1.

THE LICENCE OF JANAVANI AND JANAVANI NEWS SHOULD NOT BE

CANCELLED.
1.1. Fundamental Right U/A 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution properly exercised.
1.2. No action of Janavani and Janavani News falls under the exceptions of Art. 19(2) of the
constitution of Sarvia.
1.3. Public's right to know which is protected by the media trumps the Right to Privacy,
Reputation, and of fair trial of Madhukar Vats.
1.4. Media is a trustee of the public and their right to information.
1.5. Judiciary does not possess the authority of cancellation of media licences.
1.6. Neither was there any hindrance with administration of justice, nor was there contempt
of court.
2. THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHOPRITY TO
FORMULATE THE NECESSARY GUIDELINES FOR REPORTING OF CASES
PENDING BEFORE COURTS OR REGARDING MATTERS WHICH ARE SUB-
JUDICE.
2.1. The doctrine of Separation of Power, a basic feature of the constitution of Sarvia.
2.2. Freedom of press is an accepted right U/A 19(1)(a) and can only be restricted U/A 19(2).
2.3. The Court, exercising its power U/A 142 cannot frame such guidelines.
2.4. This court cannot override the said legislature exercising its power U/A 142.
2.5. Press Council Act, 1978 and the Ministry of I&B, which enumerates the powers and
functions of the press must formulate such guidelines.
2.6. Any guidelines relating to the reporting of cases pending before courts or regarding
matters which are sub-judice would be a prior restraint on the publication.
2.7. The guidelines would question the competency of the judges.

3. THE REVERSE STING OPERATION CARRIED OUT BY ANB NEWS VIOLATES

RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND AMOUNTS TO INTERFERENCE WITH
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
3.1. Violation of Right to privacy U/A 21 of the constitution.
3.2. Prejudice to sub-judice matter of Janavani which is pending in court.
3.3. Amounts to interference with the administration justice.
 3.4. The sting operation so conducted was unethical on the part of the petitioner.
3.5. On staging the sting operation, the licence of ANB News is liable to be cancelled.
1. THE LICENCE OF JANAVANI AND JANAVANI NEWS SHOULD NOT BE
CANCELLED.

2.5 Judiciary does not possess the authority of cancellation of media licences.

The Constitution of Sarvia is a Constitution which recognises the separation of powers

between the three Wings of State i.e. the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary. It is a well-
established principle that each Wing should respect the domain and powers of the other
Wings and not encroach upon the domain and powers of the other Wings of State.

The authority to grant and cancel newspaper and broadcasting licenses exclusively rests with
the Licensing Authority and the Ministry of I&B, which are executive authorities. The Court
does not have the jurisdiction to take a decision on behalf of the executive authorities and
substitute the Court’s decision in place of the decision of the executive authorities. In its
power of Judicial Review under the Constitution and Art 32, the Court can only examine the
correctness of the decision-making process followed by the executive authorities in granting
the licence or cancelling the licence.

The authority and power to grant or cancel licenses thus, is in the exclusive domain and
power of the Licensing Authority and the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. Since
there is no allegation that the licenses were wrongfully granted i.e. the decision-making
process by which they were granted, the Court has no power to direct cancellation of the
licenses, since the Court cannot substitute its own decision for that of the executive
authorities.

Without prejudice to the above contentions, and without admitting that the licences should be
cancelled, it is most respectfully submitted that at the most what this Hon’ble Court has the
power to do is to pass a direction to the executive authorities to consider whether the licenses
 were properly granted. It is humbly submitted that this Court does not have the jurisdiction to
either cancel the licenses itself, or even to issue a writ of mandamus directing the executive
authorities to cancel the licenses.

2.6 Neither was there any hindrance with administration of justice, nor was there contempt
of court.

The publication by Janavani and Janavani news, was neither a hindrance to the administration of
justice, nor was liable for contempt of Court for publishing sub-judice matter. Every important
issue needs to be vigorously debated by the people and the press, even if the issue is sub-judice
in a case. It is well known that in many cases, which were sub-judice, gross injustice has been
avoided only on account of a vigorous debate among the people and the media, and there is no
known case in which on account of an open public debate, the court has decided wrongly and
injustice was the result. Even if some incorrect statements have been made by the court, it would
not justify placing restrictions on the people and the media, exercising the right of free speech.

U/A 129, the SC has the inherent power to punish for its contempt, but while exercising such
power, it should take into consideration, that such law must be in consonance with the
legislation.

