TEAM CODE –T- 44

TEAM CODE- T44

6TH DELHI METROPOLITAN EDUCATION INTRA MOOT

COURT COMPETITION, 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SANTONIO

JURISDICTION: ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CASE FILED: UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF

DELPHIA

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:

Mr. Rajesh & Anr. PETITIONERS

V.
Mr. Sanjeev Chief Editor, SATYA NEWS & Ors. RESPONDENTS

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TO THE HON’BLE

HIGH COURT OF SANTONIO

1
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 TEAM CODE –T- 44

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Abbreviations ........................................................................................................... 3

Index of Authorities ............................................................................................................ 4

Statement of Jurisdiction .................................................................................................... 6

Issues Presented………………………………………………………………………….....7

Summary of Arguments ...................................................................................................... 8

Arguments Advanced ........................................................................................................ 10

[1] WHETHER THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE

BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF SANTONIO ON NOT?.............................10

[1.1] That the Present Writ Petition is Maintainable……………...10

[1.2] That the Writ Petition by the Respondent is not maintainable…….11

[2] WHETHER THE COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES FOLLOWED THE

PRINIPLEOF NATURAL JUSTICE OR NOT?.............................13

[2.1] Violation of Principle of natural justice ……………….13

[3]. WHETHER THE PETITIONER HAS VIOLATED RESPONDENTS

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT UNDER ARTICLE 21 OR NOT?..........17

[3.1] Violation of Right to Livelihood………………………………….18

[4] WHETHER THE PETITIONERS HAVE VIOLATED RESPONDENT’S

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT UNDER ARTICLE 19 OR NOT?...............21

[4.1] Violation of Art-19(1) (a)…………………………………….21

[4.2] Freedom of Business, Trade and Profession- Article 19(1) (g)…………..27

Prayer for Relief ................................................................................................................ 30

2
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 TEAM CODE –T- 44

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR : All India Report

Bom : Bombay

HC : High Court

SC : Supreme Court

SCC : Supreme Court Cases

UOI : Union of India

US : United States

Ind : India

Const i : Const itution

Cl : Clause

PNJ : Principle of natural Just ice

3
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 TEAM CODE –T- 44

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CONSTITUTION

Art. 226, Const. of India.

Const. of Delphia……………………………………………………………………..passive

STATUTES

1. Karnataka State Public Records Act, 2010

CASES
1. Aagaapuram R. Mohanraj V. Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly
(Rep. by IT Secretary)
2. Bennett Coleman and Co. v/s Union of India
3. Board of Trustees of the port of Bombay V. Dilip Kumar
Rahuvendranath Nadkarni
4. Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi
5. Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills V. CIT
6. Gorka Security Services V. Govt. (NCT of Delhi)
7. Indian Express Newspapers v/s Union of India
8. Life Insurance Corporation of India V. Prof. Manubhai D Shah
9. Maneka Gandhi V. Union of India
10. Olga Tellis V. Bombay Municipal Corporation
11. Romesh Thaper v. State of Madras
12. Sakal Papers v/s Union of India
13. Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee
14. State of U.P. V. Raj Narain
15. Union of India v/s Association for Democratic Reforms

FOREIGN CASES

1. Baksey V. Board of Regents

4
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 TEAM CODE –T- 44

BOOKS

2. M P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, (7th ed., Lexis-Nexis Butterworth Wadhwa

Publications, Nagpur, 2016) ............................................................................................
3. V.N.Shukla’s Constitution of India ( 13th ed, Eastern Book Company Publication,
Lucknow,
2017)…………………………………………………………………………….
4. Dr, J.N. Pandey Constitutional Law of India ( 56 th ed, Central Law Agency,
Allahabad,2019)…………………………………………………………………………
…
5. Thomas Erickson May’s Parliamentary Privilege ( 25 th Ed, Lexix Nexis Publication,
2020)………..

5
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 TEAM CODE –T- 44

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE RESPONDENT HAS FILED THE PRESENT WRIT OF PROHIBITION BEFORE

THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF SANTONIO, IN THE MATTER OF MR RAJESH
AND ANR VS MR SANJEEV, CHIEF EDITOR, SATYA NEWS AND ORS , UNDER
ARTICLE 226(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF DELPHIA .

THE RESPONDENTS HUMBLY SUBMITS TO JURISDICTION OF THE HON‟BLE

COURT WHICH HAS BEEN INVOKED BY THE PETITIONER. HOWEVER, THE
RESPONDENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE SAME. THE
PROVISION UNDER WHICH THE PETITIONER HAS APPROACHED THE
HONORABLE COURT IS READ HEREIN UNDER AS1

11
Ind Const, Art. 226. Cl 1

6
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 TEAM CODE –T- 44

ISSUES PRESENTED

ISSUE 1

WHETHER THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE

HIGH COURT OF SANTONIO ON NOT?

ISSUE 2

WHETHER THE COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES FOLLOWED THE PRINIPLE OF

NATURAL JUSTICE OR NOT?

ISSUE 3

WHETHER THE PETITIONER HAS VIOLATED RESPONDENTS

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT UNDER ARTICLE 21 OR NOT?

ISSUE 4

WHETHER THE PETITIONERS HAVE VIOLATED RESPONDENT’S

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT UNDER ARTICLE 19 OR NOT?

7
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 TEAM CODE –T- 44

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE

BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF SANTONIO ON NOT?

Respondent humbly submits that the writ of Prohibition is maintainable as the legislature being
State under article 12 cannot violate any fundamental right under Article 21 and Article
19(1)(g). Further it is submitted that the proceedings of the Committee of Privilege by issuing
a vague show cause notice violated the Principle of natural justice which is one of the grounds
under which the present writ can lie. Secondly the Petitioner has also violated Article 19(1)(g)
as Respondent’s right to practise any profession is violated due to the proceedings of the
Committee of Privilege.

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES FOLLOWED THE

PRINIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE OR NOT?

That the Committee of Privilege did not follow the Principles of Natural Justice as they were
required to follow. It is submitted that the respondent was denied a fair trial which violates his
Right to have a fair trial and the Right to Know under Article 21 of the Constitution of Delphia.
Committee of Privilege did not follow the Principles of Natural Justice as they were required
to follow, Principle of natural justice are those rules which are based on fairness,
reasonableness, and equality. The importance of PNJ can be understood from the point that if
PNJ are followed properly then it will improve the quality of decisions, enforce rule of law and
accountability and will show respect for human dignity. The two principles of natural justice
are “Rule against bias” and “Audi Alteram partem” which means Rules of fair hearing. Both
these rules are essential for every judicial, Quasi-Judicial and Administrative authority, without
which no court or authority can pass orders.

ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE PETITIONER HAS VIOLATED RESPONDENTS

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT UNDER ARTICLE 21 OR NOT?

It is submitted by the Respondent that the Committee of Privileges infringed the fundamental
rights of livelihood and Right to Reputation under Article 21 of the Constitution of Delphia. It
is with great displeasure that the Petitioners being such a high positioned constitutional

8
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 TEAM CODE –T- 44

authority who is supposed to observe and preserve the fundamental rights of each and every
citizen, are the ones who are infringing them blatantly.

ISSUE 4: WHETHER THE PETITIONERS HAVE VIOLATED RESPONDENT’S

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT UNDER ARTICLE 19 OR NOT?

The Hon’ble Court that the proposed action of enquiry held by the Committee of Privileges is
in violation of the respondent’s Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression and the Right to
Freedom to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business guaranteed
under Article 19 (1) (a) and Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India

9
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 TEAM CODE –T- 44

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE ONE

ISSUE I: WHETHER THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE

BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF SANTONIO ON NOT?

[1.1] THAT THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE

I. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the present writ petition of
Prohibition filed before the High Court of Santonio under Article 226(1) is
maintainable.

II. It is submitted that by the virtue of Article 226(1) the High Court has the Power to issue
Writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus, Certiorari, Prohibition, Quo Warranto and
Mandamus for enforcing rights conferred under Part III of the Constitution of Delphia
or for any other purpose against any person, or any authority or any government.

III. It is humbly submitted that the Legislature of Santonio is State as defined under Article
12 of the Constitution of Delphia. This high court by virtue of Article 12 of the
Constitution has been vested with the power to enforce the fundamental rights in the
form of writs, orders, direction.

IV. The respondent humbly submits that the legislature by issuing an illegal show cause
notice has violated principle of Natural Justice under Article 21 and deprived the
Respondent of his livelihood under article 19(1)(g), and thus the present writ
jurisdiction is filed.

V. The Respondent humbly submits that the writ of Prohibition is maintainable as the
legislature being State under article 12 cannot violate any fundamental right under
Article 21 and Article 19(1)(g). Further it is submitted that the proceedings of the
Committee of Privilege by issuing a vague show cause notice violated the Principle of
natural justice which is one of the grounds under which the present writ can lie.
Secondly the Petitioner has also violated Article 19(1)(g) as Respondent’s right to
practise any profession is violated due to the proceedings of the Committee of Privilege.

10
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 TEAM CODE –T- 44

The respondent thus humbly submits that the present writ petition is maintainable
before the High Court of Santonio,

[1.2] THAT THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IS NOT

MAINTAINBLE

VI. It is humbly submitted that the writ petition filed by the Petitioner is not maintainable
for mainly two reasons. First the Respondent was just criticising the Government of
Santonio as it is the duty of the press to keep a vigil on the actions of the Government
and, secondly the Citizen of Delphia have a right under article 19(1)(a) of freedom of
speech and expression.

Criticising the Government

1. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the respondent was merely
criticizing the actions of the government which falls under the duty of the press. In the
case of Life Insurance Corporation of India V. Prof. Manubhai D Shah2 the Gujarat
High Court under paragraph 18 held

“that democratic polity which India is presupposes a free debate and open
discussion of all the activities of its public institutions and it is this free
debate and open discussion which act as correctives against the lapses of
such institutions. It also presupposes that what a democratic or a public
institution does in a democratic polity must always suffer the exposure to
public view. Thirdly, whoever deals with the members of the public and
public funds is under an inherent obligation to inform the people of its
activities their appreciation and criticism.”

VII. It is humbly submitted that Legislature being a public institution engaged in performing
public duty cannot expect the media to just sing their prayers and not face criticism for
their wrong doings. In a democratic system like ours all the citizens are entitled to know
how their representatives are working and discharging their functions. In a democratic
system the main purpose of providing fundamental rights to the citizens is to enable

2
LIC V. Manubhai D Shah, 1993 AIR 171.

11
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 TEAM CODE –T- 44

them to develop his personality fully so as to enable him to make his best contribution
to the development of social good. The media is the agent between the elected
representatives and the citizens. Sometimes in the name of social good, individual needs
have to be kept at bay and an individual should not be pounced upon just because he
was performing his duty by keeping the interest of a single individual aside.

Citizens Right to Know

VIII. It is submitted that in the case of State of U.P. V. Raj Narain3 the observation given by
Judge Mathew is of high importance when the conduct of any public official is
concerned. According to him

“The people of this country have a right to know every public act,
everything, that is done in a public way, by their public functionaries. They
are entitled to know the particulars of every public transaction in all its
bearing”

“To cover with veil secrecy the common routine business, is not in the
interest of the public. Such secrecy can seldom be legiti- mately desired. It is
generally desired for the purpose of parties and politics or personal self-
interest or bureaucratic routine.”

IX. It is humbly submitted that no violation of privacy was committed by the Respondent
as the proceedings of the legislature are public records. If a matter becomes a public
record then right to privacy no longer exists and it is open to the comments and opinion
by press and media.

X. It is humbly submitted that KARNATAKA STATE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT, 20104

a public records agency is an agency who has a relation to the state government or any
ministry or any dept of the state. The legislature of Santonio is a public records agency
as it is related to the state govt of santonio and in this sense every proceedings of
legislature is public records.

3
State of U.P. V. Raj Narain, 1975 AIR 865.
4
Karnataka State Public Records Act, 2010.

12
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 TEAM CODE –T- 44

XI. It is humbly submitted that the petitioner cannot invoke his Right to privacy when he
himself puts himself in some controversy or invites controversy himself. Thirdly the
criticism of the public official can be done if the criticism concerns the discharge of his
public duties, even if it was based on some untrue facts.

In light of the aforementioned reasons, it is humbly submitted that the Petition filed by the
respondent is maintainable in the High Court of Santonio and the petition filed by the
petitioner is not maintainable.

ISSUE TWO

ISSUE II: WHETHER THE COMMITTEE OF PRIVELEGES FOLLOWED THE

PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE OR NOT?

I. It is humbly submitted that the Committee of Privilege did not follow the Principles of
Natural Justice as they were required to follow. It is submitted that the respondent was
denied a fair trial which violates his Right to have a fair trial and the Right to Know
under Article 21 of the Constitution of Delphia.

[2.1] Violation of Principles of Natural Justice

Denial to a Fair Trial

II. It is humbly submitted that the Committee of Privilege did not follow the Principles of
Natural Justice as they were required to follow, Principle of natural justice are those
rules which are based on fairness, reasonableness, and equality. The importance of PNJ
can be understood from the point that if PNJ are followed properly then it will improve
the quality of decisions, enforce rule of law and accountability and will show respect
for human dignity. The two principles of natural justice are “Rule against bias” and
“Audi Alteram partem” which means Rules of fair hearing. Both these rules are
essential for every judicial, Quasi-Judicial and Administrative authority, without which
no court or authority can pass orders.

13
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 TEAM CODE –T- 44

III. It is submitted that on 20 January 2020 the Committee passed a Resolution alleging
that, Respondent Mr Sanjeev the Chief Editor of Satya News had committed a breach
of the house with respect to the News telecasted in the news channel depicting two
members of the House as to watching a pornographic clip. Later on 23 January 2020
served the notice to him under which he was called upon to show cause as to why the
appropriate actions should not be taken against him.

IV. It is humbly submitted that the notice provided to the respondent is vague in nature and
the vague notice supplied to the Respondent is illegal as it does not contain any specific
allegations against the Respondent. The Notice also hampers the Right of the
Respondent to present a case and right to have a fair trial which is implicit in personal
liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of Delphia.

V. It is submitted that in the case of Gorka Security Services V. Govt. (NCT of Delhi)5 the
Supreme Court of India gave a detailed list of things that a show-cause notice should
contain and held that in case these things are not present then it hampers the right of the
Respondent against whom such show cause notice is issued. Under paragraph 19 and
20 of the Judgement, the court observed as follows

19) The fundamental purpose behind the serving of Show Cause Notice is to
make the noticee understand the precise case set up against him which he
has to meet. This would require the statement of imputations detailing out
the alleged breaches and defaults he has committed so that he gets an
opportunity to rebut the same.

Another requirement, according to us, is the nature of action which is

proposed to be taken for such a breach. That should also be stated so that
the noticee is able to point out that proposed action is not warranted in the
given case, even if the defaults/ breaches complained of are not satisfactorily
explained. When it comes to blacklisting, this requirement becomes all the
more imperative, having regard to the fact that it is the harshest possible
action.

20) The High Court has simply stated that the purpose of show cause notice
is primarily to enable the noticee to meet the grounds on which the action is
proposed against him. No doubt, the High Court is justified to this extent.
However, it is equally important to mention as to what would be the
consequence if the noticee does not satisfactorily meet the grounds on which
an action is proposed. To put it otherwise, we are of the opinion that in order

5
Gorka Security Services V. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), (2014) 9 SCC 105.

14
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 TEAM CODE –T- 44

to fulfil the requirements of principles of natural justice, a show cause

notice should meet the following two requirements viz:

i) The material/ grounds to be stated on which according to the Department

necessitates an action;

ii) Particular penalty/action which is proposed to be taken. It is this second

requirement which the High Court has failed to omit.

VI. It is submitted that none of the requirements above stated by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in respect to serving of show cause notice is followed in the present matter and
hence the show cause notice has no legal standing and thus should be set aside.

Violation of Right to Know

VII. It is humbly submitted that the Respondent in the present case also has a Right to Know
the evidence against him as it is also one of the principles of Natural Justice. It is
submitted that unless the Respondent knows what all evidence has been considered
against him, how will he be able to defend him or present a proper defence. The details
of the resolution passed were not given to the Respondents. The Committee initiated
the actions against the Respondent on the basis of the Resolution passed by the
Committee of Privilege upon which the notice of show cause was issued to the
Respondent on 23 January 2020. The SC in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills V.
CIT6 held that

“the assessee was not given information about the evidence against him and thus in
this way the SC held that the assessee was entitled to know what all evidence is
being used against him.”

VIII. It is submitted that in the present case the Respondent was just supplied with a vague
general notice to appear on or before 1 February and explain why action against him
for the alleged breach should not be taken. The Notice did not contain any mention of
any resolution that was passed in the privilege committee against him neither the notice
contained any content as to how did the Committee reach to a conclusion that the
Respondent has committed a breach of the house, leave alone that, the notice did not
even mention what breach the Respondent committed.

6
Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills V. CIT,1955 AIR 65.

15
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 TEAM CODE –T- 44

IX. It is submitted that the Respondent was kept in dark and given a blind notice upon
which he was called upon to appear before the house before or on 1 February 2020, he
was again not given any chance to give a reply to the notice served upon him on 23
January 2020. In this way, he was deprived of the basic principles of natural justice
which every quasi-judicial authority is required to follow.

X. The Supreme Court in the case of Aagaapuram R. Mohanraj V. Tamil Nadu

Legislative Assembly (Rep. by IT Secretary)7 held under paragraph 44 and said that
non-compliance of the principle of natural justice, denied the Petitioner a right to
represent his case, the relevant paragraph is mentioned below

“The principles of natural justice require that the petitioners ought to have
been granted an opportunity to see the video recording. Perhaps they might
have had an opportunity to explain why the video recording does not contain
any evidence/material for recommending action against all or some of them
or to explain that the video recording should have been interpreted
differently.”

XI. Further, the supreme court in paragraph 45 highlighted that the effect of non-
compliance of PNJ would vitiate the resolution passed by the legislature, plus the
burden of proof is not upon the petitioner to supply the copy of recording which was
used against him while passing a resolution. The relevant paragraph are mentioned
below

“However, it is not the petitioners' burden to request a copy of the video

recording. It is the legal obligation of the Privileges Committee to ensure
that a copy of the video recording is supplied to the petitioners in order to
satisfy the requirements of the principles of natural justice The failure to
supply a copy of the video recording or affording an opportunity to the
petitioners to view the video recording relied upon by the Committee in our
view clearly resulted in the violation of the principles of natural justice i.e. a
denial of a reasonable opportunity to meet the case. We, therefore, have no
option but to set aside the impugned Resolution dated 31-3-2015 passed in
the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly. The same is accordingly set aside.”8

XII. It is humbly submitted that the Petitioner in their notice dated 23 January 2020 did not
mention any evidence that they considered while reaching to a conclusion, that the
Respondents have committed the breach of privilege. Leave alone this no summary of

7
Aagaapuram R. Mohanraj V. Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly (Rep. by IT Secretary), Writ Petition No.455
of 2015.
8
Id 7

16
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 TEAM CODE –T- 44

any adverse matter was communicated through the notice, plus the burden of proof is
upon the Petitioner to make all the relevant evidence available to the Respondent so
that he can prepare a good defence in his favour.

XIII. The legislature is a quasi-judicial authority as it has the exclusive right to determine the
question of privilege, and in exercising this power they have the power to arrest the
person which affects the right of the respondents and hence the legislature was under
an obligation to act judicially while acting as a Quasi-Judicial Authority and thus by
not observing PNJ they violated the settled law laid down by the Supreme Court in
Maneka Gandhi V. Union of India9 wherein Justice Bhagwati observed that

“duty to act judicially need not always be determined by the statutory power,
but it may be spelt out from the nature of the power conferred and the
manner of exercising it and the impact on the rights of the person affected,
and where it is found to exist all these credentials the PNJ would be
attracted.”

XIV. Thus it is humbly submitted that all the violation made by the Petitioner seriously
affects the rights of the respondent as the proceedings would be one-sided and thus it is
submitted that the Notice of the Petitioner should be set aside immediately.

In light of the aforementioned reasons, it is humbly submitted that the Committee of

Privileges did not follow the Basic Principles of Natural Justice.

ISSUE THREE

[3] WHETHER THE PETITIONER HAS VILOATED RESPONDENTS

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT UNDER ARTICLE 21 OR NOT?

I. It is humbly submitted by the Respondent that the Committee of Privileges

infringed the fundamental rights of livelihood and Right to Reputation under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India

[3.1] Violation of Right to Livelihood

9
Maneka Gandhi V. Union of India, AIR 1978 597.

17
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 TEAM CODE –T- 44

II. It is humbly submitted that Right to Livelihood has been observed as a Fundamental
Right under the Constitution of India. It is with great displeasure that the Petitioners
being such a high positioned constitutional authority who is supposed to observe
and preserve the fundamental rights of each and every citizen, are the ones who are
infringing them blatantly.

