T-18 Respondant Memorial

TEAM CODE: 18
2nd SURANA & SURANA & KLE LAW COLLEGE
NATIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
MOOT COURT COMPETITION – 2018
BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
IN THE MATTERS OF:
ALL INDIA MEDIA FEDERATION ... PETITIONER
V.
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ... RESPONDENTS
WRIT PETITION NO. _____ / 2018
(FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)
ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

2ND SURANA & SURANA & KLE LAW COLLEGE PA GE |2
NATIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL LAW MOOT COMPETITION -2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................... 4
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES...................................................................................................... 6
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.......................................................................................... 8
STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................................ 9
ISSUES RAISED ..................................................................................................................... 10
SUMMARY OF ARGUEMENTS .......................................................................................... 11
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ................................................................................................. 12
1. THAT THE PROGRAMME CODE ISSUED BY THE UOI WAS WITHIN THE
APPROPRIATE LEGAL AUTHORITY……………………………………………….12
1.1. THAT THE PROGRAM CODE FRAMED WAS WITHIN THE VIRES OF
DELEGATION……………………………………………………………………….13
2. THAT THE CODE IMPUGNED IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID……………..15
2.1 THAT THE MEDIA CANNOT TELECAST OR BROADCAST ANYTHING
PERTAINING TO THE MATRIMONIAL DISPUTES PENDING BEFORE ANY
COURT IN INDIA…………………………………………………………………...15
2.1.1. THE BASIS FOR SUCH RESTRICTIONS IS REASONABLE AND
NOT ARBITRARY…………………………………………………………….16
WHICH IS BASED ON BLIND BELIEF AND NOT SUPPORTED BY THE IISC,
BENGALURU……………………………………………………………………….17
PERTAINING TO THE OFFENDER OF SEXUAL OFFENCES OR THE VICTIM.
………………………………………………………………………………………..19
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

2.3.1. THAT THE RULES ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860………………………….20
2.3.2. THAT THE CODE IMPOSES REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS
UPON MISCONDUCT OF MEDIA IN VIOLATING RIGHT TO DIGNITY
OF INDIVIDUALS…………………………………………………………..20
2.4. THAT THE MEDIA CANNOT TELECAST OR BROADCAST ANY
INTERVIEW OF THE VICTIMS OF SEXUAL OFFENCES……………………..21
2.4.1. THAT VICTIMIZING THE VICTIMS WILL MENTALLY
TRAUMATIZE THEM………………………………………………………21
2.5. THAT THE MEDIA CANNOT TELECAST OR BROADCAST ANYTHING
PERTAINING TO THE FUNCTIONING OF THE JUDICIARY…………………22
2.5.1. THAT CRITICIZING THE FUNCTIONING OF JUDICIARY
DIMINISHES FAITH OF PEOPLE FROM JUDICIARY…………………..24
2.6. THAT THE MEDIA CANNOT TELECAST OR BROADCAST ANYTHING
PERTAINING TO A WAR ZONE. ……………………………………………….24
2.6.1. THAT RULE IS IN ACCORDANCE TO THE PROVISIONS OF
OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT, 1923…………………………………………...25
2.6.2. THAT MEDIA BROADCASTING OF MILITARY OPERATIONS IS
IN CONTRAVENTION TO PROVISIONS OF UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES
PREVENTION ACT, 1967…………………………………………………..25
PRAYER……………………………………………………………………………………..27

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
§ Section
AILSA All India Law Students Association
AIMF All India Media Federation
AIR All India Reporter
Anr. Another
Art,. Article
Cl. Clause
CJI Chief Justice of India
Co. Company
C.W.N. Calcutta Weekly Notes
etc. Etcetera
FIR First Information Report
i.e. That is
IISc. Indian Institute of Science
Inst. Institution

Ltd. Limited
NCW National Commission for Women.
Ors. Others
Pg. Page
PIL Public Interest Litigation
Pvt. Private
Retd. Retired
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCJ Supreme Court Judgements
TRP Television Rating Point
UOI Union of India
U.P. Uttar Pradesh
U.S. United States
v. Verses
Viz. Namely

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATUTES
1. The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act (1995)
2. The Constitution of India (1949)
3. The Indian Penal Code (1860)
4. The Official Secrets Act (1923)
5. The Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (1967)
BOOKS, ARTICLES & TREATISES
1. M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (7th ed, J. Ruma Pal, Samaraditya Pal, eds., 2010)
2. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code (35th edition)
CASES
ABC v. Commissioner of police and Ors , DLR, 89 (DHC 2013)………..…...……….…...16
Bagla v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR, 465 (SC 1954)..….……………………….….…..13
Bhatnagar and Co. Ltd v. UOI, AIR, 478 (SC 1957)………..…………………..……..……14
Courts on its Own Motion v. The Publisher, 3, RCR (civil) , 276 (2015) .…………..……..22
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381, 479 (US 1965)……………….…………….………….....….16
High Court of Karnataka v. Jai Chaitanya Dasa, 3, AKR, 627 (KHC 2015) ….…..…..……23
Hiralal Dixit v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR, 743 (SC 1954) ……………………………….24
Inder Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR, 510 (SC 1957)…….………………….…….……...14
Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd)and Anr. v. UOI and Ors, AIR, 4161 (SC 2017) ………...15,19

Krishna Prakash Sharma v. Union of India, 5, SCC, 212 (SC 2001) …..……………………13
M.P.Lohia etc v. State of West Bengal and Anr, AIR, 790 (SC 2005).…………………..….22
Odyssey Communications Pvt. Ltd. v. Lokvidayan Sanghatana and Ors, AIR, 1642 (BHC
1988) …….……………………………………………………………..……………………18
P.N.Dua v. P. Shiv Shankar and Ors, 3, SCC, 167 (SC 1988) …..……………….…….…...24
Premium Granites v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR, 2233 (SC 1994) ……..………….………..14
Sama Alana Abdulla v. State of Gujarat, AIR, 569 (SC 1996)……………...…….………...25
Sitaram Vishambhar Dayal v. State of U.P, AIR, 1168 (SC 1972) …..…………....………..13
State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nahata, AIR, 3401 (SC 2005) …...……………..….………….13
State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi, AIR, 3986 (SC 1997) ………...……..22
State of Maharashtra v. Vijay Vasantrao Deshpand, 7, SCC, 81,83 para 5 (SC 1998)…..…14
Subramanian Swamy v.UOI, Ministry of Law and Ors, 5, SCJ, 643 (SC 2016) …………...18
Sunil Ranjan Das v. The State, C.W.N., 1061 (1977) ………………………….…………...26
Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd v The Workmen and ors, AIR, 1917 (SC 1972) ….......…...….12
The Consumer Action Group v. State of Tamil Nadu and ors, AIR, 3060 (SC 2000) ……...14

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The respondents have approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Art,.- 32 Cl. -1 of the
Constitution of India, 1949 which states –
“The right to move to the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of
the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed”

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Many incidents were cited by The All India Law Students’ Association (AILSA) in the
PIL, that they filed in the Supreme Court of India in search of remedy against the media
where it was alleged that the media had invaded upon the rights of the people in specific
and caused threat to social interest at large.
2. The Supreme Court of India admitted the PIL. The UOI gave the undertaking that it
will take necessary measures to address the issue at hand to protect the interest of
national security, general public and safeguard the image and integrity of the judiciary.
3. The UOI initiated the process through its Ministry of Broadcast and Information
Technology by drafting certain rules to regulate the media houses and issued a public
notice inviting objections to the proposed rules. After considering the responses, the
Ministry exercising its power under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act,
1995 issued a programme code.
4. The code came into immediate effect and the media houses debated the Programme
Code and gathered the support of many editors, jurists and libertarians and under the
auspices of All India Media Federation filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court
challenging the constitutional validity of the impugned code on certain grounds.
5. The application filed by AILSA to intervene and represent the interest of the victims of
media excesses was granted by the court along with the writ petition of AIMF.

2ND SURANA & SURANA & KLE LAW COLLEGE P A G E | 10
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
I. WHETHER THE PROGRAMME CODE WAS FRAMED IN APPROPRIATE
LEGAL AUTHORITY?
II. WHETHER THE CODE IMPUGNED IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
I. THAT THE PROGRAMME CODE ISSUED BY THE UOI WAS WITHIN THE
APPROPRIATE LEGAL AUTHORITY.
Yes, the programme code issued by the UOI was within the appropriate legal authority. The
authority was delegated to the Ministry of Broadcast and Information Technology to make
rules to regulate the content of media houses keeping in regard the public good.
II. THAT THE CODE IMPUGNED IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID.
Yes, the code which has been said to be impugned is constitutionally valid despite various
reasons cited by the media houses against the code. The code has been framed within
appropriate legal authority and aims at regulation of the content of the media for public good.
All the various legal provisions have been cited along with the appropriate case laws to
strengthen the fact that the code is constitutionally valid.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. THAT THE PROGRAMME CODE ISSUED BY THE UOI WAS WITHIN THE
APPROPRIATE LEGAL AUTHORITY.
1. Yes, the programme code issued by the UOI was within the appropriate legal authority.
This can be explained more clearly by the concept of “delegated legislation” which
states “that which proceeds from any authority other than sovereign power and is
therefore dependent for its continued existence and validity on some superior or
supreme authority.”1
2. In the case of Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd v The Workmen and ors.2 the supreme court
clearly stated that,
“Due to the challenge of the complex socio-economic problems requiring speedy
solution the power of delegation has by now, as per necessity become a constituent
element of legislative power as a whole. The delegation of legislative power is
permissible only when the legislative policy and principle is adequately laid down and
the delegate is empowered to carry out the subsidiary policy within the guidelines laid
down by the legislature.3
3. It is well settled that, what is permitted by the concept of ‘delegation’ is the delegation
of ancillary or subordinate legislative function or what is fictionally called as “power
to fill up the details.”4
1
M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 45 (7th ed, J. Ruma Pal, Samaraditya Pal, eds., 2010)
2
AIR, 1917 (SC 1972)
3
Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. V. Workmen, AIR 1972 SC 1917
4

4. It is self-evident that the delegate on whom such power is conferred has to act within
the limitations of the authority conferred by the Act.5
5. It has been held in the case of Sitaram Vishambhar Dayal v. State of U.P6., whether a
power delegated by the legislature to the executive has exceeded the permissible limits
in a given case depends on its facts and circumstances. The question does not admit of
any general rule. It depends upon the nature of power delegated and the purpose
intended to be achieved.7
6. The Supreme Court propounded the thesis in various cases that it is inevitable that the
Legislature is the creature of the Constitution, the constitution-makers have placed their
confidence in the collective wisdom of the Legislature, the constitution has chosen to
vest legislative power in the elective representatives of the people.
7. It is inevitable that the Legislature should itself discharge the essential legislative
function, i.e., the Legislature should itself lay down standards or policy in the delegating
Act leaving the delegate with the power to make rules to execute the policy laid down
by the Legislature.8 This principle was also followed in the case State of Rajasthan v.
Basant Nahata.9
1.1. THAT THE PROGRAM CODE FRAMED WAS WITHIN THE VIRES OF
DELEGATION
8. In Bagla v. State of Madhya Pradesh10, § 3 and § 6 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary
Powers) Act, 1946 were questioned on the ground of excessive delegation. The
5
6
AIR, 1168 (SC 1972)
7
8
Krishna Prakash Sharma v. Union of India, 5, SCC, 212 (SC 2001)
9
AIR, 3401 (SC 2005)
10
AIR, 465 (SC 1954)

Supreme Court declared both the §s valid saying that the Act had sufficiently
formulated the legislative policy, “maintaining or increasing supplies etc.”, in §-3 and
gave a clear and sufficient guidance to the Government to exercise its power under the
§.
9. In the case of Bhatnagar and Co. Ltd v. UOI11, the Supreme Court has held that, “This
decision shows that if we can find a reasonably clear statement of policy underlying the
provisions of the Act either in the provisions of the Act or in the preamble, then any
part of the Act cannot be attacked on the ground of delegated legislation by suggesting
that questions of policy have been left to delegate.”
10. In the case of The Consumer Action Group v. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.,12 the
Supreme Court has held that delegated legislation is permissible as, “ A Legislature
while legislating cannot foresee and provide for all future contingencies.”
This same concept has also been applied in the cases of Inder Singh v. State of
Rajasthan13 and Premium Granites v. State of Tamil Nadu14.
11. In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Vijay Vasantrao Deshpande15, it was held by the
Supreme Court that in case of lack of clarity administrative
instruction/circulars/orders/letters should be interpreted by taking into consideration
their object and their intention of the Government.16 Under § 22 sub-§-1 of the Cable
Telivision Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, it has been said,
11
AIR, 478 (SC 1957)
12
AIR, 3060 (SC 2000)
13
AIR, 510 (SC 1957)
14
AIR, 2233 (SC 1994)
15
7, SCC, 81,83 para 5 (SC 1998)
16

“The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules to
carry out the provisions of the Act.”
12. Under sub-§ 2 (b) it has been said that the Central Government can provide rules for
the programme code.This empowers the delegation to the Ministry of Broadcast and
Information Technology to create rules for proper regulation of the content of media
houses. Hence, the programme code which was issued by the UOI through the Ministry
of Broadcast and Information Technology was within the appropriate legal authority.
2. THAT THE CODE IMPUGNED IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID.
13. Yes, the code which has been said to be impugned is constitutionally valid despite
various reasons cited by the media houses against the code. The code has been framed
within appropriate legal authority and aims at regulation of the content of the media for
public good.
PERTAINING TO THE MATRIMONIAL DISPUTES PENDING BEFORE ANY
COURT IN INDIA.
14. This sub issue involves the concept of Right to Privacy which is a constitutional right
under Art,. 21. This right cannot be breached at any cost.
The leading case in this concept is Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd)and Anr. v. UOI and
Ors17. in which nine judges bench declared Right to Privacy as a fundamental right in
2017.
17
AIR, 4161 (SC 2017)

15. This case also takes marital privacy into consideration. Griswold v. Connecticut18
which is a U.S. case has held that the State cannot violate the marriage relationship
privacy of individuals.
16. Similarly, in the point I(3)19, the problem was not allowed to resolve because of the
intervening actions of the media when the issue that arose between the couple had
already been solved. This very fact shows that there has been a gross injustice and a
breach of the fundamental right to privacy of the couple as it has affected them
negatively.
2.1.1. THE BASIS FOR SUCH RESTRICTIONS IS REASONABLE AND NOT
ARBITRARY.
17. Reasonably Pondering, the Constitution has provided no right to the media to create
problems between a couple. This leads us to think that the power of media has been
unjustly used to increase TRP of their own channel. Breach of another person’s right to
uphold or safeguard one’s own is not at all reasonable and is illegitimate.
18. The media houses can adopt various methods to amplify the TRP but creating a ridge
between two people is definitely not a rightful process. This shows that injustice has
been done and definitely the fundamental right to privacy which two people enjoy has
been violated.
19. In the case of ABC v. Commissioner of police and Ors20., it was held that the press and
media enjoyed immense power and position in the society due to the reach that they
have in the society. Hence, the impact they have in the society is tremendous. Anything
18
381, 479 (US 1965)
19
Facts sheet
20
DLR, 89 (DHC 2013)

that they publish, telecast or broadcast can have serious impact on the person on whom
they have published the said information. The public opinion for that particular person
can change because the people trust the media and can be lead to believe what has been
said. Also, the confidentiality of the FIR should be maintained in such cases as it is a
very sensitive issue and can cause damage to the reputation of the person.
20. In the proposed problem21, the information which has been advanced by the media has
caused mental harassment of the couple and infringed their right to privacy. The
information that has been showcased can lead the people to believe certain things that
were not true and hence affect the social respect that they have in the society.
21. Also, the confidentiality of the FIR which must have been filed was not kept which led
to the involvement of the media in this case and the police authorities should have taken
steps to keep the confidentiality of the FIR to keep the respect of the individuals
concerned intact in the society they live in.
WHICH IS BASED ON BLIND BELIEF AND NOT SUPPORTED BY THE IISC,
BENGALURU.
22. This rule was made keeping in view that blind belief is prevalent in India since time
immemorial and a part of customs and beliefs. But some of the customs and practices
that were followed were not in conformity with the laws in the present-day world.
Hence, many such acts like Sati were abolished and legislation like The Commission of
Sati (prevention) Act, 1987 was made to prevent such happenings.
21
I(3) of the facts sheet

23. In the modern-day world, such blind beliefs if promoted by the media can have adverse
effect on the general public. Blind belief can only be eradicated by education. The effect
that media has on the people is immense and the area it covers in terms of moulding the
public opinion and creating an impact on the minds of the people is huge. The media
can act as a medium for connecting the uneducated and the knowledge.
24. Scientific basis of the fact helps the people to understand that blind beliefs are not the
things to be followed without reason. If the media will telecast or broadcast anything
which is supporting blind belief or superstitious acts then it has an adverse effect on the
general public.
25. Taking into account the large reach of the media power, it will affect the general public
negatively which is not good and not in conformity with public good.
In the case of Subramanian Swamy v.UOI, Ministry of Law and Ors22,
“ In Odyssey Communications Pvt. Ltd. v. Lokvidayan Sanghatana and Ors23., a PIL
was filed before the High Court for restraining the authorities from telecasting a serial
film Honi-Anhoni amongst the members of the public. The High Court by an interim
order had restrained the authorities from telecasting the film.”
This case itself shows that the propagation of anything that is defying rational thinking
and scientific backing is a path of misleading the public.
26. If the backing of IISc, Bangalore is confirmed with the fact that is to be telecasted or
broadcasted then it has the backing of an Inst. which is considered to be an authority in
22
5, SCJ, 643 (SC 2016)
23
AIR, 1642 (BHC 1988)

the field of science. Hence, the question of misleading the general public does not arises
in the first place.
PERTAINING TO THE OFFENDER OF SEXUAL OFFENCES OR THE VICTIM.
27. The media cannot telecast or broadcast anything which hampers the respect and dignity
of the offender of sexual offences until the accused has been convicted and all the
appeal remedies have been exhausted by the offender. Nothing can be telecasted or
broadcasted about the victim, its parents, family, place of study or place of work and
anything that has potential to reveal the identity of the victim and affect the privacy at
any point of the time.
28. In the case of Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) and Anr. v. UOI and Ors24., it was held
that the right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and liberty guaranteed to its citizens
of this country under Art,.- 21.
“We are, however of the opinion that in the interest of decency [Art,. 19(2)]an exception
must be carved out to this rule, viz., a female who is the victim of a sexual assault,
kidnap, abduction or a like offence should not further be subjected to the indignity of
her name and the incident being publicised in press/media.”
This very sentence shows that the dignity of the victim has to be honoured and the
actions of the press/media have to be curtailed to check that such circumstances should
not arise.
24
AIR, 4161 (SC 2017)

2.3.1. THAT THE RULES ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS
OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.
29. In the § 228(A) of Indian Penal Code, 1860, it has been said,
“Whoever prints or publishes the name or any matter which may make known the
identity of any person against whom an [offence under § 376 (rape), § 376A (rape
leading to death or making victim go into a permanent vegetative state), § 376B (sexual
intercourse by husband upon his wife during separation), § 376C (sexual intercourse
by person in authority), § 376D (gang rape) is alleged or found to have been committed
(hereafter in this § referred to as the victim) shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to
fine.”
30. In the facts sheet25, video footages were released as breaking news without prior regard
to the honour and dignity of the victim leaving the victim with no other option but to
commit suicide.
2.3.2. THAT THE CODE IMPOSES REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS UPON
MISCONDUCT OF MEDIA IN VIOLATING RIGHT TO DIGNITY OF
INDIVIDUALS.
31. In the case of, Subramanian Swamy v. UOI, Ministry of Law26, the court observed,
“Right to free speech cannot mean that a citizen can defame the other. Protection of
reputation is a fundamental right. It is also a human right. Cumulatively it serves the
social interest.”
25
I(1) problem of the facts sheet.
26
2016 (5) SCJ 643

32. This proves that the media cannot telecast or broadcast anything about the sexual
offender when the proceedings are not completed or the appeal remedies have not been
exhausted. This tarnish the reputation of the person in the society in which he lives.
Right to reputation is a facet of right to life of a citizen under Art, 21 of the Constitution.
Reputation is not only the salt of life, but also the purest treasure and the most precious
perfume of life. It is extremely delicately and a cherished value this side of the grave27.
2.4 THAT THE MEDIA CANNOT TELECAST OR BROADCAST ANY
INTERVIEW OF THE VICTIMS OF SEXUAL OFFENCES.
33. The media cannot telecast or broadcast any interview of the victims of sexual offences
when their case is sub judice without prior approval of the NCW and the concerned
court.
2.4.1. THAT VICTIMIZING THE VICTIMS WILL MENTALLY
TRAUMATIZE THEM.
34. This was done to stop victimizing the victim and help them recover from the mental
trauma that they have undergone due to the accident they suffered. In the case of
M.P.Lohia etc v. State of West Bengal and Anr.28, the Supreme Court has held,
“The facts narrated therein are all materials that maybe used in the forthcoming trial
in this case and we have no hesitation that this type of Art,.s appearing in the media
would certainly interfere with the administration of justice.”29
27
Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code (35th edition)
28
AIR, 790 (SC 2005)
29
Ib

35. “However, to prevent any further issue being raised in this regard, we treat this matter
as closed and hope that the other concerned in journalism would take note of this
displeasure expressed by us for interfering with the administration of justice.”30
This shows that if any matter which is sub judice cannot be published in media, then an
interview of a sexual offence victim whose matter is sub judice being telecasted or
broadcasted would be going against the holding of the Supreme Court judgement.
36. In the case of Courts on its Own Motion v. The Publisher31, it was said,
“The journalists can be expected not to publish report in the nature of running
commentary or debate or record its own findings, conjectures, reflection or comments
on issues, which are sub judice.”32
37. In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi33, it was said that,
“There is a procedure established by law governing the conduct of trial of a person
accused of an offence. A trail by press, electronic media or public agitation is very
antithesis of rule of law. It can be well lead to miscarriage of justice.”
This shows that the interference of media will affect the administration of justice.
Hence, the media should not be allowed to telecast or broadcast such interview without
proper authority of NCW or the appropriate court concerned.
PERTAINING TO THE FUNCTIONING OF THE JUDICIARY.
30
Supra 27
31
3, RCR (civil), 276 (2015)
32
Ib.
33
AIR, 3986 (SC 1997)

38. The media should not telecast or broadcast anything related to the functioning of the
judiciary and about the judges conduct in the court premises.
In the case of High Court of Karnataka v. Jai Chaitanya Dasa,34 the High Court of
Karnataka at Bengaluru stated that, “The law of contempt has been enacted to secure
public respect and confidence in the judicial process. The contempt of court is a
safeguard not for judges as persons but for the functions which they exercise.”35
39. “Scandalizing the Court, therefore would mean hostile criticism of Judges as Judges
or judiciary. Any personal attack upon a Judge, any intention in connection with the
office he holds is dealt with under law of libel or slander.”36
40. This shows that the functioning of the judiciary or the conduct of the Judges inside the
court premises should not be revealed outside through media and that the media is
barred from making any such remark as such which is scathing in nature and hurts the
image of judiciary and makes people believe that not everything is going in the required
manner as it should be in the judicial proceedings.
41. The recent incident regarding four judges of the Supreme Court raising their concern
against the functioning of the judiciary and accusing the CJI being biased was telecasted
on the television. This act of the media raised a serious question on the image of the
judiciary and of the CJI of India.
42. Now the actions of the judiciary will be influenced by the vox populi as the public has
already been influenced by the image which has been created by the media and its
actions.
34
3, AKR, 627 (KHC 2015)
35
Ib.
36
Supra 32

43. The media trial regarding the functioning of the judiciary affects the decision-making
power of the judiciary and raises a serious question on the credibility of the judgement
which has been passed by the judiciary.
2.5.1. THAT CRITICIZING THE FUNCTIONING OF JUDICIARY
DIMINISHES FAITH OF PEOPLE FROM JUDICIARY.
44. In the case of P.N.Dua v. P. Shiv Shankar and Ors.37, it has been said that,
“Any criticism about the judicial system or the judges which hampers the
administration of justice or which erodes the faith in the objective approach of judges
and brings administration of justice into ridicule must be prevented.”
45. In the case of Hiralal Dixit v. State of Uttar Pradesh38, it has been said, “that it is not
necessary that there should be an actual interference with the course of administration
of justice. It is enough if the offending act or publication in any way tends to so interfere.
If there are insinuations made which are derogatory to the dignity of the court and are
calculated to undermine the confidence of the people in the integrity of the judges, the
conduct would amount to contempt.”39
This shows that the questions pertaining to the credibility of the functioning of the
judiciary actually amounts to the contempt of court and hence the media should not be
allowed to interfere in this by telecasting or broadcasting such things.
PERTAINING TO A WAR ZONE.
37
3, SCC, 167 (SC 1988)
38
AIR, 743 (SC 1954)
39
M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (7th ed, J. Ruma Pal, Samaraditya Pal, eds., 2010)

46. The media should not telecast or broadcast anything related to an active military or para
military operation conducted either in a war zone, disturbed area or civilian area without
prior permission from the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Secretary, Ministry
of Defence.
2.6.1. THAT RULE IS IN ACCORDANCE TO THE PROVISIONS OF
OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT, 1923.
47. In the case of Sama Alana Abdulla v. State of Gujarat40, it was said,
“While providing for a presumption to be raised in prosecution for the offence
punishable under that § the phraseology used by the legislature is ‘if any sketch, plan,
model, Art,., note, document or information relating to or used in any prohibited place,
relating to anything in such a place, or any secret official code or password is made,
obtained, collected, recorded, published, or communicated’.
From the way the said sub-§ is worded it becomes apparent that the qualifying word
‘secret’ has been used only with respect to or in relation to official code or password
and the legislature did not intend that the sketch, plan, model, Art,., note, document or
information should also be secret”.
2.6.2. THAT MEDIA BROADCASTING OF MILITARY OPERATIONS IS IN
CONTRAVENTION TO PROVISIONS OF UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES
PREVENTION ACT, 1967.
48. The “Helping or Aiding an Enemy” is Unlawful as mentioned in Official Secrets Act,
1923. The Media Broadcasting of a military or para-military operation in war zone or
40
AIR, 569 (SC 1996)

in Terrorist operations are likely to aid the terrorists. Therefore, it is illegitimate to
showcase it.
49. In the case of Sunil Ranjan Das v. The State41, it was held that,
“The word ‘secret’ in § 2(1)(c) of the Official Secrets Act 1923 qualifies the words
“Official code or password” only and not the words “any sketch, plan etc.” appearing
thereafter. In order to sustain a charge under the aforesaid § in respect of any sketch,
plan etc. it is not necessary to prove that the plan or any other item mentioned was a
secret document. It would suffice to show that the plan or any other document obtained
and communicated to any other person was calculated to be or might be or was
intended to be directly or indirectly useful to the enemy.”
50. These case laws point to one fact that the intention of the person does not matter. If the
information has been telecasted or broadcasted by the media and it happens to be
beneficial to the enemy then the media can be held liable.
To prevent this from happening and putting the national security at risk the media
should be barred from entering the sensitive areas in view of public concern and
welfare.
41
C.W.N., 1061 (1977)

PRAYER
Wherefore in the lights of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
humbly requested that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to adjudge and declare:
1. That the programme code issued by the UOI was within the appropriate legal authority.
2. That the code impugned is constitutionally valid.
And pass any such order or direction as the Hon’ble court deems it fit and proper in the interest
of justice, equity and good conscience, for the respondents shall as duty bound ever pray.
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

T-18 Respondant Memorial

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

T-18 Respondant Memorial

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

TEAM CODE: 18

2nd SURANA & SURANA & KLE LAW COLLEGE

NATIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

MOOT COURT COMPETITION – 2018

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

IN THE MATTERS OF:

ALL INDIA MEDIA FEDERATION ... PETITIONER

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ... RESPONDENTS

WRIT PETITION NO. _____ / 2018

(FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................... 4

STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................................ 9

ISSUES RAISED ..................................................................................................................... 10

SUMMARY OF ARGUEMENTS .......................................................................................... 11

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ................................................................................................. 12

APPROPRIATE LEGAL AUTHORITY……………………………………………….12

2. THAT THE CODE IMPUGNED IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID……………..15

2.1 THAT THE MEDIA CANNOT TELECAST OR BROADCAST ANYTHING

PERTAINING TO THE MATRIMONIAL DISPUTES PENDING BEFORE ANY

2.1.1. THE BASIS FOR SUCH RESTRICTIONS IS REASONABLE AND

2.2 THAT THE MEDIA CANNOT TELECAST OR BROADCAST ANYTHING

WHICH IS BASED ON BLIND BELIEF AND NOT SUPPORTED BY THE IISC,

2.3 THAT THE MEDIA CANNOT TELECAST OR BROADCAST ANYTHING

PERTAINING TO THE OFFENDER OF SEXUAL OFFENCES OR THE VICTIM.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

2.3.1. THAT THE RULES ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE

PROVISIONS OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860………………………….20

2.3.2. THAT THE CODE IMPOSES REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS

UPON MISCONDUCT OF MEDIA IN VIOLATING RIGHT TO DIGNITY

2.4. THAT THE MEDIA CANNOT TELECAST OR BROADCAST ANY

INTERVIEW OF THE VICTIMS OF SEXUAL OFFENCES……………………..21

2.4.1. THAT VICTIMIZING THE VICTIMS WILL MENTALLY

2.5. THAT THE MEDIA CANNOT TELECAST OR BROADCAST ANYTHING

PERTAINING TO THE FUNCTIONING OF THE JUDICIARY…………………22

2.5.1. THAT CRITICIZING THE FUNCTIONING OF JUDICIARY

DIMINISHES FAITH OF PEOPLE FROM JUDICIARY…………………..24

2.6. THAT THE MEDIA CANNOT TELECAST OR BROADCAST ANYTHING

PERTAINING TO A WAR ZONE. ……………………………………………….24

2.6.1. THAT RULE IS IN ACCORDANCE TO THE PROVISIONS OF

OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT, 1923…………………………………………...25

2.6.2. THAT MEDIA BROADCASTING OF MILITARY OPERATIONS IS

IN CONTRAVENTION TO PROVISIONS OF UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES

PREVENTION ACT, 1967…………………………………………………..25

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

AILSA All India Law Students Association

AIMF All India Media Federation

AIR All India Reporter

CJI Chief Justice of India

C.W.N. Calcutta Weekly Notes

FIR First Information Report

IISc. Indian Institute of Science

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

NCW National Commission for Women.

PIL Public Interest Litigation

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCJ Supreme Court Judgements

TRP Television Rating Point

UOI Union of India

U.P. Uttar Pradesh

U.S. United States