKS MADE BY THE PETITIONER TANVEER AHUWALIA

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the remarks made by the Petitioner
were part of an artistic performance protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The
restrictions under Article 19(2) must be narrowly construed, and mere offense, shock, or
discomfort does not constitute obscenity or moral depravity. Judicial precedents such as
Rangarajan v. Jagjivan Ram and Shreya Singhal v. Union of India affirm that free speech
includes the right to offend, provoke, or challenge societal norms.

3. WHETHER THE BAN ON THE SHOW “TOM AND TANVEER TALKS” INFRINGES
ARTICLE 19(1)(G)?

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the blanket ban imposed on the show
unlawfully restrains the Petitioners’ right to practice their profession under Article 19(1)(g).
Restrictions under Article 19(6) must be reasonable and proportionate. A blanket ban, being
disproportionate, violates the doctrine of proportionality and runs contrary to established judicial
precedents on media and artistic freedom.

9|Page
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
 Rizvi Law College Primera Moot Court Competition 2025-26

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS I.E. SECTION 3, SECTION

10 | P a g e
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS