SLS NAGPUR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

before The Hon’ble Supreme Court of The United Stated of Galar

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO.__/2021

UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF GALAR

CONTENTOPERA INC & ORS…………………………………PETITIONERS

v.

STATE OF HAMMERLOCKE AND ANR…….. .……………RESPONDENTS

MEMORIAL for PETITIONERS

i
SLS NAGPUR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ii
SLS NAGPUR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

iii
 SLS NAGPUR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And

Inc. Incorporation

Galar United States of Galar

Anr. Another

Art. Article

COG Constitution of Galar

LA Legislative Assembly

Etc. Etcetera

FRs Fundamental Rights

LC Legislative Council

Ltd. Limited

Ors. Others

IPC Indian Penal Code

Pvt. Private

SC Supreme Court
OTT Over-the-top
Sec. Section

OCCP Online Curated Content Platform

OCRA Online Content Regulation Act

UOI Union of India

v. Versus

Vol. Volume

S.L.P Special Leave Petition

Del. DELHI

MP Madhya Pradesh

iv
 SLS NAGPUR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

SCC Supreme Court Cases

Bom Bombay

AIR All India Reporter

IT ACT Information Technology Act, 2000

SCR Supreme Court Records

v
 SLS NAGPUR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES AND REGULATIONS

 Constitution of Galar, 1900

 Galarian Penal Code, 1860
 Information Technology Act, 2000
 Indian Contract Act, 1872

LIST OF CASES

Nikhil Bhalla v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) 7123/2018. And

S. Rangarajan Etc v. P. Jagjivan Ram, 1989 SCC (2) 574. Incorporation

Viacom 18 Media Private Limited & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., Writ United States
Petition(s)(Civil) No. 36 of 2018. of Galar
Padmanabh Shankar v. Union of India and Ors., Writ Petition No.6050/201. Another

Ekta Kapoor v. State of M.P., M.Cr.C. No. 28386/2020. Article

Constitution
K. A. Abbas vs The Union of India & Anr, 1971 SCR (2) 446.
of Galar
Odyssey Communications Pvt. Ltd v. Lokvidayan Sanghatana & Ors., 1988 Legislative
AIR 1642. Assembly
Bobby Art International, Etc vs Om Pal Singh Hoon & Ors, (1996) 4 SCC
Etcetera
1.
Fundamental
Shreya Singhal vs U.O.I, Writ Petition No. 167 of 2012.
Rights
Legislative
Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India, 1962 SCR (3) 842.
Council
Shayara Bano vs Union of India and Ors., Writ Petition (C) No. 118 of
2016. Limited

U.K., Scott v Sampson’, (1882) QBD 491 Others

Indian Penal
Devbrata Shastri vs Krishna Ballabh AIR 1954 Patna 84, 1953,
Code
Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr. vs Shri Ran Singh And Ors., AIR 1951 SC Private
270.
Supreme
Pandit Someshwar Dutt v. Pandit Tirbhawan Dutt, (1934) 36 BOMLR 652.
Court

vi
 SLS NAGPUR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

DATEBASE

 Indian Kanoon
 LexisNexis Advance Search
 JSTORE
 Manupatra
 SCC Online

DICTIONARY

Black’s Law Dictionary, (8th ed., 2004).

vii
 SLS NAGPUR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of the United States of Galar has the jurisdiction to try the
present case by virtue of Article 136 of the Constitution of the United States of Galar.

Important Note: The laws of United States of Galar are pari materia to the Laws of India,
including the judgments delivered by Supreme Court of India and various High Courts of
India. However, all ‘Common Law’ Precedents including the judgements of Supreme Court
of India and various High Courts of India would have equal persuasive value.

viii
 SLS NAGPUR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

STATEMENT OF FACTS
UNITED STATES OF GALAR

United States of Galar is a vast country in South Asia. It is one of the world’s oldest
democracies. Its Constitution, which is considered to be the ‘Grundnorm’. provides for a
quasi-federal system with parliamentary form of government. There is bi-cameral legislature
at the centre. However, states get to decide whether they want to adopt unicameralism or bi-
cameralism. Bi-party system is followed in centre with the Government being alternatively
formed by the Conservative party and the Republican Party. At present, the Conservative
Party is in power.

STATE OF HAMMERLOCKE

It is the largest state in Galar with bi-cameral legislature. It is considered as an important state
as more than 30% of the MPs are elected from this state. Generally, the party which forms the
government at the centre has been the party forming the government in the State of
Hammerlocke. However, Republican Party procured a majority in the Legislative Assembly
in the state of Hammerlocke in 2017. Majority members of the Legislative Council belongs to
the Conservative Party, which leads to constant clashes.

MR. RAIHAN

Being culturally and religiously diverse, with more than 17 religions being practiced, cricket
and Gollywood unites the people of Galar. Cricket and Gollywood stars are revered and are
inspiration to many in this country. One such cricketer is Mr. Raihan. He has a very
inspirational journey from being a slum dweller to becoming a cricket legend and
representing the nation in international cricket and contributing in its victory in 2002, 2006,
and 2010 world cup. Several people started considering him to be the ‘Lord of Cricket’.

However, his illustrious career was tarnished when a news channel ‘Flare’ claimed that he
was involved in match-fixing in 2014 on account of an investigative report. Even his fellow
players confirmed have confirmed to the press that they have witnessed him meeting bookies
on several occasions. A Special Investigative Team to investigate the allegations, which is
now concluded. The trial against Mr. Raihan began in 2019 and is still underway.

4-PART DOCU SERIES BY CONTENTOPERA

ix
 SLS NAGPUR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

Contentopera is a popular OTT platform run by Contentopera.inc. It approached Mr. Raihan

to be a part of a 4-part docu-series on 2 cricketers and 2 Gollywood stars of Galar. It would
be directed by Mr. Goh, a movie director of international repute and has won two Oscars. Mr.
Raihan agreed to be a part of it.

E-mails were exchanged between the two for discussing the theme of the documentary. Mr.
Goh has repeatedly represented in the emails that the primary objective of the documentary is
to show the human side of biggest superstars of the country and how they inspire so many.
The series were to be released sometime in the September 2020.

LEGISLATION OF THE ONLINE CONTENT REGULATION ACT, 2020

In the meantime, a short movie names “Religious beliefs – the ancient defrauding means”
was released by Contentopera, which caused widespread discontentment for showcasing
several religions in bad light and also contained obscenity and vulgarity, especially in the
State of Hammerlocke. Several protests were held to enact appropriate laws to regulate the
content on OTTs. However, the Conservative Government at the centre refused to regulate as
it would violate freedom of speech and expression.

Due to the absence of any action taken by the central government on this issue, the State of
Hammerlocke introduced The Online Content Regulation Bill, 2020 in the Legislative
Assembly on 13th March 2020, where it was passed on the same day itself. Then it was tabled
in the Legislative Council on 16th March 2020. The Bill caused an uproar as majority was the
people belonging to the Conservative Party opposed the said Bill. After heated discussions
and deliberations, the Chairman of the Council referred the Bill to the Select Committee.

The Committee could not come up with a report on the Bill and in the winter session, it was
passed in the Legislative Assembly for the second time on 1 st July 2020. It was again tabled
in the Council on 3rd July 2020, where it was again opposed as no amendments were made
and the Select Committee did not present its report. The Council was adjourned sine die on
4th August 2020. Subsequently, on 15th August 2020 the Governor of the State of
Hammerlocke gave his assent to the Bill.

CHALLENGING THE ACT IN THE HIGH COURT

Subsequent to the notification of the Act, Contentopera and its Managing Director Mr. Kabu,
challenged the constitutional validity of the Act in the honourable High Court of the State of

x
 SLS NAGPUR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

Hammerlocke on the grounds of procedural ultra vires, incompetency of the state to legislate
on the matter and violation of Part III of the Constitution.