III. It is submitted that the right to life under Article 21 does not only mean an animal
existence, but also incorporates all the rights that are necessary for surviving with
dignity. The SC in the case of Board of Trustees of the port of Bombay V. Dilip
Kumar Rahuvendranath Nadkarni 10 observed on page 132 of the judgement that
life under article 21 has a wider meaning and SC quoted as follows

“The expression life does not merely mean or denote animal existence. The
expression life has a much wider meaning. Any inquiry that has an adverse
effect on the reputation or livelihood of a person, these rights are some of
the finer graces of human civilization which makes life worth living. These
rights can only be protected if a law lays down fair procedures”

IV. It is submitted that in the case of Olga Tellis V. Bombay Municipal Corporation11
The SC dealt with the issue of life and livelihood and reached the following
conclusion under paragraph 21 and 32. Under paragraph 21 the SC referred to the
case of Baksey V. Board of Regents 12 wherein the court relied on the findings of
Judge Douglas who quoted as following

“The right to work I have assumed was the most precious liberty that a man
possesses. Man has indeed as much right to work as he has to live, to be free
and own property. To work means to eat. It also means to live.”

V. Further in paragraph 32 the SC had concluded that Right to life under Article 21
also incorporates Right to livelihood and the relevant observation are as follows

“The sweep of the right to life conferred by Art.21 is wide and far-reaching.
It does not mean, merely that life cannot be extinguished or taken away as,
for example, by the imposition and execution of a death sentence, except
according to procedure established by law. That is but one aspect of the right
to life. An equally important facet of the right to life is the right to livelihood
because no person can live without the means of livelihood.”13

10
Board of Trustees of the port of Bombay V. Dilip Kumar Rahuvendranath Nadkarni, 1983 AIR 109.
11
Olga Tellis V. Bombay Municipal Corporation, 1986 AIR 180.
12
Baksey V. Board of Regents, 347 U.S. 442 (1954).
13
Supra 11

18
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 TEAM CODE –T- 44

VI. The SC observed that the right to livelihood is not treated as a part and parcel of
the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of depriving a person of his right to
life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation.
In the instant case, the court further opined:

“The state may not by affirmative action, be compelled to provide adequate

means of livelihood or work to the citizens. But, any person who is deprived
of his right to livelihood except according to just and fair procedure
established by law can challenge the deprivation as offending the right to life
conferred in Article 21. That, which alone makes it impossible to live, leave
aside what makes life liveable, must be deemed to be an integral part of the
right to life. Deprive a person from his right to livelihood and you shall have
deprived him of his life.”14

VII. Further the SC in the case of Chameli Singh V. State of U.P15 under paragraph 8
the SC again retreated the importance of life and its different meanings under
article 21. The following observations were made by the SC

“In an organised society the right to live as a human being is not ensured by
meeting only the animal needs of a man. It is assured only when all facilities
to develop himself are given and he is free from all the restrictions which
inhibit his growth.”

VIII. It is humbly submitted that if the Committee of Privileges are given a green light to
proceed further with their proceedings despite knowing that the Respondent are not
given a fair chance to represent himself and prepare a proper defence, plus the show
cause notice supplied suffers from great illegality, this would be in violation of
PNJ. Right to livelihood of the Respondent would be in great danger as being a
journalist and an Editor of a News agency, this profession is the only way through
which the Respondent earns. There are great chances that the privilege committee
will hold him accountable on the basis of the resolution passed on 20th January
2020 of which the Respondent had no notice nor he was supplied with a copy of
that, and if he is pronounced guilty his right to life would be in Jeopardy. Thus any
act which results in hampering the livelihood of the Respondent should be declared
null and void.

14
Supra 11
15
Chameli Singh V. State of U.P., (1996) 2 SCC 549.

19
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 TEAM CODE –T- 44

Fair Procedure to be Followed

IX. It is submitted that Article 21 also enumerates the legislature to follow a fair,
Reasonable and non-arbitrary procedure before curtailing Respondent's
fundamental right. Justice VR Krishna Iyer observed the following as to what
should be the nature of procedure be and he says that

“Procedure established by law with its lethal potentiality will reduce life and
liberty to a precarious plaything if we do not import these weighty words as
an adjective rule of law, civilized in its soul, fair in its heart and fixing the
imperatives of procedural protection. Procedural dealing with modalities of
regulating, restricting or even rejecting a fundamental right falling within 21
has to be fair, not foolish, carefully designed to effectuate and not to subvert
the right itself”16

X. Further the observation of Justice M.H.Beg sums up the relation between natural
rights and constitutional rights where he says that if “if there is a divorce between
natural rights and Constitutional rights would be a disaster”17

XI. Also, Justice PN Bhagwati’s observation in Menaka Gandhi’s judgement on

procedure established by law still holds grounds in modern democracy. Justice PN
Bhagwati observed the following

“Although a Procedure may take away some of the fundamental rights, but
the same has to be done in a fair, reasonable and non-arbitrary way”18

XII. Following the dictum, it is further submitted that the Petitioner did not follow the
due process of law enumerated by the distinguished justices in Menaka Gandhi’s
case. Plus the Committee of Privileges must have been born in their minds that by
not supplying the resolution copy to the respondent and moving further with the
notice without fulfilling the requisites of a show cause notice could greatly damage
the Respondent's right. The Respondents in this scenario could have suffered a lot
because of the non-fulfilment of the petitioner’s duty.

XIII. It is submitted that if for sake of assuming the facts, it is assumed that Respondent
went to the Committee, what repercussions could have occurred? The obvious
result would have been that the Respondents would have not known any evidence

16
Supra 9
17
Supra 9
18
Supra 9.

20
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 TEAM CODE –T- 44

that was used against him and in this way the proceedings would just have been a
one sided game whose ultimate result would have been detrimental to the
Respondents Rights.

In light of the above-mentioned reasons it is humbly submitted that the notice and proposed
action by the Committee of Privileges are in Violation of the Respondent’s Right under Article
21 of the constitution of Delphia.

ISSUE FOUR

ISSUE FOUR: WHETHER THE PETITIONERS HAVE VILOATED

RESPONDENT’S FUNDAMNETAL RIGHT UNDER ARTICLE 19 OR NOT?

I. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the proposed action of enquiry
held by the Committee of Privileges is in violation of the respondent’s Right to
Freedom of Speech and Expression and the Right to Freedom to practice any
profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business guaranteed under Article
19 (1) (a) and Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of Delphia.

[4.1] Violation of Freedom of Press - Article 19(1)(a)

II. It is humbly submitted that Union of Delphia being a Democratic country requires
smooth functioning and the Freedom of Speech and Expression guaranteed by the
Constitution of Delphia as a Fundamental Right under Article 19 (1) (a) has always
being highlighted as an essential and fundamental base for the society. It is
submitted that in order to preserve the democratic way of life it is essential that
people should have the freedom to express their opinions and to make their views
known to the public at large, and if the democracy has to be meaningful and function
effectively, then a free press is sine quo non. This is the main reason why the press
has been over the years described as the oxygen without which the democracy

21
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 TEAM CODE –T- 44

cannot function and the fourth pillar of democracy as well. It is submitted that the
press which is a powerful medium of mass communication should be free to play
its role in building a strong viable society. Denial of freedom of the press to citizens
would necessarily undermine the power to influence public opinion and be counter
to democracy.

Constitutional Status accorded to Freedom of Press

III. It is submitted that the Constitution of Delphia incorporates freedom of press in two
ways-

Preamble - The constitution of Delphia starts with its preamble, the nature and spirit of the
constitution is considered to be its preamble and thus it is understood to be a very essential
aspect of the constitution. By way of the preamble of the Constitution of Delphia the citizens
are granted the liberty of expression. It states that “the citizen has the liberty of thought,
expression, belief, faith and worship”. The liberty of thought and expression includes
the right of free press. The right to free press is impliedly included in the ambit of
liberty of thought and expression. The aspect of human liberty is regarded as the cardinal
principle of human life, hence liberty occupies a special place in the Indian Constitution. The
freedom of press guaranteed by the constitution of Delphia is on similar lines with Article
19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). It is exemplary to note that the
freedom of press was considered to be an essential part by our founding fathers that it made a
place in the preamble.

Article 19 (1) (a)- In Union of India there is no separate law relating to the press prevails, the
same is protected under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India Chairman of the Drafting
committee Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar strongly argued that

“The press is merely another way of stating an individual or a citizen. The

press has no special rights which are not to be given or which are not to be
given or which are not to be exercised by the citizen in his individual capacity.
The editors of press or the manager are all citizens and therefore when they choose
to write in newspaper they are merely exercising their right of freedom of speech

22
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 TEAM CODE –T- 44

and expression and in my judgment therefore no special mention is necessary of

the freedom of press at all.”

IV. It is submitted that the supreme court in the case of Romesh Thaper v. State of
Madras19 and Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi20, the Supreme Court took it for
granted the fact that the freedom of the press was an essential part of the right to
freedom of speech and expression. It was observed by Patanjali Sastri J. in Romesh
Thaper that “freedom of speech and expression included propagation of ideas,
and that freedom was ensured by the freedom of circulation.”

V. It is submitted that it is quite evident that the right to freedom of speech and
expression carries with it the right to publish and circulate one’s ideas, opinions and
other views with complete freedom and by resorting to all available means of
publication. The right to freedom of the press includes the right to propagate ideas
and views and to publish and circulate them. However, the freedom of the press is
not absolute, just as the freedom of expression is not. Public Interest has to be
safeguard by article 19(1) (2) which lays down reasonable restrictions to the
freedom of expression in matters affecting:

a. Sovereignty and integrity of the State

b. Security of the State

c. Friendly relations with foreign countries

d. Public order

e. Decency and morality

f. Contempt of court

g. Defamation

h. Incitement to an offence

19
Romesh Thaper v. State of Madras,1950 AIR 124.
20
Brij Bhushan v. State of Delhi,1950 AIR 129.

23
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 TEAM CODE –T- 44

VI. In the case of Romesh Thapar v/s State of Madras21, Patanjali Shastri,CJ, observed that

“Freedom of speech & of the press lay at the foundation of all democratic
organization, for without free political discussion no public education, so essential
for the proper functioning of the process of popular government, is possible.”

VI. In this case, entry and circulation of the English journal “Cross Road”, printed and
published in Bombay, was banned by the Government of Madras. The same was
held to be violative of the freedom of speech and expression, as “without liberty of
circulation, publication would be of little value”.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in Union of India v/s Association for
Democratic Reforms22,

“One-sided information, disinformation, misinformation and non-information,

all equally create an uninformed citizenry which makes democracy a farce.
Freedom of speech and expression includes right to impart and receive
information which includes freedom to hold opinions”.

VII. In Indian Express Newspapers v/s Union of India23, it has been held that the press
plays a very significant role in the democratic machinery. The courts have duty to
uphold the freedom of press and invalidate all laws and administrative actions that
abridge that freedom. Freedom of press has three essential elements. They are:

1. Freedom of access to all sources of information

2. Freedom of publication, and.

3. Freedom of circulation.

VIII. There are many instances when the freedom of press has been suppressed by the
legislature. In Sakal Papers v/s Union of India24, the Daily Newspapers (Price and
Page) Order, 1960, which fixed the number of pages and size which a newspaper

21
Supra 19.
22
Union of India v/s Association for Democratic Reforms, AIR 2001 Delhi 126.
23
Indian Express Newspapers v/s Union of India, 1986 AIR 515.
24
Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. V. Union of India, 1962 AIR 305.

24
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 TEAM CODE –T- 44

could publish at a price, was held to be violative of freedom of press and not a
reasonable restriction under the Article 19(2).

IX. Similarly, in Bennett Coleman and Co. v/s Union of India25, the validity of the
Newsprint Control Order, which fixed the maximum number of pages, was struck
down by the Court holding it to be violative of provision of Article 19(1) (a) and
not to be reasonable restriction under Article 19(2). The Court also rejected the plea
of the Government that it would help small newspapers to grow.

X. It is submitted that with object and views, the Preamble of the Indian Constitution
ensures to all citizens inter alia, liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and
worship. The constitutional significance of the freedom of speech consists in the
Preamble of Constitution and is transformed as fundamental and human right in
Article 19(1) (a) as “freedom of speech and expression”. For achieving the main
objects, freedom of the press has been included as part of freedom of speech and
expression which is a universally recognized right adopted by the General
Assembly of the United Nations Organization on 10th December, 1948. The heart
of the declaration contained in Article 19 says as follows:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression, this right includes
freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

XI. The same view of freedom of holding opinions without interference has been
taken by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Assn. for Democratic
Reforms26 in which the Court has observed as follows: (SCC p. 317, para 38)

“One-sided information, disinformation, misinformation and non-information,

all equally create an uninformed citizenry which makes democracy a farce. …
Freedom of speech and expression includes right to impart and receive
information which includes freedom to hold opinions.”

It is submitted that the Supreme Court in Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay)

25
Bennett Coleman and Co. v/s Union of India, 1973 AIR 106
26
Supra 22.

25
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 TEAM CODE –T- 44

(P) Ltd. v. Union of India27 has stated:

“In today’s free world freedom of press is the heart of social and political
intercourse. The press has now assumed the role of the public educator
making formal and non-formal education possible in a large scale
particularly in the developing world, where television and other kinds of
modern communication are not still available for all sections of society. The
purpose of the press is to advance the public interest by publishing facts and
opinions without which a democratic electorate cannot make responsible
judgments. Newspapers being purveyors of news and views having a bearing
on public administration very often carry material which would not be
palatable to Governments and other authorities.”

XII. It is evident that the freedom of press is essential for the proper functioning of the
democratic process. Democracy means Government of the people, by the people
and for the people; it is obvious that every citizen must be entitled to participate in
the democratic process and in order to enable him to intelligently exercise his right
of making a choice, free and general discussion of public matters is absolutely
essential. This explains the constitutional viewpoint of the freedom of press in India.

XIII. It is submitted that the fundamental principle which was involved in freedom of
press is the “people’s right to know”. It therefore received a generous support from
all those who believe in the free flow of the information and participation of the
people in the administration; it is the primary duty of all national courts to uphold
this freedom and invalidate all laws or administrative actions which interfere with
this freedom, are contrary to the constitutional mandate.

XIV. It is humbly submitted therefore that in view of the observations made by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in various judgments and the views expressed by various
jurists, it is crystal clear that the freedom of the press flows from the freedom of
expression which is guaranteed to “all citizens” by Article 19(1) (a). Press stands
on no higher footing than any other citizen and cannot claim any privilege (unless
conferred specifically by law), as such, as distinct from those of any other citizen.
The press cannot be subjected to any special restrictions which could not be

27
Supra 23.

26
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 TEAM CODE –T- 44

imposed on any citizen of the country. Thus in the present case the respondent while
telecasting the news was exercising his freedom of press and the same can be related
to professing of his profession.

[4.2] Freedom of Business, Trade and Profession- Article 19(1) (g)

XV. It is humbly submitted that the Constitution of Delphia, taking into consideration
the need and the importance of work , enshrines and has guaranteed a fundamental
right under article 19( 1) (g) to practise any profession , or to carry on any
occupation , trade or business , to all the citizens residing with the jurisdiction of
the country.

XVI. It is submitted that this right aims at the welfare and well-being of the citizens as
well as the nation as a whole. Under this article, every citizen has the right to choose
an employment, or take up any trade or occupation etc. as per his volition and free
will, but at the same time the State has the right to impose certain limits, which it
feels necessary for the interest of the public .This article does not guarantee a
monopoly to any individual to carry on any occupation. The right to carry on a
business also includes the right to close it, at any time depending upon the desire of
the owner. The State cannot compel any citizen to run a business which is against
his will. But as no right is absolute, the right to close a business is also not an
absolute right. It is something which the State has the right to control by law for the
welfare of the public. The right to close down a business cannot be equated with the
right not to start and carry on a business. If a person does not wish or even plan to
start any kind of business, he cannot be pressurized to start one, it is completely up
to his discretion. However, if a person is involved in some business, he can be
compelled by the State to close it down, for the concern of the general public.

XVII. In the case of Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee28, Kuldeep Singh
J has defined the four expressions i.e. profession, occupation, trade and business
as follow –

28
Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, 1989 AIR 1988.

27
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 TEAM CODE –T- 44

“Profession‟ means an occupation carried on by a person by virtue of his

personal and specialized qualifications, training or skill. The word
„occupation‟ has a wide meaning such as any regular work, profession, job,
principal activity ,employment, business or a calling in which an individual is
engaged. Trade‟ in its wider sense includes any bargain or sale , any occupation
or business carried on for subsistence or profit, it is an act of buying and
selling of goods and services. It may include any business carried on with a view
to profit whether manual or mercantile. „Business‟ is very wide term and would
include anything which occupies the time. Attention and labor of am man for
the purpose of profit. It may include in its form trade, profession, industrial and
commercial operations ,purchase and sale of goods and would include
anything which is an occupation as distinguished from pleasure”

XVIII. The basic underlying intention behind using such overlapping words is to make
the article comprehensive piece of legislature which covers the entire ambit. ‘Work
ethics’ and ‘decorum’ are the two things which every citizen should focus at while
in the course of their employment or be it during sole proprietorship. It is the duty
of every citizen to practice his profession or carry out his business transactions, or
either functions during his employment in a respectable fashion as well as in a
modest way. Every citizen should have a genuine approach towards his profession
or his business, that is, he should obey the necessary rules laid down and maintain
the discipline and order of the society. Everyone has the “right to work” to make
oneself independent, to suffice the daily needs along with the necessities and the
various requirements of their respective families as well as to secure one’s future.
Any trader, businessmen or be it a professional should not act as per his own whims
and fancies while exercising this right for his own benefit or gain. One cannot act
in a haphazard or erratic manner to earn profit and raise his financial status. The
State plays a major role in governing the conduct of every citizen who is immersed
in any occupation or has adopted any profession.

XIX. It is submitted that it is a well-established fact that a trader or be it a business

magnate will work with the main motive of earning lucrative rewards for it, but to
achieve the same , it is not at all acceptable on his part to engage himself into any
kind of criminal or anti- social activities. The State does not authorize any

28
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 TEAM CODE –T- 44

individual to assume this right for granted and take up any kind of wrongful and
corrupt activities like gambling, smuggling etc. The Constitution has not granted
this fundamental right to conduct business or carry on with any kind of trade
involving substances which are dangerous in nature, fatal to public health, property
and safety for example intoxicating drugs etc. The trades which are not injurious or
unfair to public welfare cannot be suppressed or disallowed. They can be supervised
and initiative can be taken for mitigating their malicious effects .If some
occupations are noisy and dangerous by their very nature, they should be kept under
proper control in the areas in which they should be practised and special conditions
in which they should be carried on.

XX. It is submitted that the respondent in the present case has a right to freedom of
professing his business as a chief editor in Satya News. The proposed action of
enquiry by the Committee of Privileges violates the respondents Right to freedom
of press which is his way of earning his livelihood and thereby also causes a
hinderance in the Respondent’s Right to profess his Business.

XXI. It is submitted there has been a confusion on the classification of media as it being
a business under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of Delphia, or an activity
deserving protection under Article 19 (1) (a) as a freedom of speech and expression.
The right of freedom of speech and expression and propagation of ideas however,
is confused and equated with the necessity to overlook the media as a business
(falling under Article 19(1) (g)), which is fundamentally flawed.

XXII. It is humbly submitted that the action of the Committee of Privileges thereby
infringes the Respondents Right to Profession of Business guaranteed under Article
19 (1) (g). When Art. 19 (1) g of a person is violated and he is restrained from
professing the business or profession of one’s choice then the right to livelihood of
the person under article is infringed.

In light of the above-mentioned reasons it is humbly submitted that the notice and proposed
action by the Committee of Privileges are in Violation of the Respondent’s Right under Article
19 of the constitution of Delphia.

29
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 TEAM CODE –T- 44

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the petitioners
hereby, humbly submit that the session court may be pleased to declare that:

1. Dispose of the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of
Delphia

2. Order the Petitioners to stop the Breach of Privilege proceedings against the Respondents and
set aside the notice given to the Respondents dated 23 January 2020.

3. Allow the Respondents to telecast the news dated 11th January 2020 at 4 pm on Satya News
regarding the proceedings of the Legislative assembly of Santonio.

4. Any other remedy which the court deems fit to grant in the interest of justice and good
Conscience.

For this act of kindness, the Respondent shall be duly bound forever to pray.

Date: 27.09.2020 sd/-

Place: Santonio

Counsel for the Respondent

30
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT