Scribd
Upload
5 views1 page

Protection of Artistic Expression Rights

The petitioner argues that their stand-up performance is protected under Article 19(1)(a) as artistic expression and political commentary, citing various Supreme Court rulings that emphasize the importance of satire and criticism in democratic discourse. They contend that the multiple FIRs filed against them create a chilling effect and violate their fundamental rights, while also claiming that the imposition of travel restrictions is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner seeks to quash the FIRs, declare the travel restrictions unconstitutional, and establish guidelines to protect artistic and political satire from arbitrary prosecution.

Uploaded by

Ezhilan Ezhil
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
5 views1 page

Protection of Artistic Expression Rights

The petitioner argues that their stand-up performance is protected under Article 19(1)(a) as artistic expression and political commentary, citing various Supreme Court rulings that emphasize the importance of satire and criticism in democratic discourse. They contend that the multiple FIRs filed against them create a chilling effect and violate their fundamental rights, while also claiming that the imposition of travel restrictions is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner seeks to quash the FIRs, declare the travel restrictions unconstitutional, and establish guidelines to protect artistic and political satire from arbitrary prosecution.

Uploaded by

Ezhilan Ezhil
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER1.

1 Violation of Fundamental Right under Article 19(1)


(a)The petitioner's stand-up performance falls squarely within the protected realm of artistic expression and
political commentary under Article 19(1)(a). In Tata Sons Ltd. v. Greenpeace International & Anr.¹, the Delhi
High Court held that satire and criticism are protected forms of speech, especially when addressing matters of
public concern. Furthermore, in S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram², the Supreme Court established that the
standard of restriction must be in direct proportion to the degree of harm, and mere public intolerance is not a
valid ground for suppressing creative freedom.1.2 Unconstitutional Censorship and Chilling EffectThe Supreme
Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India³ emphasized that restrictions on speech must be narrowly tailored and
proportionate. The Court held that "the possibility of abuse of a statute does not impart to it the vice of
unconstitutionality." The multiple FIRs against Ms. Sushra create precisely the kind of chilling effect that the
Shreya Singhal judgment sought to prevent.1.3 Abuse of Penal ProvisionsIn Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of
India⁴, the Supreme Court held that constitutional morality must trump social morality to ensure transformative
constitutionalism. The invocation of serious charges like Section 152 (endangering sovereignty) for political
satire represents a clear instance of prosecutorial overreach.1.4 Political Satire Has Higher ProtectionThe
Supreme Court in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell⁵ (cited with approval in Indian courts) recognized that the very
nature of political satire is to question, ridicule, and challenge authority. The Court has consistently held that
artistic expression and satire serve to "make human beings more meaningful" and are essential components of
democratic discourse.1.5 Absence of Malicious Intent or Public DisorderFollowing Kedar Nath Singh v. State
of Bihar⁶, mere strong words used to express disapprobation of government actions do not constitute an offense
unless they incite people to violence. Ms. Sushra's performance falls within legitimate criticism of governance
issues.1.6 Travel Restrictions are Arbitrary and Illegal under Article 21In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India⁷,
the Supreme Court held that any procedure affecting fundamental rights must be "right, just, and fair." The
arbitrary imposition of travel restrictions without judicial oversight violates these principles.1.7 Principle of
Proportionality Not MetThe Supreme Court in Modern Dental College v. State of Madhya Pradesh⁸ established
a four-pronged test for proportionality. The state's actions fail this test as they are neither necessary nor the least
restrictive means of achieving the purported objective.1.8 Multiplicity of FIRs Leads to Double Jeopardy
ConcernsIn T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala⁹, the Supreme Court held that multiple FIRs for the same incident
are impermissible. The filing of multiple FIRs across different states amounts to harassment and abuse of
[Link]:¹ 2011 (45) PTC 275 (Del)² (1989) 2 SCC 574³ (2015) 5 SCC 1⁴ (2018) 10 SCC 1⁵ 485 U.S.
46 (1988)⁶ 1962 AIR 955⁷ (1978) 1 SCC 248⁸ (2016) 7 SCC 353⁹ (2001) 6 SCC 181PRAYERTherefore, in
light of the above submissions and cited precedents, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased
to:a) Quash all FIRs filed against the petitionerb) Declare the travel restrictions imposed on the petitioner as
unconstitutionalc) Issue guidelines protecting artistic and political satire from arbitrary prosecutiond) Grant such
other relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interests of justiceMost respectfully
submittedCounsel for the Petitioner

You might also like