DISGRACED LORDS

On the other hand, Contentopera released the trailer of it 4-part docu series titled ‘Disgraced
Lords’ on all online platforms and television channels. The series to be released on 1 st
October 2020. The trailer indicated that the docu-series would present the life-story of four
different stars of Galar, inclusive of the lesser-known facts about them, including the scams
and scandals each of them were involved in.

The trailer’s portion pertaining to Mr. Raihan glorified his legendry contribution to the
Galarian cricket and his skills. It also made certain references to the match-fixing scandal in
which he was allegedly involved.

CASE FOR INJUNCTION IN DISTRICT COURT AND HIGH COURT

Mr. Raihan approached the honourable District Court of City of Freezingtown seeking
interim injunction restraining Contentopera.Inc & Mr. Goh from releasing Part-4 of the
Docuseries ‘Disgraced Lords’ pending the final adjudication of the suit and also sought for
injunction on any further publication/telecast of the trailer or any other video related to Part-4
of the docu-series, apart from seeking damages for defamation caused due to the trailer being
released. The Court granted interim injunction in the favour of Mr. Raihan on 11 th November
2020.

Contentopera and Mr. Goh approached the honourable High Court for the State of
Hammerlocke to challenge District Court’s judgement. However, the High Court confirmed
its order on 23th December 2020.

HIGH COURT ON THE ONLINE CONTENT REGULATION ACT, 2020

The petition filed by Contentopera and Mr. Kabu challenging the constitutionality was
dismissed and the Act was held constitutionally valid on 29 th December 2020 by the
honourable High Court for the State of Hammerlocke.

CHALLENGE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT

In the present case, the appellant has filed two separate SLPs to challenge both the orders of
the High Court before the honourable Supreme Court of the United States of Galar. The

xi
 SLS NAGPUR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

appellant pleads that The Online Content Regulation Act, 2020 is constitutionally invalid and
the 4-part docu-series ‘Disgraced Lords’ should be allowed to release.

ISSUES RAISED

-I-

Whether the Online Content Regulation Act, 2020 is unconstitutional on the ground of
procedural ultra-vires?

-II-

Whether the Legislature of the State of Hammerlocke was competent to enact the Online
Content Regulation Act, 2020?

-III-

Whether the Online Content Regulation Act, 2020 is violative of Part III of the Constitution?

-IV-

Whether Mr. Raihan is entitled for the relief of interim injunction restraining the release of
the Part-4 of the docu-series titled “Disgraced Lords” pending the final adjudication of the
suit?

xii
 SLS NAGPUR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. THE ONLINE CONTENT REGULATION ACT, 2020 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON

THE GROUND OF PROCEDURAL ULTRA-VIRES.

The question of invalidating a law on the ground of procedural ultra vires can only arise once
it is proven that the State has the competency to enact on it. In the present case, it has clearly
been proven in Issue I that the State of Hammerlocke does not have the competency to enact
the Act. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the Online Content Regulation Act, 2020
should be held invalid. However, the procedural flaw in the present case was the absence of
any report submitted by the Select Committee to the Legislative Council after the expiry of
three months. Since, no further motion was present in the Council to extend the duration of
the Committee, it can be assumed that duration of the Committee stood expired and it became
mandatory for the Committee to present its Report.

II. THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF HAMMERLOCKE WAS NOT COMPETENT

TO ENACT THE ONLINE CONTENT REGULATION ACT, 2020.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in order to legislate on a
subject matter, a State should be competent in the first place. However, only the central
government has the authority to legislate over and regulate Online Curated Content Platforms
under the Information Technology Act, 2000. Moreover, Under the recently notified Code by
the Central Government on OTTs, regulation of such platforms is not a delegated to the state
governments. Lastly, there are two possible Entries in the State List where it may seem that
that the State has the jurisdiction to legislate, but that also has been ruled out.

III. THE ONLINE CONTENT REGULATION ACT, 2020 IS VIOLATIVE OF PART -III OF
THE CONSTITUTION

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court that the Online Content
Regulation Act, 2020 is violative of Part - III of the Constitution as it violates Article 19,
Article 14 and hence, Article 21. Article 19(1) (a) provides for freedom of speech and
expression which is the most important component of a democratic society and the act passed
xiii
 SLS NAGPUR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

by the State is in clear opposition of this. The act also causes a hindrance in the business
activities of the Contentopera. Inc. which makes it violative of the Article 19 (1) (g) and due
to the Doctrine of Manifest Arbitrariness applying on the said Act, it stands violative of
Article 14 and 21.

IV. MR. RAIHAN IS NOT ENTITLED TO SEEK THE RELIEF OF INTERIM INJUNCTION
RESTRAINING THE RELEASE OF THE PART-4 OF THE DOCU-SERIES TITLED
“DISGRACED LORDS” PENDING THE FINAL ADJUDICATION OF THE SUIT.

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Supreme Court that Mr. Raihan is not entitled for
the relief of interim injunction restraining the release of the Part-4 of the docu-series titled
“Disgraced Lords”. The counsel pleads that there was no defamation or misrepresentation in
relation to Mr Raihan and his consent was taken before starting the production of docu-series.
All the things shown in the trailer, to which Mr. Raihan objects were available in the public
domain and the interviews of his colleagues were their own experiences and so no ingredients
of defamation under Section 499 of the IPC are fulfilled. During the conversation between
Mr. Goh and Mr. Raihan, it was clearly stated that the docu-series will consist of the
experiences of his life and the same has been shown in the series and Mr. Raihan gave his
consent to these terms, after which the production commenced.

xiv
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. THE ONLINE CONTENT REGULATION ACT, 2020 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON

THE GROUND OF PROCEDURAL ULTRA VIRES.

It is submitted that the Online Content Regulation Act, 2020 is unconstitutional on the ground
of procedural ultra vires as firstly, the enactment of the Bill was not within the jurisdiction of
State of Hammerlocke [1.1]. Secondly, the Select Committee did not present its report, which
is a mandatory procedure if a Bill is referred to a Select Committee [1.2].

1.1 Enactment of the Online Content Regulation Act 2020 is ultra vires
The State of Hammerlocke is not authorized to legislate on the given subject matter as the
Issue 2 elaborates on how it comes under the authority of the Central Government and only
the Central Government has the power to regulate and legislate over it under Section 87 of
the IT Act, 2000, which cannot be delegated. Secondly, it has also been submitted that
regulation of OCCPs cannot be done under the State List of the Seventh Schedule under the
Entries- ‘Public Order’ and ‘Cinema’. This has clearly been elaborated in the Issue 2.

1.2 Presentation of a Report is mandatory

The statement of facts clearly indicate that the Chairman of the legislative council suo-moto
referred the Bill to the Select Committee on 19th March, 2020.1 Conventionally, if the Council
has not fixed any time for the Committee to present its report, the Committee shall present its
report before the expiry of three months from the date on which the Bill is decided to be
referred by the Select Committee or if a session of the Council is not held within three
months, at the next session.2 In such a case, the report can either be preliminary or final.

However, in the present case, it has been distinctly mentioned that the Select Committee met
on several occasions but no report was submitted by them. 3 This creates a procedural flaw in
the working the Legislative Council. Since, no further motion was present in the Council to
extend the duration of the Committee, it can be assumed that duration of the Committee stood
expired and it became mandatory for the Committee to present its Report. Thus, without the
1
Moot Proposition ¶18.
2
Rule of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Council of States, 1964, Rule 90; Rules of Procedure and
Conduct of Business in the Telangana Legislative Council, 2015, Rule 242; Rules of Procedure and Conduct of
Business in the Karnataka Legislative Council,2018, Rule 213.
3
Moot Proposition ¶19.

1
 SLS NAGPUR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

presentation of the report or any evidence, the Council was stripped off the capacity to deal
with the Bill any further. However, this step was ignored and the Governor gave his assent to
the Bill without even it being passed by the State Legislature with proper procedure.

2. THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF HAMMERLOCKE IS NOT COMPETENT TO ENACT

THE ONLINE CONTENT REGULATION ACT, 2020

It is humbly submitted that the State of Hammerlocke is not competent to enact The Online
Content Regulation Act, 2020 as it comes under the jurisdiction of the Central Government
[2.1], neither does it come under any Entry of the State List [2.2].

2.1 Online Curated Content Platforms come under the authority of the Central
Government
The Online Curated Content Platforms come under the authority of the Central Government
as they are regulated by the IT Act, 2000, they are included under the ambit of the Ministry of
Information and Broadcasting and there are other central legislations to regulate them.

2.1.1 Online Curated Content Platforms under the Information Technology Act, 2000

The Apex Court has viewed that there are no general powers to regulate for the material
which is available on Online Curated Content Platforms. There are various sections such as
Sections 67, 67A, 67B and 69 under the Information Technology Act, 2000 that are sufficient
enough for regulating the content of such platforms. 4 Moreover, under Section 87 of the
Information Technology Act, 2000, it is the exclusive power of the Central Government to
make rules to carry out any provision of the IT Act, 2000.5

2.1.2 It is included under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting

Under the notification of the Cabinet Secretariat dating 9 th November 2020, the President of
India, by the power vested in him under Article 77(3), made certain amendments to the
Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961 by including ‘films and audio-
visual programmes made available by online content providers’ under the ambit of Ministry
of Information and Broadcasting.6

4
Nikhil Bhalla v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) 7123/2018.
5
Information Technology Act, 2000, § 87, No. 21, Acts of the Parliament, 2000 (India).
6
Govt. of India, Cabinet Secretariat, F. No. 1/21/7/2020-Cab (November 9, 2020).

2
 SLS NAGPUR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

Moreover, the Government of India notified the Information Technology (Intermediary

Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021 under the powers conferred by sub-
section (1), clauses (z) and (zg) of sub-section (2) of section 87 of the Information
Technology Act, 2000. Under the said Rules, no power has been delegated to the State
Government to regulate the content made available by the OCCPs. Only the Ministry of
Electronics and Information Technology, Government of India and Ministry of Information
and Broadcasting has the authority to regulate the platforms.7

2.1.3 Other Central Legislations that regulate OCCPs

Apart from the Information Technology Act, 2000, there are other central legislations subject
to which OCCPs cannot post certain contents. Those central legislations are:

 Sections 293, 295 A, 499 and 354 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
 Indecent Representation of Women (Prevention) Act, 1986.
 State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005.

There is no state legislation which regulates the contents of the OCCPs as this power is not a
delegated one.

2.2 Online Curated Content Platforms do not come under the ambit of State List
There are two Items in the State List under which the State of Hammerlocke could assume
the authority to enact such a law- Entry 1 8 and Entry 33. However, the counsel pleads that
regulation of such an enactment does not fall under the scope of the State List under the
Seventh Schedule.

2.2.1 Not included in Entry 1 under ‘public order’

The State of Hammerlocke does not have the authority to legislate under the rationale of
maintaining public order in the state. The said legislation was brought into the picture only
after the violence that took place after the release of the short film “Religious beliefs – the
ancient defrauding means”.9 However, it is imperative to note that freedom of speech and
expression cannot be compromised upon, due to the threats of demonstration and violence.
That would tantamount to negation of the rule of law and a surrender to black mail and

7
Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011, February 25, 2021, Rule 2(1)(l).
8
The Constitution of India, 1950, Schedule VII, List I, State List, Item 1 (Public Order).
9
Moot Proposition ¶15.

3
 SLS NAGPUR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

intimidation. It is the duty of the State to protect the freedom of expression since it is a liberty
guaranteed against the State. The State cannot plead its inability to handle the hostile
audience problem. It is its obligatory duty to prevent it and protect the freedom of
expression.10 Moreover, it is the paramount duty and obligation of the State to maintain law
and order in the State.11

2.2.2 Not included in Entry 33 under ‘cinema’

Lately, ‘cinema’ is often held synonymous to Online Curated Content Platforms. However,
transmission or broadcast of any films, cinema, serials and other multimedia content through
the internet does not come under the ambit of Clause (c) of Section 2 or Clause (d) of Section
2 of the Cinematography Act, 1952.12 Cinematography Act does not apply to OTTs. 13
Therefore, Online Curated Content Platforms does not fall under the ambit of ‘cinema’ as per
the Entry 33 in the State List under the Seventh Schedule.14

3. THE ONLINE CONTENT REGULATION ACT, 2020 IS VIOLATIVE OF PART - III OF THE
CONSTITUTION

The counsel humbly pleads that The Online Content Regulation Act, 2020 is violative of Part
III of the Constitution of the Unites States of Galar. It violates Article 19, Article 14 and
hence, Article 21.

3.1 Violation of Right to Freedom

3.1.1 Violation of freedom of speech and expression.

Article 19(1) (a) provides for freedom of speech and expression which is the most important
component of a democratic society. Justice Hidayatullah in the case of K.A, Abbas vs the
Union of India & anr.15 Viewed that the standards that we set for our censors must make a
substantial allowance in favour of freedom thus leaving a vast area for creative art to interpret
life and society with some with some of its foibles along with what is good. The requirements
of art and literature include within themselves a comprehensive view of social life and not

10
S. Rangarajan Etc v. P. Jagjivan Ram, 1989 SCC (2) 574.
11
Viacom 18 Media Private Limited & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No. 36 of 2018.
12
Padmanabh Shankar v. Union of India and Ors., Writ Petition No.6050/201.
13
Ekta Kapoor v. State of M.P., M.Cr.C. No. 28386/2020.
14
The Constitution of India, 1950, Schedule VII, List II, State List, Item 33 (Cinema).
15
K. A. Abbas vs The Union of India & Anr, 1971 SCR (2) 446.

4
 SLS NAGPUR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

only in its ideal form and the line is to be drawn where the average man moral man begins to
feel embarrassed or disgusted at a naked portrayal of life without the redeeming touch of art
or genius or social value. Right of citizens to screen films has been acknowledged as a part of
the fundamental right of freedom of expression 16, a mere intimation of violence by the public
shall not be a restriction on freedom of speech and expression as it is a duty of the state to
protect these fundamental rights at any cost.17

Bobby Art International v. Hoon18 is the best example to understand this issue as in this case,
the Supreme Court set aside the decision of the Delhi High Court which had restrained the
screening of the movie Bandit queen stating the nudity and obscenity shown in the movie as
the reason. The Supreme Court said that the scenes consisting of nudity serve a purpose of
narrating an important story and they cannot be a reason to restrict the screening of the
movie.

Shreya Singhal case19 helps us understand the issue in a broader perspective, the court stated
that:

“the mere causing of annoyance, inconvenience, danger etc., or being grossly offensive or
having a menacing character are not offences under the Penal Code at all.”

Supreme Court in the case invalidated Section 66A of the Information Technology Act of
2000 because the law failed to establish a clear proximate relation to the protection of public
order. Which is similar to legislation in hand.

3.1.2 Violation of right to trade and business

Article 19 (1) (g) of the Indian Constitution is a fundamental right talking about profession
and trade, any such act which restricts producers or makers from making art and films on
OTT platforms will not only harm the financial output coming from these enterprises but will
also harm the new wave of quality content that is being produced in our country in the recent
time. Supreme Court has also stated that citizen’s right to carryout business through internet
is constitutionally protected.20

16
Odyssey Communications Pvt. Ltd v. Lokvidayan Sanghatana & Ors., 1988 AIR 1642.
17
S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, 1989 SCC (2) 574.
18
Bobby Art International, Etc vs Om Pal Singh Hoon & Ors, (1996) 4 SCC 1.
19
Shreya Singhal vs U.O.I, Writ Petition No. 167 of 2012.
20
Id.

5
 SLS NAGPUR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

“It may well be within the power of the State to place, in the interest of the general public,
restrictions upon the right of a citizen to carry on business but it is not open to the State to
achieve this object by directly and immediately curtailing any other freedom of that citizen
guaranteed by the Constitution and which is not susceptible of abridgment on the same
grounds as are set out in clause (6) of Article 19.Therefore, the right of freedom of speech
cannot be taken away with the object of placing restrictions on the business activities of a
citizen.”21

3.1.3 Doctrine of Manifest Arbitrariness

The counsel would like to plead that the act comes under the ambit of Doctrine of Manifest
Arbitrariness which means that it is made on prejudice and preference instead of reason and
facts, due to this the act stands in clear violation of Article 14 and 19(1) (a) which in turn
makes it violative of Article 21 of the Indian constitution.

The Shayarabano case22 judgement defined Manifest Arbitrariness as “something done by the
legislature as done capriciously, irrationally and/or without adequate determining principles
and this also includes that the act is excessive or disproportionate.”

4. MR. RAIHAN IS NOT ENTITLED FOR THE RELIEF OF INTERIM INJUNCTION RESTRAINING
THE RELEASE OF THE PART-4 OF THE DOCU-SERIES TITLED “DISGRACED LORDS”
PENDING THE FINAL ADJUDICATION OF THE SUIT.

4.1 There was no defamation

Defamation under Section 499 of IPC23 has been defined as whoever, by words either spoken
or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any
imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe
that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person is said to defame that person.
However, the first exception of defamation in the IPC24 says that truth is always a protection
from defamation the exception says that if the information is good for the public at large then
there is no defamation. In the Docu-series which is the matter in hand, the information that is
being used is available in public domain and consists of the experiences (statement given by

21
Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India, 1962 SCR (3) 842.
22
Shayara Bano vs Union of India and Ors., Writ Petition (C) No. 118 of 2016.
23
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 499, Acts of the Parliament, 1860 (India).
24
Section 499 IPC

6
 SLS NAGPUR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

his fellow cricket players) of the people related to Mr. Raihan and are not defamatory in any
way and the information is good for the people who were unaware about the issue as the
matter was of great national importance. The Supreme Court has observed that:

“The main ingredient of defamation is “injury to reputation.” It held that the law does not
concern this objective because it also condemns offensive statements that may annoy or be
inconvenient to an individual without affecting his reputation.” 25

The events which the documentary has displayed have already happened in the past and the
statements given by Mr Raihan’s teammates are not new instead they also gave these
statements in 2017 when the news channel report was 1 st broadcasted.26 In the judgement of
Scott v. Sampson it was said that “To estimate the probable quantum of injury sustained, a
knowledge of the party's previous character is not only material but seems to be absolutely
essential.” 27

4.2 No kind of misrepresentation was made and Mr Raihan gave his complete consent
In January 2020, the company approached Mr Raihan for the first time and after several
discussion with Mr Raihan, it was clearly stated that the series will depict the human side of
individuals depicted in the series. To prove any kind of false representation, it must be seen in
the facts that there was some kind of concealment of facts 28 but in this scenario there was no
such concealment. Mr Raihan himself stated during the conversation that he will not charge
any remunerations because he was happy that his ‘Life’ story is being narrated and it can be
clearly inferred from this that all instances from his life which holds some significance will
be portrayed. It cannot be said that the documentary is not about his illustrious career. 29 For
Example in the trailer itself the narrator says a statement, which is:

“Is the greatest cricketer of all time the one who disgraced the sport the most??……
witness the life story of yet another disgraced lord…..part 4 of the Disgraced Lords”30

In the statement, he was referred as the greatest cricketer of all time, which is true if we see
his player statistics but it cannot be denied that the events that happened in 2017 is one of the
most important and the significant moment of his life if not the most in public eye and

25
Supra note 17.
26
Moot Proposition ¶10.
27
Devbrata Shastri v. Krishna Ballabh AIR 1954 Patna 84, 1953, U.K., Scott v Sampson’, (1882) QBD 491
28
Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr. v. Shri Ran Singh And Ors., AIR 1951 SC 270.
29
Moot Proposition ¶11
30
Moot Proposition ¶22

7
 SLS NAGPUR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

misrepresentation cannot be proved if there is no evidence to prove any false representation

or concealment of facts then there is no misrepresentation.31

4.3 Consent of Mr Raihan was taken beforehand and if the series is not allowed to
release their will be huge financial loss
Consent of every individual who was part of the documentary was taken before itself and like
others Mr Raihan gave his consent on 15.02.2020 and this was given by him after he was
satisfied with the conversation that happened between the company and him and the work
commenced only after he gave his consent.32 Under Indian Contract Act 1872, Consent33 is
said to be free when it is not caused by -

(1) Coercion, as defined in section 1534, or

(2) Undue influence, as defined in section 1635, or

(3) Fraud, as defined in section 1736, or

(4) Misrepresentation, as defined in section 1837, or

(5) Mistake, subject to the provisions of sections 20, 21 and 22 38

And no such thing happened in course of conversation between the company and Mr Raihan,
so it can be concluded that his consent is free. After obtaining the consent, the work of the
series was commenced and a good sum of money is now involved in the project, if the series
is not allowed to release then there will be a huge loss to the company which goes against the
Article 19 (1) (g)39 of the Indian Constitution.

31
Pandit Someshwar Dutt v. Pandit Tirbhawan Dutt, (1934) 36 BOMLR 652.
32
Moot Proposition ¶13
33
Indian Contract Act, 1872, § 14, No. 9, Acts of the Parliament, 1872 (India).
34
Indian Contract Act, 1872, § 15, No. 9, Acts of the Parliament, 1872 (India).
35
Indian Contract Act, 1872, § 16, No. 9, Acts of the Parliament, 1872 (India).
36
Indian Contract Act, 1872, § 17, No. 9, Acts of the Parliament, 1872 (India).
37
Indian Contract Act, 1872, § 18, No. 9, Acts of the Parliament, 1872 (India).
38
Indian Contract Act, 1872, § 20, 21, 22, No. 9, Acts of the Parliament, 1872 (India).
39
The Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 19(1)(g).

8
 SLS NAGPUR NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

PRAYER

WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

AND AUTHORITIES CITED, IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THIS HON’BLE
SUPREME COURT MAY BE PLEASED,

1. DECLARE that the Online Content Regulation Act, 2020 is unconstitutional on the
ground of procedural ultra-vires.

2. DECLARE that the Legislature of the State of Hammerlocke was not competent to enact
the Online Content Regulation Act, 2020.

3. DECLARE that the provisions of the act are violative of Part III of the Indian
Constitution.

4. HOLD that Mr. Raihan is not entitled for the relief of interim injunction restraining the
release of the Part-4 of the docu-series titled “Disgraced Lords”.

AND PASS ANY OTHER ORDER, DIRECTION, OR RELIEF THAT THIS HON’BLE
COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, EQUITY, AND GOOD
CONSCIENCE.

FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE APPLICANT DUTY BOUND SHALL. ALL OF
WHICH IS HUMBLY PRAYED AND SUBMITTED.

_______________

Respectfully submitted,

Team __

Counsels for the Petitioners.