UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY

5th YEAR B.B.A- L.L.B (SEMESTER IX)

INTERNAL ASSIGNMENT

NAME : - GAURAV PRABHUGHATE

ROLL NO : - 35

SUBJECT :- MEDIA LAW

PROFESSOR IN CHARGE – PROF RUZBEH RAJA

Question 1 : Identify any 2 Government websites which have not complied with
the proactive disclosure obligations u/s 4 of the Right to Information Act.
Write a simple letter calling upon them to comply with section 4 of the Act

Letter to the relevant authority asking for compliance with section 4(2) of the Right to
Information Act, 2005

To,
The Director,
Central Poultry Development Organisation (Western Region),
Laxmi Road, Aarey Colony,
Goregaon (East),
Mumbai – 400065.
Date : 25th August, 2020.

Subject : Request to adhere to compliance with the proactive disclosures under section 4(2) of
the RTI Act, 2005

Sir,

I, Gaurav Prabhughate am a resident of B1-11/12, Pethe Nagar CHS, Malad (East), Mumbai –
400097 have written this letter to bring to your attention that on the Central Poultry
Development Organisation website (for the Western Region) one fails to find the proactive
disclosures that an authority is mandated to do under the section 4(2) of Right to Information
Act, 2005 for any of the financial years. As a member of the public and a citizen of India, we
have the right for accessing such information. The relevant link for the said website is
http://cpdomumbai.gov.in/

I assure you my intentions are bona fide and I hope the relevant information is brought out into
the public domain at the earliest for easy access. Kindly ensure compliance with the same.

Gaurav Prabhughate
(Sd/-)
Mobile No : 9594400400
Question 1 : Identify any 2 Government websites which have not complied with
the proactive disclosure obligations u/s 4 of the Right to Information Act.
Write a simple letter calling upon them to comply with section 4 of the Act

Letter to the relevant authority asking for compliance with section 4(2) of the Right to
Information Act, 2005

To,
The Director,
Central Sheep Breeding Farm,
Bir Hisar,
Haryana – 125001.
Date : 25th August, 2020.

Subject : Request to adhere to compliance with the proactive disclosures under section 4(2) of
the RTI Act, 2005

Sir,

I, Gaurav Prabhughate am a resident of B1-11/12, Pethe Nagar CHS, Malad (East), Mumbai –
400097 have written this letter to bring to your attention that on the Central Sheep Breeding
Farm website (for Hisar) one fails to find the proactive disclosures that an authority is mandated
to do under the section 4(2) of Right to Information Act, 2005 for any of the financial years.
As a member of the public and a citizen of India, we have the right for accessing such
information. The relevant link for the said website is http://csbfhsr.com/

I assure you my intentions are bona fide and I hope the relevant information is brought out into
the public domain at the earliest for easy access. Kindly ensure compliance with the same

Gaurav Prabhughate
(Sd/-)
Mobile No : 9594400400
Question 2 : Write a simple RTI Application to obtain information on any one
of the following :

• All the complaints related to the Noise Pollution received by your local
Police Station in the past 5 years (including action taken )

Application for obtaining information under Right to Information Act 2005

To,
Public Information Officer ,
Dindoshi Police Station,
Malad (East),
Mumbai 400097.
Date: 25th August, 2020.

Subject : Request to furnish information under section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act,
2005 on the following questions/points.

Sir,

I, Gaurav Prabhughate am a resident of B1-11/12, Pethe Nagar CHS, Malad (East), Mumbai –
400097 who is requesting you to furnish information relating to the details regarding
complaints of noise pollution received by this police station in the preceding 5 years i.e. from
Jan 1, 2015. Further I would also like to know in what manner was the complaint acted upon
or handled. I am a citizen of India and wish to seek information in my capacity as a ‘citizen’.
I have remitted the requisite RTI application charges for Rs.__/- vide Cheque No._______
dated 25 /08/2020, a copy of which is attached with this application.

I assure you that I will not utilize this information for any purpose that is detrimental to the
unity and sovereignty or against the interest of India.

Gaurav Prabhughate
(Sd/-)
Mobile No - 9594400400
Question 3 : Write head notes for 1 case on each topic

a) Right to Privacy

Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh , March 18, 1975

Supreme Court of India (1975 AIR 1378)

Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations – Regulations 855 and 856 made under Section 46 (2) (c)
of the Police Act, 1961 – Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution – Issue was whether
Regulations 855 and 856 of the M.P Police regulations were constitutional or not – Regulations
855 and 856 empowered the police to keep surveillance of people with a criminal history or
suspicious people- Petitioner contended that he was frequently subjected to domiciliary visits
by the police at irregular times and these visits were violating his fundamental rights under
Article 19(1)(d) and 21 of the constitution and privacy – Respondents contended that petitioner
was previously convicted for trespassing indicating prior criminal antecedents – Regulation
236 of the U.P Police Regulations which was pari-materia to Regulations 855 and 856 of the
M.P Police Regulations was held unconstitutional because it had no legal backing – Held –
Supreme Court found the Regulations 855 and 856 to have legal backing under S 46(2)(c) of
the Police Act, 1961 and hence are constitutional – Court adopted a narrow interpretation of
the Constitution – Court also instructed a revision of the old police regulations as they verged
perilously near unconstitutionality and actions crossing these boundaries will be
unconstitutional and void.
Petition dismissed.

Cases Referred

Kharak Singh v State of UP (1963 AIR 1295)

Wolf vs Colorado (338 U.S 25)
Griswold vs Connecticut (381 U.S 479)
Question 3 : Write head notes for 1 case on each topic

b) Official Secrets Act

State v. Jaspal Singh Gill , June 25, 1984

Supreme Court of India (1984 AIR 1503)

Official Secrets Act, 1923 – Section 3, 5, 6 and 9 read with Section 120 of the Indian Penal
Code – Petition filed under Article 136 of the Constitution – Issue was whether bail should
have been granted to the respondent – Other co- accused are personnel of the Indian Air Force–
Delhi High Court had granted bail and hence this Special Leave petition filed against the bail
granted – Information came to light stating that the respondent was inducing the members of
the Indian Air Force to pass on secret and classified information about the Indian Air Force –
Respondent was kept under observations and later raids were conducted at his house which
established the link to all the other respondents – It was alleged by the prosecution that
respondents had passed classified information to the US Intelligence Operator based on the
incriminatory evidence found – Held – Supreme court held that a prima facie case against the
accused is established – emphasised on the gravity of the alleged offences – Supreme court
also said the High Court’s decision was too premature and should have considered the special
circumstances in this case – Greater degree of care is to be taken when dealing with offences
under Official Secrets Act when it relates to military affairs - High Court’s order to grant bail
is set aside and the respondent is taken back into judicial custody.
Petition allowed

Cases Referred

The State v. Captain Jagjit Singh (1962 AIR 253)

Question 3 : Write head notes for 1 case on each topic

c) Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867

The State v. Udit Narain, April 14, 1955

Allahabad High Court (AIR 1955 All 424)

Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 – Section 12 – Issue was whether a Notice printed
could be “paper” under section 3 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 - A Notice
pertaining to opposition towards appointment of a Deputy Commissioner of Pratapgarh was
printed – Names of the Press, Printer and Place where the Notice was printed were missing on
the Notice – Following a C.I.D investigation it was revealed that the respondent/opposite party
here in was Assistant Manager of the Press that printed the Notice – Magistrate court convicted
the opposite party u/s 12 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 – Sessions court
reversed the conviction and hence this appeal was filed – State argued that “paper” be given
the widest interpretation – Held – High Court said that “paper “cannot be construed in its
natural and ordinary meaning – Intention of legislature by using the word “paper” was to cover
every printed matter which had a literary, historical or cultural value but could not be defined
as “books” or “newspapers” - the word “paper” is neither clear nor unambiguous - a penal
provision must be clear and unambiguous before effect can be given to it .
Appeal dismissed.

Cases Referred

'Rameshwar Prasad v. Emperor', AIR 1931 Pat 351(2) (C)

'Manohar Lal v. Emperor', AIR 1943 Lah 1 (D)