R7

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HARKHAND

CASE NO. 001 OF 2021

FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,

1908

IN THE MATTER OF

MS. SHAFAQ AKHTAR………………………………..APPELLANT

VERSUS

MS. ANJALI PRIYA……………………...…………..RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................... I

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................................. II

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................ V

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .............................................................................. VII

STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................ VIII

ISSUE RAISED ................................................................................................................ IX

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ........................................................................................ X

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ..............................................................................................1

I. WHETHER MS. PRIYA IS LIABLE FOR THE TORT OF TRESPASS? ..............................................1

[A] Animal Sacrifice is not an essential religious practice .....................................................1

[B] The right to sleep of the Sindhu community is being violated .........................................3

II. WHETHER MS. SHAFAQ AKHTAR IS LIABLE TO PAY DAMAGES TO MS. ANJALI FOR

COMMITTING DEFAMATION? ..................................................................................................4

[A] The statement made by Ms.Akhtar was defamatory. ......................................................4

[B] The defamatory statement was referring to the respondent. ...........................................5

[C] The derogatory statement was published. ........................................................................6

[D] Ms.Akhtar has infringed the reputation of Ms.Priya in the mind of right-thinking
people. ................................................................................................................................7

[E] Ms. Akhtar has committed innuendo ...............................................................................8

PRAYER ........................................................................................................................... XI

i
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

I. Indian Cases

1. Afzal Ansari v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 592 (India). ....................................3

2. D.P. Choudhary v. Manjulata, AIR 1997 Raj 120 (India). ...............................................4

3. Girish Chunder Miner v. Jatadhari Sadukhan (2) Indian Decisions (Cal) Vol XIII (1898-
1899) 653(2). ...................................................................................................................4

4. Gobind v. State of M.P., (1975) 2 SCC 148 (India). .........................................................3

5. Jaspal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 1 SCC 10 (India). ................................................3

6. Lachhmi Narain v. Shambhu Nath, (1930) 29 ALJR 16 (India). .......................................5

7. M. J . Zakharia Sait v. T. M. Mohammed & ors., on 25th April, 1990 (India). ..................7

8. N. Adithayan v. Travancore Devaswom Board, (2002) 8 SCC 106 (India). ......................1

9. Naganatha v. Subramania, (1917) 21 MLJ 324 (India) .....................................................5

10. Ram Jethmalani v. Subramaniam Swamy, AIR 2006 Del. 300 (India)..............................4

11. Ramakant v. Devilal 1969 MPLJ 805 (G.P. SINGH, J.) (India) ........................................4

12. Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union of India, (2012) 5 SCC 1. ................3

13. S.N.M. Abdi v. Prafulla Kumar Mohanta, AIR 2002 Gauhati 75 (India). .........................4

14. Sayeed Maqsood Ali v. State Of M.P. And Others, AIR 2001 MP 220, 2001 (3) MPHT
459 (India). ......................................................................................................................2

15. Subramanian Swamy v. UOI, (2016) 7 SCC 221.......................................................... 3, 6

16. Subramanian Swamy v. UOI, 2015 13 SCC 356. .............................................................6

17. Sumatibai VinayakDeo v. Nandkumar Deshpande, 1990 Mah LJ 708, 16-02-1990 (India).
........................................................................................................................................4

II. Statutes

1. Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, Act No. 59, Acts of Parliament,§ 28 (India).
...................................................................................................................................... 13
ii
III. Constitutional Provisions

1. INDIA CONST. Art. 19(1)(a). ....................................................................................... 17

2. INDIA CONST. Art. 21. .................................................................................... 13, 14, 17

3. INDIA CONST. Art. 25(1). ........................................................................................... 13

4. INDIA CONST. Art. 48. ................................................................................................ 13

5. INDIA CONST. Art. 48A. ............................................................................................. 13

6. INDIA CONST. Art. 51A(g). ........................................................................................ 13

7. INDIA CONST. Art. 51A(h). ........................................................................................ 13

8. INDIA CONST. Art. 51A(i). ......................................................................................... 13

IV. EU Cases

1. Barrow v. Lewellin, (1615) Hob. 62 ................................................................................6

2. Bourke v. Warren, (1826) 2 C&P 307(1826) 2 C&P 307 (309) ........................................5

3. Cassidy v Daily Mirror Newspapers Ltd, 1929 2 KB 331.................................................5

4. Hough v. London Express Newspapers Ltd., (1940) 2 KB 507 : (1940) 3 All ER 31 ........5

5. Houlton Co. v. Jones, 1910 A.C. 20. ................................................................................5

6. Keays v. Murdoch (U.K.) Ltd., (1991) 1 WLR 1184, 1192(C.A.).....................................4

7. Lewis v. Daily Telegraph Ltd., (1963) 2 All ER 151 (154)(HL): 10 SJ 356. (LORD
REID);.............................................................................................................................4

8. Lewis v. Daily Telegraph Ltd., supra, 169 (LORD DEVLIN). .........................................4

9. Nevill v. Fine Art & G.I. Co., (1897) AC 68, 73 ..............................................................5

10. Newstead v London Express Newspaper Ltd, 1940 1 KB 377 ..........................................5

11. Pullman v. Hill & Co., (1891) 1 QB 524 : 39 WR 263: 64 LT 691 ...................................6

12. Sim v. Stretch, 1936 52 T.L.R. 699, 671. ..................................................................... 3, 4

13. White v. J and F. Stone (Lighting and Radio), Ltd., (1939) 2 KB 827: 83 SJ 603: 55 TLR
949. .................................................................................................................................6
iii
V. Book

1. Dr. R.K.Bangia: The Law of Torts (25th Edition) Chapter VIII Defamation, 151. .............3

2. Dr. R.K.Bangia: The Law of Torts (25th Edition) Chapter VIII Defamation, 154. .............7

VI. Commentaries

1. Shri C. Kameswara Rao, Treatise Law of Damages and compensation, 934 (Vol-1),
(5) 1886. .................................................................................................................. 15

iv
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And

¶ Paragraph

§ Section

AC Appeal Cases

AIR All India Reporter

Art. Article

ALJ Australian Law Journal

anr. Another

Cal Calcutta High Court

Co. Company

Del. Delhi

ER England Report

FR Fundamental Right

HC High Court

Hon’ble Honorable

HP Himachal Pradesh

Ker Kerala

KB Law Reports, King’s Bench Divison

LT The LawTimes Report

Ltd. Limited

MP Madhya Pradesh

MPHT Madhya Pradesh High Court Today

v
MPLJ Madhya Pradesh Law Journal

QB Law Reports Queen’s Bench Divison

Raj. Rajasthan

SC Supreme Court of India

SCC Supreme Court Cases

T.L.R. The Times Law Report

Tri Tripura

UK United Kingdom

UOI Union of India

u/s Under Section

UP Uttar Pradesh

v. versus

Vol Volume

WLR Weekly Law Reports

WR Weekly Reports

vi
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

In the present appeal, the Respondents have approached the Hon’bleHigh Court of Harkhand u/s
96 of the Civil Procedure Code1:

§ 96(1) Appeal from original decree -

“Save where otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for
the time being in force, an appeal shall lie from every decree passed by any Court
exercising original jurisdiction to the Court authorized to hear appeals from the
decisions of such Court.”

The Respondents submit to the jurisdiction of the Hon'bleHigh Court of Harkhand.

1
The laws of Indica are parimateria with the laws of India.

vii
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

SOCIO-POLITICAL BACKGROUND OF INDICA

1. Indica is situated in the continent of Glasia, and is the place of origin of the Sindhu
religion; which is majorly practiced here. However, this country is adorned with other
religions as well.

TRESPASS OF THE KLUX RELIGIOUS STRUCTURE

2. Within Indica, in the State of Harkhand, a religious structure of the Klux faith owned by a
private trust was situated in the City of Klupur. Animal sacrifice performed by this
religion caused much inconvenience to the public. At times, the conduct of dog sacrifice
at 4:00 am was a great cause of annoyance. Sindhus tried to communicate their
grievances to Ms. ShafaqAkhtar, the prominent religious figure, and peacefully resolve it
but all went in vain. Thus, on 9th March 2019, Ms. Anjali Priya; the head of ‘Sindhu
Mahasabha’ entered the inner sanctum of the edifice to interrupt this inhumane sacrifice,
which was later contended by Ms. Akhtar as the defilement of their religious place.

DEFAMATION DID BY MS. SHAFAQAKHTAR

3. Women expressed the annoyance caused by Ms. Akhtar and her organization in media
with which many people could relate, as they had suffered the same. Subsequently, Ms.
Akhtar without any regard to her stature referred to Ms. Priya along with the Sindhu
women as “disgusting Sindhu roaches being led by an unprincipled swine masquerading
as a leader” in an interview that spread like a wildfire.
4. Both the parties went to Klupur City Civil Court and filed petitions respectively whereby,
Ms. Anjali Priya claimed damages for the tort of defamation committed by Ms. Akhtar
and Ms. Shafaq Akhtar in her petition claimed damages for the tort of trespass against
Ms. Priya. The City Civil Court clubbed the two plants and held Ms. Akhtar liable to pay
damages to Ms. Priya and simultaneously, dismissed the Plaint filed by Ms. Akhtar on
merit.
5. Ms. Akhtar has now appealed this order in the High Court of Harkhand.

viii
 ISSUE RAISED

ISSUE - I

WHETHER MS. ANJALI PRIYA IS LIABLE TO PAY DAMAGES FOR THE ALLEGED TORT OF
TRESPASS?

ISSUE-II

WHETHER MS. SHAFAQAKHTAR IS LIABLE TO PAY DAMAGES TO MS. ANJALI FOR

COMMITTING DEFAMATION?

ix
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. Whether Ms. Anjali Priya is liable to pay damages for the alleged tort of trespass?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble High Court of Harkhand that the killing of dog
is not an essential part of the Klux religion, moreover, if it is then practicing it at 4:00 am
is damaging the fundamental right to sleep of the public and thereby, disrupting the
public order for the Sindhu community living in the proximity.

II. Whether Ms. Shafaq Akhtar is liable to pay damages to Ms. Anjali for committing
defamation?

The present case pertains to the issue that Ms. Shafaq Akhtar is entitled to pay damages
to Ms. Anjali for committing defamation. It is humbly contended before the Hon’ble
Court that words spoken by Ms. Akhtar in her interview constitute torts of defamation.
The words spoken, “An unprincipled swine masquerading as a leader” have defamed
Ms. Priya in the eyes of right-thinking members of the society. A man’s reputation is
more valuable than his property and damaging one’s reputation is infringing an FR. The
interview has been broadcasted and hence can be considered that it has been published.
Hence, it is humbly submitted that Ms. Akhtar is liable to pay damages for committing
defamation.

x
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. WHETHER MS. PRIYA IS LIABLE FOR THE TORT OF TRESPASS?

1. It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble High Court of Harkhand that Ms. Anjali
Priya is not liable for the tort of trespass.
2. It is submitted that the tort of trespass has not been committed on two grounds: That
the animal sacrifice conducted by the Klux religion was not an essential religious
practice and is violative of the authoritatively enforced legislation [A]; That the
animal sacrifice being conducted at 4 am is violating the right to sleep. [B]

[A] Animal Sacrifice is not an essential religious practice

3. Sacrificing of animals is not an essential part of religion to earn religious merit. 2

Prohibiting a religion from sacrificing animals does not go against the FR guaranteed
under Art. 253, 264 if they are not essential religious practices of a religion.5The
essential part of religion means the core beliefs upon which a religion is founded and
essential practice means those practices that are fundamental to follow a religious
belief6. It is upon the cornerstone of essential parts or practices that the superstructure
of religion is built. The test is that the practice, if not followed, should alter the very
essence of religion.7

2
State of W. B. v. AshutoshLahiri(1995) 1 SCC 189 9 (India).
3
INDIA CONST. Art. 25.
4
INDIA CONST. Art. 26.
5
Mohd.Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar, AIR 1958 SC 731 (India).
6
Haji Ali Dargah Trust v. Noorjehan Safia Niaz, (2016) 16 SCC 788 (India).
7
N. Adithayan v. Travancore Devaswom Board, (2002) 8 SCC 106 (India).

1
 4. It has been opined in various judgments8 that animal sacrifice may be a religion's
practice but not an essential and integral part of religion.
5. The dog sacrifice as though one of the most practiced customs of the Klux religion
but it isn’t an essential one.
6. Such practices are required to be excluded from protection which, though may have
acquired the character of religious practices, are found, on scrutiny, to be an outcome
of some superstitious beliefs which may render them unessential and not an integral
part of religion. 9 Also, the freedom guaranteed under Art. 25(1)10 is wide enough to
incorporate one’s beliefs and practices but such right is not absolute and is reasonably
restricted subject to “public order, morality and health” and other provisions of Part-
III of the Constitution of Indica. 11A disturbance of public order must cause a general
disturbance of public tranquillity. 12 The practice of Klux religion thereby has not only
disrupted the public tranquillity but injured the public morality as well.
7. Right to life now stands extended to all living beings, thus the expression “person”
has to be read contextually13. Hence, insofar as the life of an animal with which we
are concerned, cannot be deprived, save and except, following the procedure
established by law. Section 2814 exempts religious killing of animals but that doesn’t
imply the ineffectiveness of its provision in this area. Section 28 of the Prevention
Act has to be interpreted in the light of Art. 2115, 4816, 48A17, 51A(g)18, 51A(h)19, and
51(A)(i) 20 of the Constitution. 21

8
Shayara Banov.Union Of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1; Ramesh Sharma v. State of H.P., 2014 SCC OnLine H.P 4679
(India); Muraleedharan T. v. State of Kerala, 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 13720 (India).
9
Indian Young Lawyers Assn. (Sabarimala Temple-5 J.) v. State of Kerala, (2019) 11 SCC 1 (India).
10
INDIA CONST. Art.25(1).
11
Subhash Bhatacharjee v. State of Tripura, (2019) SCC OnLine Tri 441 (India).
12
Haji Ali Dargah Trust v. Noorjehan Safia Niaz, (2016) 16 SCC 788 (India).
13
Animal Welfare Board of India v. A Nagaraja, (2014) 7 SCC;Chief Secretary to the Government, Chennai,
Tamil Nadu v. Animal Welfare Board, (2017) 2 SCC 144 (India).
14
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, Act No. 59, Acts of Parliament,§ 28 (India).
15
INDIA CONST. Art. 21.

2
[B] The right to sleep of the Sindhu community is being violated

8. No one has a right to affect the rights of others to have proper sleep, a peaceful living
atmosphere, and undisturbed thought.22
9. The inhumane sacrifice practiced by the Klux religion was a violation of the right to
sleep23 of the public. Though Ms. Priya tried to communicate the general grievances
of the public including their inconvenience to sleep, no responsible steps were taken
on the part of Ms. Akhtar.
10. Sleep is a fundamental requirement without which the existence of life itself would be
in peril. To disturb sleep, therefore, would amount to torture which is now accepted
as a violation of human rights.24 And one cannot contend that since they have the
right to practice religion in any form they can disturb the right to sleep guaranteed
under Art. 2125 as every individual is entitled to sleep as comfortably and as freely as
he breathes. 26The right to sleep enjoys equal stature as the right to privacy. 27 Also,
one person cannot be forced to listen to something which he is not willing to28.

16
INDIA CONST. Art. 48.
17
INDIA CONST. Art.48A.
18
INDIA CONST. Art.51A(g).
19
INDIA CONST. Art.51A(h).
20
INDIA CONST. Art.51A(i).
21
Subhash Bhatacharjee v. State of Tripura, (2019) SCC OnLine Tri 441 (India).
22
Sayeed Maqsood Ali v. State Of M.P.And Others, AIR 2001 MP 220, 2001 (3) MPHT 459 (India).
23
Gobind v. State of M.P., (1975) 2 SCC 148 (India).
24
Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union of India, (2012) 5 SCC 1.
25
INDIA CONST. Art. 21.
26
Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Home Secretary, Union of India, (2012) 5 SCC 1.
27
Jaspal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 1 SCC 10 (India).
28
Afzal Ansari v. State of U.P., (2020) SCC OnLine All 592 (India).

3
II. WHETHER MS. SHAFAQAKHTAR IS LIABLE TO PAY DAMAGES TO MS. ANJALI FOR

COMMITTING DEFAMATION?

11. It is humbly contended before the Hon’ble High Court of Harkhand that the petitioner
Ms. Shafaq Akhtar is liable for the torts of defamation and is therefore entitled to pay
damages. The statement made by Ms. Akhtar was defamatory as [A]; The defamatory
statement was referring to the defendant[B]; the statement was made published [C];
Ms. Akhtar has also infringed the reputation of Ms. Priya in the mind of right-
thinking people29[D]; Ms. Akhtar has committed innuendo [E].

[A] The statement made by Ms.Akhtar was defamatory.

12. Defamation is a civil wrong or tort, pure and simple, for which the common law
remedy is an action for damages. 30
13. “An unprincipled swine masquerading as a leader”31, in the leading case amounts to a
defamatory statement. A defamatory sentence injures the reputation, 32lowers the
estimation in right-thinking members of society, 33 and there is the feeling of hatred,
contempt, ridicule, or dislike, to whom it refers. 34 It was contended that the statement
made by the defendant is defamatory, and also the remarks turned out to be false, in
Ram Jethmalani v. Subramaniam Swamy35, Inanr. case of S.N.M. Abdi v. Prafulla
Kumar Mohanta36, it was contended that the article so published in Illustrated Weekly
of India was considered defamatory. The defendant was awarded damages as words
were held defamatory and were actionable per se, in the case of D.P. Choudhary v.

29
Sim v. Stretch, 1936 52 T.L.R. 699, 671.
30
Subramanian Swamy v. UOI, (2016) 7 SCC 221.
31
Moot Proposition, ¶ 4.
32
Dr. R.K.Bangia: The Law of Torts (25th Edition) Chapter VIII Defamation, 151.
33
Sim v. Stretch, (1936) 52 T.L.R. 699, 671.
34
Salmond and Heuston on Law of Torts, (21st ed. 1996).
35
Ram Jethmalani v. Subramaniam Swamy,AIR 2006 Del. 300 (India).
36
S.N.M. Abdi v. Prafulla Kumar Mohanta, AIR 2002 Gauhati 75 (India).

4
 Manjulata37. Words like “idiot”38and “rascal”39 also amount to defamation in
Indica.40
14. In a country like Indica, where the society is typical and judgmental at every instance,
defamation, without evidence, questions the integrity of the person in all spheres of
his life. The question is not of construction in the legal sense for the ordinary man "is
not inhibited by a knowledge of the rules of construction and he can and does read
between the lines in the light of his general knowledge and experience of worldly
affairs"41. The layman reads in an implication much more freely and unfortunately, as
the law of defamation has to take into account, is especially prone to do so when it is
derogatory.42
15. If the defamatory expression injures the right of the reputation of a person, he is
entitled to damages.43In the present case, words spoken by Ms. Akhtar are
defamatory, thus lowering the reputation of Ms. Priya. Hence it is humbly submitted
that Ms. Akhtar is liable for torts of defamation.

[B] The defamatory statement was referring to the respondent.

16. Sindhu women were led by Ms. Priya and Ms. Akhtar in her interview referred to
them as“disgusting Sindhu roaches being led by an unprincipled swine masquerading
as a leader”,44 which can easily be understood that the word “leader” here is referring
to Ms. Anjali Priya.

37
D.P. Choudhary v. Manjulata, AIR 1997 Raj 120 (India).
38
Girish Chunder Miner v. Jatadhari Sadukhan (2) Indian Decisions (Cal) Vol XIII (1898-1899) 653(2).
39
Sumatibai Vinayak Deo v. NandkumarDeshpande, (1990)Mah LJ 708, 16-02-1990 (India).
40
Girish Chunder Miner v. Jatadhari Sadukhan (2) Indian Decisions (Cal) Vol XIII (1898-1899) 653(2).
41
Lewis v. Daily Telegraph Ltd., (1963) 2 All ER 151 (154)(HL): 10 SJ 356. (LORD REID);Ramakant v.
Devilal 1969 MPLJ 805 (G.P. SINGH, J.) (India); Keays v. Murdoch (U.K.) Ltd., (1991) 1 WLR 1184,
1192(C.A.).
42
Lewis v. Daily Telegraph Ltd., supra, 169 (LORD DEVLIN).
43
Shri C. KameswaraRao, Treatise Law of Damages and ompensation, 934 (Vol-1), (5) 1886.
44
Moot Proposition ¶ 4.

5
 17. To constitute defamation, not all the world needs to get aware of it; it is sufficient if
those who know the plaintiff(in this case respondent) can make out that he is the
person meant.45 It is immaterial whether the defendant intended the defamatory
statement to apply to the plaintiff, or knew of the plaintiff's existence if the statement
might reasonably be understood by those who knew the plaintiff to refer to him.
18. It was contended that the intention of the writer is quite immaterial in considering
whether the alleged matter is defamatory or not or even in considering whether it is
defamatory of the plaintiff, in Houlton Co. v. Jones46. In anr. case of Newstead v
London Express Newspaper Ltd47, it was held that liability does not depend on the
intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. This essential was brought
out in Cassidy v Daily Mirror Newspapers Ltd48, where the Court of Appeal held that
the publication in question was capable of constituting defamation, and also that the
publication made the reasonably minded people believe that the claimant’s moral
character was questionable.
19. In the present case, the derogatory statement made by Ms. Akhtar reasonably infers
to Ms. Priya, thus damaging her reputation among those who know her here
especially among the Sindhus. Hence, it is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble HC
that Ms.Akhtar is liable for torts of defamation and entitled to damages.

[C] The derogatory statement was published.

20. Ms.Akhtarspeaksof this defamatory statement in her interview, which is in the record
and is a publication in a permanent form. The publication of a defamatory statement
amount to torts of defamation and is actionable per se.

45
Bourke v. Warren, (1826) 2 C&P 307(1826) 2 C&P 307 (309); Nevill v. Fine Art & G.I. Co., (1897) AC 68,
73; Hough v. London Express Newspapers Ltd., (1940) 2 KB 507 : (1940) 3 All ER 31; Naganatha v.
Subramania, (1917) 21 MLJ 324 (India); Oglivie v. The Punjab Akhbarat and Press Co., (1929) 11 ILR Lah 45
(India); LachhmiNarain v. ShambhuNath, (1930) 29 ALJR 16 (India).
46
Houlton Co. v. Jones, 1910 A.C. 20.
47
Newstead v London Express Newspaper Ltd, 1940 1 KB 377.
48
Cassidy v Daily Mirror Newspapers Ltd, 1929 2 KB 331.

6
 21. Communicating defamatory matters to some person other than the person of whom it
is written get published in its legal sense. A man's reputation is the estimate in which
others hold him, not the good opinion which he has of himself. The words
complained of should be communicated to some person other than the plaintiff. 49
22. It was contended that there is “publication” if the statement is shown to someone else
other than the plaintiff, in Pullman v. Hill50.
23. In the present case, the publication of the derogatory statement in her interview has
harmedMs.Priya's reputation among the right-thinking members. The broadcasting of
the interview shall be treated as publication in permanent form. Hence, it is humbly
submitted before the Hon’ble HC that Ms. Akhtar's publication should be considered
in permanent form, thus infringing Ms. Priya's reputation, and is liable for
defamation.

[D] Ms.Akhtar has infringed the reputation of Ms.Priya in the mind of right-thinking
people.

24. The reputation is the greatest treasure of the man, and no citizen has a right to defame
another.51 In a democracy, every person has the right to criticize under Art. 19(1)(a)52,
but this right is not absolute and it should not defame any person, whose FR to
reputation is a facet of Art. 2153 under the Constitution.54
25. In this case, Ms. Akhtar criticized Ms. Priya, thus violating Art. 21 of the
Constitution, which further infringed her reputation in the minds of right-thinking
people. It is humbly submitted that infringing the reputation of Ms. Priya amounts to
defamation, and hence Ms. Akhtar is liable for damages.

49
Barrow v. Lewellin, (1615) Hob. 62;Pullman v. Hill & Co., (1891) 1 QB 524; White v. J and F. Stone
(Lighting and Radio), Ltd., (1939) 2 KB 827 : 83 SJ 603: 55 TLR 949.
50
Pullman v. Hill & Co., (1891) 1 QB 524.
51
Subramanian Swamy v. UOI, (2015) 13 SCC 356.
52
INDIA CONST. Art. 19(1)(a).
53
INDIA CONST. Art. 21.
54
Subramanian Swamy v. UOI, (2016) 7 SCC 221.

7
[E] Ms. Akhtar has committed innuendo

26. The meaning which at prima facie cannot be understood, but has a secondary or latent
meaning, 55 constitutes innuendo. If the words can reasonable infer more than one
literal meaning or if the defamatory meaning relies on inferential, it constitutes the
innuendo.56
27. The secondary or latent meaning in the pertaining case infers that Ms. Priya is a
contemptible person, lacking morality and principles. And also that she disguises in
the vile of leadership, thereby ironically expressing, that she is a woman of duality,
and is someone else.
28. It is humbly contended before the Hon’ble Court that Ms. Akhtar has indirectly
attempted to malign the character and reputation of Ms. Priya, which caused
reasonable apprehension in the mind of right-thinking people that she does not
deserve to be respected.
29. Hence, it is humbly submitted before Hon’ble HC that Ms. Akhtar has simultaneously
committed innuendo, and hence is liable for the damages for torts of defamation.

55
Dr. R.K.Bangia: The Law of Torts (25th Edition) Chapter VIII Defamation, 154.
56
M. J .ZakhariaSait v. T. M. Mohammed &ors., on 25th April, 1990 (India).

8
 PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of fact stated, the issues raised, the argument advanced, reasons
given and authorities cited, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed before this
Hon’bleCourt that it may be pleased to admit this appeal and declare that:

1. Ms. Anjali Priyais not liable to pay damages for the alleged tort of trespass.
2. Ms. ShafaqAkhtar is liable to pay damages to Ms. Anjali for committing
defamation.

And pass any other order or grant any other relief in favor of the Respondent, which this
Hon’ble Commission may deem fit in the ends of justice, equity, and good conscience.

ALL OF WHICH IS MOST HUMBLY AND RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Sd/-

(Counsel for the Respondent)

xi