In Pallav Sheth v. Custodian1, this Hon’ble court observed as follows;

“30. There can be no doubt that, both this court, and the High ort are the ourts of
record, and the constitution has given them the power to punish for their contempt. ...

31. ...the power U/A 129 and/or Art. 215 should be exercised on consonance with
the provisions of a validly enacted law. In case of apparent or likelihood of conflict, the
provisions should ne construed harmoniously.”

In Manish Goel v. Rohini Goel2, this Hon’ble court held as follows;

“14. ...no court has competence to issue a direction contrary to law, nor can the
court direct an authority to act in contravention of the statutory provisions. The courts are meant
1
[(2001) 7 SC 549]
2
[(2010) 4 SCC 393]
to enforce the rule of law and not pass the orders or directions which are contrary to what has
been injected by law.”

The most fundamental principle of justice is that, justice must not only be done, but seen to be
done. Publicity of court cases serves an important public purpose. It enhances public knowledge,
and appreciation of the working of law and the administration of justice. It is in the public
interest in seeing fairness and proper conduct in the administration of justice. It informs the
ordinary citizen about matters of public interest and is therefore an indispensable facilitator of
the right to information.

2. THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE AUHORITY TO

FORMULATE THE NECESSARY GUIDELINES FOR REPORTING OF CASES
PENDING BEFORE COURTS OR REGARDING MATTERS WHICH ARE SUB-
JUDICE.

2.1. The doctrine of Separation of Power, a basic feature of the constitution of Sarvia.
The doctrine of separation of power has been a basic structure of our constitution. C.J.
Sikri in Keshavananda Bharti v. Union of India 3 has opined that separation of power
along with rule of law in basic structure of our constitution, which outlines the functions
of each of the limbs i.e. legislature, judiciary in the executive. It is not for one to
transgress into the domain of the other.
Judiciary can only interpret laws but has no power to lay down a new law of general
application. It may fill the gaps by a purposive construction of the legislation and has
always acted cautiously in not legislating in the way in which the legislature can
legislate. This Hon'ble Court has always been restrained in such matters.
P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka 4. It has also been held that the courts are
not to enlarge the scope of legislation. A court can interpret the law but not legislate.
While interpreting statutes, courts have always avoided stepping into the shoes of the
legislature.

3
[1952 SCR 89]
4
[(2002) 4 SCC 578]
 Likewise courts have refrained from legislating. They have assiduously left this domain
to the legislatures as courts retain the power of judicially reviewing and testing the
validity of legislating on settled legal norms based on principles of testing the
constitutionality of statutes. Legislation by the courts will be not be open to such tests
and will be outside the scope and ambit of judicial review which is a basic feature of the
Constitution.
Framing guidelines is purely a legislative function. Judiciary cannot step into the shoes
of legislature and formulate guidelines.
In implication of the above doctrine, it is humble submitted before the Hon’ble SC that it
does not possess the authority to legislate on such issues. It is therefore restrained from
formulating guidelines for reporting of cases pending before courts or regarding matters
which are sub-judice.

2.2. Freedom of press is an accepted right U/A 19(1)(a) and can only be restricted U/A
19(2).

Art 19(1)(a) R/W Art. 19(2) is a unique provision under the Sarvian constitution. Art 19 (1)
(a) freedoms are not absolute, but they can only be abridged as specified in Art. 19(2). It is a
well settled law that the state has no power to impose restrictions except those permissible
U/A 19(2). The judiciary cannot impose these restrictions in the interests of the general
public as it would be beyond the ambit of Art. 19(2).

In Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India. The only restrictions which can be imposed
on the rights of the press which are akin to the rights of an individual under Article 19(1)
(a) can be curtailed only by the conditions enumerated in Article 19(2) and no other.
2.3. The Court, exercising its power U/A 142 cannot frame such guidelines.

Article 142, even with the width of its amplitude, cannot be used to build a new edifice
where none existed earlier, by ignoring express statutory provisions dealing with subject
and thereby to achieve something indirectly which cannot be achieved directly.
 In Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commr. 5, a constitutional bench of this Hon’ble court
observed that;

“14. ...though the powers conferred on this court by Art 142(1) are very wide,
and the same can be exercised for doing complete justice in any case, as we have already
observed, this court cannot even U/A 142(1) make an order plainly inconsistent with the
express statutory provisions of substantive law, much less, inconsistent with any
constitutional provisions.”

2.4. This court cannot override the said legislature exercising its power U/A 142.

In S.C. Bar Association v. Union of India 6 it was held that the powers conferred on the
court by Article 142 being curative in nature cannot be construed as powers which
authorise the court to ignore the substantive rights of a litigant while dealing with a
cause pending before it. This power cannot be used to 'supplant' substantive law
applicable to the case or cause under consideration of the court 7. Punishing a contemnor
advocate, while dealing with a contempt of court case by suspending his licence to
practice, a power otherwise statutorily available only to the Bar Council of India, on the
ground that the contemnor is also an advocate is, therefore, not permissible in exercise of
the jurisdiction under Article 142.

Relying heavily on the observations of the Constitution Bench in SC Bar Association

Vs. Union of India to the effect that ... Article 142, even with the width of its amplitude,
cannot be used to build a new edifice where none existed earlier, by ignoring express
statutory provisions dealing with a subject and thereby to achieve something indirectly
which cannot be achieved directly.

2.5. Press Council Act, 1978 and the Ministry of I&B, which enumerates the powers and
functions of the press must formulate such guidelines.

5
[AIR 1963 SC 996]
6
[AIR 1998 SC 1895]
7
A.B. Bhaskara Rao v. CBI [(2011) 10 SCC 259]
 In the Union of Sarvia, the authority over press and media related issues is of the Press Act,
1978 and of the Ministry of I&B. The aforementioned Act and institution are sufficient to
handle such conflicts. In the presence of such authorities, it is not the duty of the SC to frame
guidelines on their matters.

In Destruction of Public & Private Prop. v. State of A.P. 8, the Hon'ble S.C. of India
while dealing with the powers of the court to issue directions to meet situations relating
to the media, appointed a committee to give a report, after the report was submitted to
the court, it was observed that the suggestions are extremely important and they
constitute sufficient guidelines which need to be adopted. But we leave it to the
appropriate authorities to take effective steps for their implementation.

Parliament has enacted the Press Council Act, 1978 which enumerates the powers and
functions of the press council. Sec. 13(2) (b) of Act 9 states the council shall have the
function to build up a code of conduct for newspapers, news agencies and journalists in
accordance with high professional standards.

The council exercising its power U/S 13 of the Act from time to time has given certain
code of conduct.

In the case of Court on its own Motion v State10, the Court asked the Ministry of
Information and Broadcasting to examine the proposed guidelines placed before it, and to
include proposals they deemed fit in the current exercise to draft a statute or code of conduct
to report sub judice matters.

2.6. Any guidelines relating the reporting of cases pending before courts or regarding
matters which are sub-judice would be a prior restraint on the publication.

The court have always protected the freedom of speech and expression enshrined U/A
19(1)(a) and held in many situations that pre-censorship is invalid.

8
[(2009) 5 SCC 212]
9
Sec (2)(b) -The Council may, in furtherance of its objects, perform the following functions, namely  to build up a
code of conduct for newspapers, news agencies and journalists in accordance with high professional standards.
10
[146(2008) DLT 429]
 The S.C. in Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi 11 has held the order of Chief Commissioner
of Delhi requiring the news to be submitted for scrutiny before publication to be invalid.

Similarly in Romesh Thapper v. State of Madras a law banning entry and circulation
of journal in state was held to be invalid.

The S.C. of India in R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N.12 held that no such prior restraint or
prohibition of publication can be imposed by the respondents upon the proposed
publication of the alleged autobiography of 'Auto Shankar' by the petitioners. This
cannot be done either by the State or by its officials. In other words, neither the
Government nor the officials who apprehend that they may be defamed, have the right to
impose a prior restraint upon the publication of the alleged autobiography of Auto
Shankar. The remedy of public officials/public figures, if any, will arise only after the
publication and will be governed by the principles indicated herein.

2.7. The guidelines would question the competency of the judges.

Since a trial in India is by a trained Judge and not by a jury consisting of lay persons,
there is no real possibility of a Judge, getting swayed by the discussion in the media. It
must be presumed that he would be aware of his function to decide a case strictly
according to admissible evidence which was laid before him and therefore would not
take any media debate into consideration. If some people feel that even a trained Judge
might subconsciously be affected by the media reports, then the proper guidelines to be
issued by this Court would be to direct all trial Judges who have to try a case to strictly
avoid watching the electronic media or reading the newspapers while he was trying an
important criminal case.

It should also be remembered that even a decision in a criminal trial is subject to judicial
review in the higher courts which would also prevent any injustice being done in a
criminal trial even if in a very rare case, the trial Judge happened to get affected by
media reports and thereby gave an incorrect judgment.

11
[AIR 1950 SC 129]
12
[(1994 6 SCC 632)]
3. THE REVERSE STING OPERATION CARRIED OUT BY ANB NEWS VIOLATES
RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND AMOUNTS TO INTERFERENCE WITH
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
I.1 Prejudice to sub-judice matter of Janavani which is pending in court.

At the time of conducting the sting operation, and releasing the same in a press conference, a
matter of Janavani & Janavani news was sub-judice in the court of justice. The act of the
petitioner outrightly prejudiced with the same. If everyday new developments are reported in
such a manner, the proceedings going on in court would be compromised.

In U.K, there exists a law, which bans journalists on reporting matters which are sub-judice.
Section 4(2) of the English Contempt of court Act, 1981, has expressly empowered the courts
to postpone publication of any report of the proceedings, or any part of the proceedings for
such period as the court thinks fit, for avoiding a substantial risk of prejudice to the
administration of justice in those proceedings.

I.2 Amounts to interference with the administration justice.

The constitution has provided freedom of Speech and expression to all the citizens of Sarvia.
The press has the freedom to express in the same manner. But nowadays, the press is using
excess of freedom and violating all its restrictions, and is harming the right o f others. The
press is conducting sting operations on the cases which are pending before the court of law,
and trying to interfere with the administration of justice. By conducting a sting operation, it
affects the right to privacy of an individual. By telecasting the sting operation on the TV
channels, the reputation of the person in the society is affected.

The Canadian SC in Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcasting Corpn13, held that a publication

ban should be ordered, when such an order is necessary to prevent a serious risk to the proper
administration of justice.

13
[(1994) 3 SCR 835 (Can SC) ]
 The media is supposed to make people aware of crimes, not to punish criminals. It is in no
one’s interest to insight and create misdeed for the sole purpose of prosecuting and punishing
it. After all, one cannot be permitted to commit an offence, to expose another14.

These sting operations are conducted so as to take advantage of the fact that everyone makes
mistakes. Such a gross abuse of authority and freedom given for spreading awareness, not for
generating criminals deserves the severest condemnation because it directly affects the
administration of justice by influencing the judiciary.

I.3 The sting operation so conducted was unethical on the part of the petitioner.

Conducting a sting operation is not only violative of Right to Privacy U/A 21, but is also
unethical. It is unnecessary intrusion into the life of a person and such a conduct is against
morality.

In the case of Court on its own Motion v State15, a TV news channel called 'Live India'
aired a program based on a sting operation they had conducted, that showed Ms. Uma
Khurana, a teacher in a school run by the Delhi government, forcing a girl student into
prostitution. The Delhi Police started an investigation which showed that the girl who had
been shown as a student who was allegedly being forced into prostitution by Ms. Uma
Khurana was neither a school girl nor a prostitute but a budding journalist eager to make a
name in the media world. The police found no evidence to show that Ms. Khurana was
involved in a prostitution racket.

The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting issued a show cause notice to Live India
stating that the telecast of the sting operation was deliberate and defamatory, containing false
innuendos and suggestive half-truths.

Delhi High Court took suo moto notice of media reportage around a television story that had
come to be known as the ‘Uma Khurana sting operation’. The court examined the question of
how the recurrence of such incidents could be stopped or at least minimised so that innocent

14
As has been noted in Tehelka case
15
[146(2008)DLT 429]
persons cannot be victimised and suffer loss of reputation. The Court asked the Ministry of
Information and Broadcasting to examine the proposed guidelines placed before it, and to
include proposals they deemed fit in the current exercise to draft a statute or code of conduct
to regulate sting operations.

According to these guidelines a channel proposing to telecast a sting operation had to obtain
a certificate from the person who recorded or produced it saying that it was genuine to the
best of his/her knowledge. There has to be a concurrent record in writing of the various
stages of the sting operation. The channel has to obtain permission from a committee
appointed by the Ministry of I&B to telecast the sting operation.

I.4 On staging the sting operation, the licence of ANB News is liable to be cancelled.

Conducting a sting operation against Janavani and Janavani News was an unauthorised act of
ANB News. ANB News took undue advantage of its power as press for its personal motives
trying to defame Janavani. It violated the right to privacy to Janavani in doing so. Also, the
sting operation was neither done in public welfare, nor in the welfare of the Union of Sarvia.
The sole motives of ANB while conducting the sting operation was to cause defamation of
and loss to Janavani News.

Furthermore, there is no authenticity behind the sting operation. Everyday cases of staged
sting operations are witnessed by the judiciary. It is hence not proved that the sting operation
was true and not tampered with.

Therefore it is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that it issues orders for the
cancellation of license of ANB News on grounds of misuse of the same.
 PRAYER

Wherefore, in light of the facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, the Hon’ble Supreme Court may be pleased:

1. To dismiss the writ petition being WP No.1328 of 2012 filed by Shri Madhukar Vats; and

2. Decline to pass any guidelines as prayed for in IA No. 3 of 2012 in WP No.2642 of
2012; and
3. Issue a declaration that the sting operation conducted by ABN News was violative of
right to privacy and interfered with the administration of justice; and
4. Issue a declaration cancelling the licence of ANB News, or in the alternative to issue a
writ of mandamus to the Licensing Authority to cancel the licence of ANB News; and
5. Direct that ANB News pay compensation for breaching the fundamental rights of the
petitioner in W.P filed by Mr. Ram Prasad Kamal, for breaching the right to privacy of
Mr. Ram Prasad Kamal and harming his reputation, and causing business loss by
publishing false and misleading information; 

AND PASS ANY OTHER ORDER THAT IT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, EQUITY, AND

GOOD CONSCIENCE. ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Place: S/d_________________

Date: (Counsel on behalf of the Defence)

3.3.Public's right to know which is protected by the media trumps the right to privacy,
reputation and of fair trial of vijay lalit sodhi
The right of the public ‘to know’ overrides the individual right of vijay lalit sodhi of his
reputation. If an act of media is in conflict with a person’s right to reputation, then the former
holds an upper position. It is the responsibility of the media to make available to the people their
right to information. In doing so, if the reputation of an individual is jeopardised, then the media
cannot be held liable for such publication.
The right of reputation of vijay lalit sodhi is not violated and there has been no defamation,
because as per the 1st exception of Sec 49916 of the Indian Penal Code, imputation of truth is an
exception to defamation. Here the right of the petitioner is not absolute, because what was
published by zing TV News was nothing but truth.
In Gazette Printing Co. v. Shallow17 , Duff, J. Observed,
‘... though the publication of such proceedings may be to the disadvantage of a
particular individual concerned, yet it is of vast importance [to the public], that the proceedings
of the court of justice should be universally known, the general advantage to the country in
having those proceedings public, more than counterbalances, the inconvenience to the private
persons whose conduct may be the subject of such proceedings.’ [Emphasis supplied]

I.1 Violation of Right to privacy U/A 21 of the constitution.

Art 21 of the constitution of Mindia provides to all its citizens, the right to privacy. Revealing
the private pictures is a violation of the above stated right and is therefore punishable. When
xing TV exposing details of vijay lalit sodhi, it infringed the right to privacy of the latter.

The sting operation undertaken by Zing TV News violates right to privacy and amounts to
interference with administration of justice. The sting operation is an invasion of privacy. In
16
Sec 499 exception (1)-It is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it be for
good that the imputation should be made or published.
17
[(1909) 41 SCR 399 (Can)] p. 348
 certain cases this practice is used as means to black mail the rivals. Often doubts are
expressed by the victims of sting operations over the veracity of the tapes. And refer to the
possible tampering. It is also true that sting operations are many a time result of political,
business or professional rivalry rather than a serious commitment to uphold values in society.
Highly placed media sources reveal that some sting operations do not reach the audience due
to underhand deals and shady settlements .between the media operators and the people who
are caught on the hidden cameras. Perhaps, yet another sting operation is required to expose
the media sting operations. There are legal inadequacies in dealing with the phenomenon of
sting operations by television channels.

In Eliot v. Food Lion18 case, in the United States, ABC News Magazine ‘Prime Time Live’,
broadcast a high profile investigative report, accused Food Lion, an 1100-store grocery, of
selling old food, cheese chewed by rats, and spoiled meat, washed in bleach to kill the odour.
To gather the information, ABC had deputed two produced who worked under cover in two
North Carolina super markets. They wore a wig hiding a tiny lipstick sized camera, and each
carried a concealed microphone. Food Lion did not deny the undercover report’s allegations,
but filed a suit against ABC changing the network with fraud, trespassing, and other
deception. The jury ruled against the ABC. According to the federal jury, ABC News, and
Prime Time journalists trespassed and omitted fraud while researching the acquisitions.

Therefore, in the Union of Sarvia, in the absence of law regulating the sting operations, the
media has violated and distorted the rules of natural justice, and basic fundamental rights
enshrined under Art 21 of the constitution.

18
[167 NC App 653]
 ISSUE 3
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1 Whether the non-recusal of Justice Mark from the case has resulted in grave prejudice
to the appellant and caused strict violation of the principle of natural justice or not?

Case laws

Ajay goswami v union of India19

Issues

1) Whether the obscene pictures shown on news channels are objectionable for children
under the age of 18?
2) Whether the blanket ban on news channel for such violate their right?
3) Whether there is violation of any section incorporated in press council act, 1978

Law

The present case concerns with the article 19(1) (a), 21 and 19(2) of the constitution of
mindia.

Analysis

In this case, the petitioner filed a writ petition in the apex court regarding the violation of
article 21 of the constitution by the newspapers by publishing sexually oriented material,
especially in the entertainment sections, which are harmful to the minors. The respondent
contended that the news was published to inform readers of the current entertainment news
from around the world and India and should not be viewed in isolation but with the news
annexed to them. At this the apex court held that, the writ petition is not maintanable since
the incidence of shielding minors should not be that the adult population is restricted to read
and what is fir for children. Moreover, this publication does not violate any section of the
press council act. Further, any steps of imposing blanket ban would infringe the fundamental
right 19(1) (g).

Conclusion

It was held by the apex court that “it would be inappropriate to deprive the adult population
of the entertainment which is well within the acceptable levels of decency on the ground that
it may not be appropriate for children.”

Rly. Board govt. of India v. observer publications(p) ltd

19
(2007) 1 SCC 143
 Issues

1. Whether the ban on the magazine violates article 14 of the constitution or not?

2. Whether the ban on the magazine by the railway board is reasonable or not?

Law

The present case concerns with the violation of article 14 of the constitution

Analysis

It was contended that since the railway board comes under the definition of state mentioned
under article 12 of the constitution. The administrative order by this authority can be
challenged under article 14 of the constitution. Moreover, the Indian observer has just written
an article titled black money by deluxe train is not a valid background for the discrimination
made.

Conclusion

It was concluded that the “the Indian observer had been singled out for being banned and that
clearly amounted to a discriminatory treatment violating article 14 of the constitution.

Tata press v mahanagar20

Issues

1) Whether commercial speech is protected under article 19(1) (a) or not?

Law

The present case concerned with the article 19(1) (a) and 19(2) of the constitution of mindia?

Analysis

It was contended that in a democratic economy free flow of commercial information is

dispensable. There cannot be honest and economical marketing by the public at large without
being educated by the information disseminated through advertisements. The economic
system would be handicapped without there being freedom of commercial speech.

Conclusion

It was held that since any restraint or curtailment of advertisements would affect the
fundamental right under article 19(1)(a) on the aspect of propagation , publication and
20
(1995) 5 SCC 139
circulation, however certain restrictions are there which can be imposed if the speech found
to be misleading, unfair and untruthful.

Indirect tax practitioners v R.K. jain

Issue

Whether the blanket ban through the contempt power should be uplifted or not?

Whether the contents of the editorial constitute criminal contempt written by the respondent?

Law

The present case concerns with the article 129 of the constitution and contempt of courts act,
1971.

Analysis

In the present case, it was found that the respondent has wrote the article which somewhere
tells the truth of the working of the administration and the petitioner lacks bonafide and is an
abuse of the process of the court.

Conclusion

The court held that since the respondents argued in his editorial with evidences which are
true on examination. Therefore, the defense of truth will be applied and there is no contempt.
 1. We contend that freedom of press is not an absolute right; putting reasonable
restriction does not violate the fundamental right of freedom of speech and
expression U/ A 19(1) (a). The ban imposed by the committee, set up by the
IB Ministry acts as a reasonable restriction. X.TV had used the freedom
provided to media excessively as they broadcasted the private pictures of Mr.
Sodhi which had the tendency to create hostility in the mind of people.
Also, these pictures were published without Mr. Sodhi’s consent which
breached this right to privacy U/A 21

2. In case of gobind v. state of MP21 it was stated that privacy is a concomitant

right of the individual to exercise over his or her personality. Privacy is a
necessary condition precedent to enjoyment to any of the right guaranteed
under part III. FR right to privacy includes 3 aspects of privacy i.e. intrusion
with an individual’s physical body, Informational privacy and Privacy of
choice; one aspect of privacy is a right to control dissemination personal
information. every individual should have a right to be able to control his/her
own life and image as portrayed in the world and to control commercial use of
his/her identity.
3. In ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla22 it was stated that Art. 21 is the sole
repository of all rights to life and personal liberty, when suspended takes away
all these rights all together.
4. In Haelen laboratories inc. v. topps chewing gum inc23, 202 F 2d 866 (2d Cir
1953), justice Jerome Frank defined the right to publicity as “the right to grant
the exclusive privilege of publishing” hence every individual should have a
right to be able to exercise control over his or her own life and image as how
to be portrayed to the world or to control commercial use of his and her
identity. Through this it can be inferred that an individual may be permitted to
prevent others his name, image and other aspects of his her personal life, an
identity without personal purposes without his or her consent.

21
(1975) 2 SCC 148
22
(1976) 2 SCC 521
23
202 F 2d 866 (2d Cir 1953)
 5. Justice R.F. Nariman while pronouncing the judgement of Puttaswamy v.
UOI24 quoted the Robertson and Nicol on media law [ Jeoffrey Robertson, QC
and Andrew Nicol, QC, Media Law, 5th edn., p. 256] it was observed that

“Individuals have a psychological need to preserve an intrusion free zone for

their personality and family and suffer anguish and stress. when then that zone
is violated democratic society must protect privacy as part of their facilitation
of individual freedom, and offer some legal support for the individual choice
as to what aspect of intimate personal life the citizen is prepared to share with
others. This freedom in other words spring from the same source as freedom
of expression ; a liberty that enhances individual life in democratic
community.”
6. R v. Dyment25, Justice La Forest stated that restrains imposed on government
to pry into the lives of citizens go to the essence of a democratic State.
The present case concerns one aspect of invasion of privacy, wrongful
disclosure of private information. The case involves the familiar competition
between freedom of expression and respect for individual privacy, both is
vitally important right, a proper degree of privacy is essential for the well-
being and development of an individual.
7. In case of Francis Coralie Mullin v. UT of Delhi26 it was held that privacy and
dignity of human life has always been considered a fundamental human right
of every human being like any other key values such as freedom of
association and freedom of speech. Therefore, every act which offends human
dignity tantamount to deprivation of his right to life.
8. The SC from the case of New York Times v. United States27 observed that
“the right to privacy as enunciated by the courts of United States and England
can also be applicable to public figures as they often plays an influential role
in orderly society and the citizens had a legitimate and substantial interest in
the conduct of such persons. Thus the SC was of the view that freedom of
24
(2018) 1 SCC 809
25
(1988) SCC OnLine Can SC 86
26
(1981) 1 SCC 608
27
403 US 713 : 29 L Ed 2d 822 (1971)
 press extends to engaging in uninhibited debate about the involvement of
public figures in public issues and events”28.
9. In case of Mrs. Chitra Jagjit Singh v. Panache Media & Ors29 Hon’ble HC of
10. Bombay held that right of an individual, especially a public figure or celebrity,
to control the commercial value and exploitation of his name or pictures or
likeness or to prevent others from unfairly appropriating that value for their
commercial benefit, has come to be known as “right to publicity”. This right is
said to be evolved from the “right of privacy” through the right of Privacy
itself is described as distinct from the right of publicity as it has come to be
evolved.

ISSUE 1
In case of Uma Nath Pandey And Others v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another30 the main
question in this case is to adjudicate whether the principle of natural justice have been violated;
and if so, to what extent any prejudice has been caused. In this case it was discussed that
principles of natural justice are not codified canons. The first and foremost rule of principle of
natural justice is principle of Audi Altrem Partem it says that no one should be condemned
unheard31 . Notice is the main part of this principle, it is essential that the party mshpuld be
given a notice before any adverse action is taken against it.

In the present case the committee which was set up by IB Ministry has not violated the principle
of Audi Altrem Patrem as it had given a fair opportunity to X TV to present their case and also
issued a show cause notice and as stated in the above case notice is the main part of the afore
said mentioned principle and it has

ISSUE 1 Whether the non-recusal of Justice Mark from the case has resulted in grave prejudice
to the appellant and caused strict violation of the principle of natural justice or not?

Case laws

28
2001 SCC OnLine Del 1030
29
2016 SCC OnLine Bom 2364
30
(2009) 12 SCC 40
31
Ibid
Ajay goswami v union of India32

Issues

4) Whether the obscene pictures shown on news channels are objectionable for children
under the age of 18?
5) Whether the blanket ban on news channel for such violate their right?
6) Whether there is violation of any section incorporated in press council act, 1978

Law

The present case concerns with the article 19(1) (a), 21 and 19(2) of the constitution of
mindia.

Analysis

In this case, the petitioner filed a writ petition in the apex court regarding the violation of
article 21 of the constitution by the newspapers by publishing sexually oriented material,
especially in the entertainment sections, which are harmful to the minors. The respondent
contended that the news was published to inform readers of the current entertainment news
from around the world and India and should not be viewed in isolation but with the news
annexed to them. At this the apex court held that, the writ petition is not maintanable since
the incidence of shielding minors should not be that the adult population is restricted to read
and what is fir for children. Moreover, this publication does not violate any section of the
press council act. Further, any steps of imposing blanket ban would infringe the fundamental
right 19(1) (g).

Conclusion

It was held by the apex court that “it would be inappropriate to deprive the adult population
of the entertainment which is well within the acceptable levels of decency on the ground that
it may not be appropriate for children.”

Rly. Board govt. of India v. observer publications(p) ltd

Issues

1. Whether the ban on the magazine violates article 14 of the constitution or not?

2. Whether the ban on the magazine by the railway board is reasonable or not?

Law

The present case concerns with the violation of article 14 of the constitution

32
(2007) 1 SCC 143
 Analysis

It was contended that since the railway board comes under the definition of state mentioned
under article 12 of the constitution. The administrative order by this authority can be
challenged under article 14 of the constitution. Moreover, the Indian observer has just written
an article titled black money by deluxe train is not a valid background for the discrimination
made.

Conclusion

It was concluded that the “the Indian observer had been singled out for being banned and that
clearly amounted to a discriminatory treatment violating article 14 of the constitution.

Tata press v mahanagar33

Issues

2) Whether commercial speech is protected under article 19(1) (a) or not?

Law

The present case concerned with the article 19(1) (a) and 19(2) of the constitution of mindia?

Analysis

It was contended that in a democratic economy free flow of commercial information is

dispensable. There cannot be honest and economical marketing by the public at large without
being educated by the information disseminated through advertisements. The economic
system would be handicapped without there being freedom of commercial speech.

Conclusion

It was held that since any restraint or curtailment of advertisements would affect the
fundamental right under article 19(1)(a) on the aspect of propagation , publication and
circulation, however certain restrictions are there which can be imposed if the speech found
to be misleading, unfair and untruthful.

Indirect tax practitioners v R.K. jain

Issue

Whether the blanket ban through the contempt power should be uplifted or not?

Whether the contents of the editorial constitute criminal contempt written by the respondent?
33
(1995) 5 SCC 139
 Law

The present case concerns with the article 129 of the constitution and contempt of courts act,
1971.

Analysis

In the present case, it was found that the respondent has wrote the article which somewhere
tells the truth of the working of the administration and the petitioner lacks bonafide and is an
abuse of the process of the court.

Conclusion

The court held that since the respondents argued in his editorial with evidences which are
true on examination. Therefore, the defense of truth will be applied and there is no contempt.

Appellant cases

In A.U. Kureshi v. High Court of Gujarat34, one of the judges of the High Court considered the
so-called misconduct of a member of a member of sub-ordinate judiciary on administrative side.
He then decided the petition filed by the delinquent officer on judicial side. It was held that there
was reasonable apprehension of bias.

In Gullapali Nageswara Rao v. A.P. SRTC 35, the petitioners were carrying on motor transport
business. The Andhra state transport undertaking published a scheme for nationalization of
motor transport in the state and invited objections. The objections filed by the petitioners were
received and heard by the secretary and thereafter the scheme was approved by the chief
minister. The Supreme Court upheld the contention of the petitioners that the official who heard
the objections was “in substance” of the parties to dispute and hence, the principles of natural
justice were violated.

In case of Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel36 it was held that violation of rule of natural justice
results in arbitrariness which is same as discrimination and where discrimination is the result of
state action, it is violation of Art. 14. Article 14 is not sole repository of principle of natural
justice , Art. 14 is not their begetter but their constitutional guardian37.

34
A.U. Kureshi v. High Court of Gujarat (2009) 11 SCC 84
35
Gullapali Nageswara Rao v. A.P. SRTC AIR 1959 SC 308
36
(1985) 3 SCC 398
37
(1985) 3 SCC 398 Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel