Under Article 32, Article 136 of Constitution of Flavia Read With Rule 47 of CPC

TEAM CODE – T-02
8th RMLNLU – SCC ONLINE INTERNATIONAL MEDIA LAW MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2020
BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF FLAVIA

(Under Article 32, Article 136 of Constitution of Flavia read with Rule 47 of CPC)
IN THE CASE OF CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 62 OF 2020, W.P. NO. 107 OF 2020.
AND R.P. NO. 13 OF 2020 IN CIV. APP. 17 OF 2020.
The Flavian Express ………………………………………………… Petitioner no.1
Mr.Dolfopa Sorial…………………………………………………….. Petitioner no. 2
Versus
The Democratic Republic of Flavia and Ors. ………………………………Respondent(s)
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
I
8th RMLNLU- SCC ONLINE MOOT COURT COMPETITION - 2020
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................IV
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES....................................................................................................VI
STATUES REFERRED.......................................................................................................VI
TABLE OF CASES .............................................................................................................VI
LIST OF BOOKS ............................................................................................................. XIII
ARTICLES REFERRED: ................................................................................................. XIV
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION...................................................................................... XV
STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................... XVI
STATEMENT OF ISSUES ............................................................................................... XVIII
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS .......................................................................................... XIX
ISSUE I: THE ORDER OF RESTRAINMENT SOUGHT BY THE GOVERNMENT ON

PUBLICATION OF NEWS FROM KAZALIA IS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE. ......... 1
I.1. The order is prescribed by law .................................................................................... 1
I.2. The order is necessary in a democratic society ........................................................... 1
I.3 Restrictions pursue the legitimate aim of protecting public order ................................ 3
1.4 There was a link between Article published in Flavian express and the violence during
the protests in Kazalia. ........................................................................................................... 4
ISSUE II: HON’BLE COURT’S ORDER DIRECTING MR. DOLFOPA SORIAL TO

REVEAL THE IDENTITY OF THE AUTHOR(S) WHO POSTED THE ANONYMOUS
ARTICLE AND PUNISHMENT FOR REFUSAL TO COMMUNICATE THE
REQUESTED INFORMATION IS LEGAL AND NOT VIOLATIVE OF THE
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS. ................................................................................................ 5
II.1 The freedom of expression and privacy is not absolute .............................................. 5
II.2 The article published was affecting the public order and national security ................ 6
II.3. The restrictions are imposed in proportion and with necessity .................................. 7
ISSUE III: WHETHER THE REFUSAL OF THE GOVERNMENT TO GRANT ACCESS

TO THE REQUESTED OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS IS VALID. ......................................... 9
II
III.1. The Government’s refusal of Document (a) - The deliberations in the government
proceeding Mr. Mosante’s announcement abolishing the Special Category Status of
Kazalia, is valid. ................................................................................................................. 9
III.2. The Government’s refusal of giving access to Document (b) is valid .................... 11
III.3. The refusal of the Government to grant access to the asset details of Mr Mosante
and his relatives is valid. .................................................................................................. 12
ISSUE IV: THE PROSECUTION AGAINST ‘THE FLAVIAN EXPRESS’ AND

MR.DOLFOPA SORIAL IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. ............................................... 13
IV.1. Limitation to the Fundamental Right of Speech an Expression ............................ 14
IV.2. The Flavian Express and Mr. Dolfopa Sorial are liable for Sedition. .................... 15
IV.3 The Flavian Express and Mr. Dolfopa Sorial are not liable for Defamation ........... 16
ISSUE V: SECTIONS 124-A AND 500-A OF THE FLAVIAN PENAL CODE ARE
VIOLATIVE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND
EXPRESSION. .................................................................................................................... 18
V.1. Reasonable Restrictions for fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression
.......................................................................................................................................... 18
V.2. Restrictions imposed on sedition and defamation are reasonable ............................ 19
PRAYER ............................................................................................................................... XXI
III
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
S.NO ABBREVIATION FULL FORM
1. A.C.H.P.R. African Commission on Human

and People’s Rights
2. A.C.H.R. American Convention on Human

Rights
3. A.I.R. All India Reporter
4. App. Application
5. Art. Article
6. C.C.P.R Centre for Civil and Political Rights
7. Cal. California
8. Co. Company
9. Colum. Columbia
10. CONST. Constitution
11. Doc. Document
12. E.C.J. European Court of Justice
13. ed. Edition
14. Eu. European
15. I.C.C.P.R. International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights
16. J. Journal
17. L. Law
IV
18. Ltd. Limited
19. Mys Mysore
20. No. Number
21. OECD Organisation for Economic Co-

operation and Development
22. Rev. Review
23. S.C. Supreme Court
24. S.C.C Supreme Court Cases
25. S.C.R. Supreme Court Reporter
26. U.D.H.R. Universal Declaration of Human

Rights
27. U.K. United Kingdom
28. U.N. United Nations
29. U.N.H.C.R. United Nations Commission for

Human Rights
30. U.N.H.R. United Nations Human Rights
31. U.S. Unites States
32. v. Versus
33. ¶ Paragraph
V
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATUES REFERRED
1. Constitution of India,1949
2. International Covenant On civil and Political Rights, 1966
3. European Convention On Human Rights, 1953
4. Indian Penal Code , 1860
5. Right to Information Act,2005
6. Indian Evidence Act, 1872
7. Africa Convention on Human and People’s Rights
8. American Convention on Human Rights
TABLE OF CASES
S.NO CASE LAW CITATION PAGE NUMBER
1. The Sunday Times V United 6538/74, 49 (ECHR : 1979) 1

Kingdom
2. Lindon Otchakovsky Laurens 21279/02 and 36488/02, 41 1
and July V France (ECHR : 2007)
3. Malone V United Kingdom 8691/79 (ECHR: 1984) 1
4. Gillan and Quinton V United 4158/05 (ECHR : 2010) 1

Kingdom
5. Rekvenyi v Hungary 25390/94 (ECHR:1999) 1
6. Karatas V Turkey 23168/94, 40(ECtHR : 1

1999)
7. Zana V Turkey 69/1996/688/880 (ECHR: 2
1997)
8. VgT Verein gegenTierfabriken V 24699/94 (ECHR: 2001) 2
Switzerland
9. Rotaru V Romania 28341/95 (ECtHR: 2000) 2
10. Delfi AS v Estonia 64569/09, 129 2

(ECtHR:2015)
VI
11. Pentikainen V Finlan 1882/10 (ECtHR: 2015) 2
12. OVementRaelienSissve V 16354/06 (ECtHR:2012) 2

Switzerland
13. KurierZeitungsverlag and 1593/06 (ECtHR: 2012) 2
DruckereiGmbh V Austria
14. Chauvy and Others V Janowski 25716/94 (EctHr: 1999) 2
V Poland
15. Jersild V Denmark 15890/89 (EctHR: 1994) 2
16. Zana V Turkey 69/1996/688/880, 51 2

(ECHR:1997)
17. Perincek V Switzerland 27510/08, 71 (ECtHR:2015) 2
18. Hak-Chul Shin V Republic Of 926/2000 (HRC: 2000) 2

Korea
19. Scharsach And News 9394/98 (EctHr:2003) 2
VerlagsgesellschaftGmbh V
Austria
20. Lingens V Austria 9815/82 (EctHR:1986) 3
21. Chassagnou and others V France 25088/94, 28331/95 3

(EctHR: 1999)
22. S and Marper V UK 30562/04 (ECtHR: 2008) 3
23. Z v Finland 2209/93 (ECtHR: 1997) 3
24. Handyside V The United 5493/72, 48 (ECHR: 1976) 3

Kingdom
25. Karatas V Turkey 23168/94 72, 51 (ECtHR: 3
1999)
26. Kg V Austria 31457/96 (ECHR: 2000) 3
27. Scharsach and News 39394/98 (ECtHR: 2003) 3

Verlagsgesellschaft GmbH V
Austria
VII
28. Lingens V Austria 9815/82 (ECtHR: 1986) 3
29. Chassagnou and others V France 25088/94, 28331/95 3

(ECtHR: 1999)
30. Handyside V United Kingdom 5493/72, 48 (ECtHR: 1976) 3
31. Funke V France 10828/84 ( ECHR: 1993) 3
32. Z V Finland 22009/93 (ECHR: 1997) 3
33. Velichkin V Beelarus 1022/2001, UN Doc 3

CCPR/C/85/D/1022/2001
(HRC:2001)
34. Malcolm Ross V Canada 736/1997, UN Doc.
CCPR/C/70/D/1022/2001 3
(HRC: 2001)
35 Ricardo Canese V Paraguay Series C no 111,96 3
(IACtHR: 2004)
36 Dogan V Turkey 50693/99 , 153 (ECtHR: 3
2006)
37. Amnesty International and AHRLR 297 ( ACHPR: 1999) 3
Others V Sudan
38. Lingens V Austria 9815/82, 39 (EctHR: 1986) 3
29. R v Oakes 1 SCE 103, 46 (The Supreme 3

Court of Canada : 1986)
30. Rassemblementjurassien V 8191/78 , 11(ECtHR: 1979) 3
Switzerland
31. Dahlab V Switzerland 42393/98 (ECHR: 2001) 3
32. Interights and Others V AHRLR 87 (ACHPR: 2004) 3

Mauritania
33. Driemand and others V ECOSOC 33678/96 ( ECHR: 3
Norway 2000)
34. Surek V Turkey 26682/95 (ECtHR: 1999) 3
VIII
35. Dogan V Turkey 4119/02 (ECtHR 1999) 3
36. Stankov and the United 29221/95 and 29225/95, 77 4

Macedonian (ECtHR: 2001)
ORganisationIlinden V
Bulgaria
37. Galstyan V Armenia 26986/03, 101 (EctHR: 2007) 4
38. RassemblemetJurassien V 8191/78, 9 (ECtHR:1979) 4

Switzerland
39. Kim Jong-Cheol V Republic 968/2001, UN Doc. 4
Of Korea CCPR/C/84/D/968/2001
(HRC: 2001)
40. Zana V Turkey 18954/91 (ECHR: 1997) 4
41. Oberschlick V Austria 15974/90 (ECHR:1991) 4
42. Surek V Turkey 24762/94 (ECHR: 1999) 4
43. S.Rangarajan V P.J Ram (2) SCR 204, 226(SC India: 4

1989)
44. Bradenburg V Ohio 395 US 444 4
45. Surek V Turkey 24735/94 (1999) 4
46. Dogan V Turkey 4119/02 (ECtHR, 2006) 4
47. Surek V Turkey 26682/95 (ECtHR, 2006) 4
48. Bradenburg V Ohio 395 US 444 (1969) 4
49. Hess V Indiana 414 US 105 (1973) 4
50. Worm V Austria 22714/93 (ECHR: 1997) 5
51. Hak- Chul Shin V Republic of 926/2000 UN 5

Korea Doc.CCPR/C/80/D/926/2000
IX
(2004)
52. WomahMukong V Cameroon Comm No 458/1991 UN Doc. 5

CCPR/C/51/D/458/1991
(1994)
53. Franciso Martorell V Chile 55 (IACtHR: 1996) 5
54. Herrera Ulloa V Costa Rica (ICCPR: 2004) 5
55. Ceylan V Turkey 23556/94, 24 (ECHR:1999) 5
56. Murat VUral V Turkey 9540/07, 59 (ECHR: 2015) 5
57. Perincek V Switzerland 27510/08, 124 (ECHR: 2015) 5
58. Kokkinakis V Greece 17 EHRR 397 (1993) 6
59 Chorherr v Austria, 17 EHRR 358 (1993) 6
60. M. H. Devedrappa v 3 SCC 732 (SC India: 1998) 6

Karnataka State Small
Industries Development
Corporation,
61 K. Narayana v State 3 Kant LJ 463 (SC India: 6
1991).
62 Ramji Lal Modi v State of AIR 1957 SC 620 (SC India: 6

UP, 1957).
63 Tristan Donoso v. Panama, Series C No. 193, 56 (Inter H 8
American Court of Human
Rights: 2009).
64. Handy side v. the United 5493/72, (1976). 8
Kingdom
65 Katz v. United States 389 U.S. 347(1967) 8
66 Davidson and McIntyre v. comm. No. 359, 385/89. 8

Canada,
X
67 comm. No. 736/97, (2006). 8

Ross v. Canada,
68 Shin v. Republic of Korea, comm. No. 926/2000 (2000). 8
69 Marques v. Angola General comment No. 27, 14. 9

(2002)
70 Gillan and Quinton v. United 50 EHRR 45(2010) 9
Kingdom
71 State Of Punjab v. Sodhi A.I.R. 493 (India: 1961). 10
Sukhdev Singh
72 State of UP vs Raj Naraian 1975 A.I.R. 865 11
73 S.P. Gupta vs Union of India A.I.R. 1982 SC 149 11
74 Conway vs Rimmer (1968) AC 910 (UK) 12
75 K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of (2017) 10 S.C.C 1 13

India
76 Girish Chandra vs CIC (2013) 1 S.C.C. 212 (India) 14
77 Near V Minnesota (1931) 283 US 697 14
78 Giltow v. N.Y (1923) 268 US 652 14
79 Schering Chemicals V (1981) 2 All ER 321 (330, 14

Falkman 347) C.A
80 Giltow V N.Y ,(1925) 268 US 652 14
81 Kochuni V State Of Madras AIR 1960 SC 1080 15
82 Rajendra Sail v. M.P. High 2005 (6) SCC 109 15

Court Bar Association and
Others
83 Rangarajan Etc vs P. Jagjivan 1989 SCR (2) 204 15
Ram
XI
84 R. v. Boucher 2 [1951] 2 D.L.R.369. 15
85 Schenck v. United States 249 U.S. 47 (1919). 15
86 Parmiter v. Coupland [1840] EngR 168 16
87 Slim v. Stretch [1936] 2 All ER 1237 17
88 T.G. Goswami v. The State AIR 1952 (Pepsu) 165, 168. 17
89 Reynolds V Times [2001] 2 AC 127 17

Newspapers
90 S. Nambi Narayanan v Siby (2018) 10 SCC 804 17
Mathews
91 Snyder v. Phelp 562 U.S. 443 (2011) 17
92 A.K. Gopalan v. State of AIR 1950 SC 27 18

Madras
93 The Observer and Guardian V Application No. 13585/88 18
UK
94 Gompers v. Buck’s Stove & 221 U.S 418(1911) 18
Range Co
95 Fitzgerald, T. in R. v. Sullivan (1868) 11 Cox CC 44 at p. 50 18
(F)
96 Republic of Turkey v. Ahmet ECHR.Application 19
HusrevAltan and Mehmet NO. 13237/17
Hasan Altan
97 The Sunday times V United ECHR Application No. 20
Kingdom 6538/74
98 The Observer and Guardian V EC Application No. 13585/88 20
UK
XII
LIST OF BOOKS
1. Law of Press – Durga Das Basu - Lexis Nexis; Fifth edition (2010)
2. Media Law and Ethics- M.Neelamalar - Prentice Hall India Learning Private
Limited; 2 edition (2009)
3. Mass Media Law - Clay Calvert and Dan V Kozlowski -McGraw-Hill Education;
19 edition (16 April 2014)
4. The Law of Journalism and Mass Communication -Robert Trager -CQ Press; Fifth
edition (7 December 2036)
5. Media Law: Cases and Materials ( University Casebook Series)- Marc Franklin
and David Anderson- Foundation Press; 9th Revised edition edition (30
September 2016)
6. The Indian Evidence Act- KD Gaur-Universal Law Publishing - An Imprint of
Lexis Nexis; First edition (1 December 2016)
7. Law of Evidence- Sohoni - Generic; Second edition (2019)
8. Law of Evidence - Woodroffe and Amir Ali- Lexis Nexis; Twentieth 2017 edition
(23 November 2016)
9. The Modern Law of Evidence – Adrian Keane- OUP UK; Ninth edition (8 May
2012)
10. The Law of Evidence – Batuk Lal - Central Law Agency (CLA); 2018 edition
(2018)
11. Commentary on the Right to Information Act- J.N. Barowalia - Universal Law
Publishing - An imprint of LexisNexis; Fourth edition (2016)
12. RTI Act - Shailesh Gandhi and PralhadKachare- Vakils, Feffer& Simons Pvt. Ltd.
(2016)
13. The Right to Privacy in India: Concept and Evolution – Ravinder Kumar and
Gaurav Goyal - Lightning Source (2016)
14. Constitution of India - Dr. P.K. Agarwal- Prabhat Prakashan; First edition (2020)
15. Indian Constitutional Law- M.P Jain- LexiNexis; Eighth edition (4 February
2018)
16. Sedition - United States Congress House Judiciary - Forgotten Books (8 February
2019)
XIII
17. Law Relating to Press and Sedition- B Roy, Goui Kant Rai Bahadur-Wentworth
Press (27 August 2016)
ARTICLES REFERRED:
1. Article 19 (Freedom of Opinion and Expression) UN Doc CCPR/C/GC/34 (2011)
2. The Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, UN Doc E/CN.4/1985/4, cl
I(A)(22)-(24)(1984).
3. -Concluding observations on the Syrian Arab Republic, CCPR/CO/84/SYR.
4. UN Commission on Human Rights, ‘The Johannesburg Principles on National
Security’ (1995)(Dec.21,2019,3:48PM)
www.unhcr.org/refworld/category,LEGAL,ART19,,,4653fa1f2,0.htmll.
5. Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms While Countering Terrorism,
A/HRC/13/37,(2009),(Dec.24,2019,3:27AM),
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/terrorism/rap
porteur/docs/A_HRC_13_37_AEV.pdf.
6. Concluding observations on the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland (CCPR/C/GBR/CO/6).
7. Concluding observations on the Russian Federation (CCPR/CO/79/RUS).
8. NECESSARY & PROPORTIONATE International, Principles on the Application of
Human Rights Law to Communications Surveillance Background and Supporting
International Legal Analysis, (2014).
9. R Zimmermann, The Law of Obligations: Roman Foundations of the Civilian
Tradition 1062(Clarendon Press, Oxford 1996)
10. -T Weir, An Introduction to Tort Law ( Clarendon Press, Oxford, 2nd edn)
11. Eric Descheemaeker, “Oxford Journal of Legal Studies” 29 OXJL 603-641 (2009)
XIV
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Respondents submit this memorandum before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Flavia,
Criminal Appeals No. 62 and 85 under Article 136 of the Flavian Constitution, W.P. 107
under Article 32 of the Flavian Constitution. R.P. under Rule 47 of Flavian Supreme Court
Rules.
XV
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1) The Democratic Republic of Flavia is the 2nd most populous country in the world and it
shares its northern boundaries with the region of Kazalia, which is the only region to have a
‘Special Category Status in the country. Kazalia’s territory has been long disputed with the
Federation of Rastow which has resulted in the rise of secessionist movements which further
resulted in various casualties.
2) The business tycoon turned politician, Mr.Mosante won the 2017 elections and was
nominated the President of the country. The Media Rights Council produced a report on
December 2018 which reported that the attacks against journalists by Mr.Mosante’s
government are alarming and coordinated hate campaigns were raised against Journalists who
criticised Mr.Mosante. In July 2019, Section 500-A was introduced which made defamation
against the President a punishable offence.
3) On December 1, Mr.Mosante abolished the ‘Special Category Status’ of Kazalia and it was
reasoned to defeat the secessionist forces in the region. Immediately before this, mobile and
internet services were cut off and protests of any form was banned for 15 days in Kazalia.
Most of the news produced by the media was sketchy as it reported that the situation in
Kazalia was under control.
4) Mr. Dolfopa Sorial, the reputed Editor of the newspaper ‘The Flavian Express’ has been
very critical of the Mosante’s regime from its beginning. In 2017, The Flavian Express
introduced a page called the ‘Open Book’ which published anonymous articles criticising or
complaining about the government. In one such publication, on 15th December 2019, an
anonymous article titled ‘Family First: The Great Kazalia Land Scam’, alleged that the
President had personal reasons and ulterior motives to abolish the Special Category Status of
Kazalia. It, in detail explained how The AZM Group, the family run corporation of Mr.
Mosante has got various benefits rights after this status has been abolished. The article also
accused the President of fraud.
5) This article enraged many including the opposition party which started releasing offending
statements about the President in public which resulted in a huge fight between Mr.Mosante’s
government and the opposition. It also started various violent protests in Kazalia that resulted
in the death of about 25 people and various detentions and arrests.
XVI
6) Following this, The Government of Flavia sought an order to restrain and prohibit the
publication of any news on the situation in Kazalia till normalcy is restored. By a judgement
dated 1st January 2020, The High Court of Kilmonack restricted the requested.
7) Mr.Mosante also filed a complaint against Mr.Dolfopa and the Flavian Express for
defamation against the President and for the offence of Sedition. In the prosecution of this
case, the court ordered the journalist and Flavian Express to reveal the anonymous writer,
which was denied by them for the reason of responsible journalism. Due to denial, the court
sentenced Mr.Sorial for obstruction of justice. The matter was appealed before the Supreme
Court. During this trial, Mr.Sorial requests for certain government documents as evidence to
prove the allegations in the article which is denied to him and hence Mr. Sorial has preferred
another appeal in the Supreme Court.
8) In the course of this, The Flavian Express and Mr.Sorial decided to challenge the
constitutionality of Sections 124- A and 500-A of the Flavian Penal Code as they felt it was
violative of the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the Constitution. They also
prayed that even if the Sections are held to be constitutionally valid, their prosecution is an
abuse of the process of law as the facts do not attract the offences alleged against them.
9) On February 5th 2020, a news article titled ‘The Never Ending Troubles for Kazalia’ was
printed which discussed the situation is Kazalia. It was the first major news on the situation in
Kazalia after the order of restrainment by the Supreme Court. The Government of Flavia
promptly approached the Supreme Court for punishing and imprisoning Mr.Sorial and other
editors of the Flavian Express for having committed a breach of the order of the Supreme
Court. Mr. Sorial and the editors filed a Review Petition contending that the indefinite
continuance of the order is against the constitutional guarantee of free speech. The Supreme
Court agreed to reconsider the issue.
10) Now, The Supreme Court has constituted a Special Bench comprising of all its nine
Judges to reconsider the validity of the restrainment order sought by the Government.The
Special Bench has also agreed to the request of Mr. Sorial to consider the Criminal Appeals
and Writ Petition filed by him and the matter is posted for final hearing on 25th February,
2020.
XVII
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
ISSUE I: WHETHER THE ORDER OF RESTRAINMENT SOUGHT BY THE

GOVERNMENT ON PUBLICATION OF NEWS FROM KAZALIA IS VALID AND
ENFORCEABLE?
ISSUE II: WHETHER THE COURT ORDER DIRECTING MR. DOLFOPA SORIAL
TO REVEAL THE IDENTITY OF THE AUTHOR(S) WHO POSTED THE
ANONYMOUS ARTICLE AND PUNISHMENT FOR REFUSAL TO
COMMUNICATE THE REQUESTED INFORMATION IS ILLEGAL AND
VIOLATIVE OF THE FREEDOM OF PRESS?
ISSUE III: WHETHER THE REFUSAL BY THE GOVERNMENT TO GRANT

ACCESS TO THE REQUESTED OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS IS VALID?
ISSUE IV: WHETHER THE PROSECUTION AGAINST ‘THE FLAVIAN EXPRESS’

AND MR.DOLFOPA SORIAL IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED?
ISSUE V: WHETHER SECTIONS 124-A AND 500-A OF THE FLAVIAN PENAL

CODE ARE VIOLATIVE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF
SPEECH AND EXPRESSION?
XVIII
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
I. THE ORDER OF RESTRAINMENT SOUGHT BY THE GOVERNMENT ON

PUBLICATION OF NEWS FROM KAZALIA IS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE.
The order of restrainment sought by the Government is valid as there is a pressing social need
and it has a legitimate aim of maintaining public order. The order is proportionate to the need
thereby maintaining the stability in Kazalia. A direct link can be made between the
publishing of the article by the Flavian Express and the violent protests which occurred in
Kazalia after its publication.
II. HON’BLE COURT’S ORDER DIRECTING MR. DOLFOPA SORIAL TO

REVEAL THE IDENTITY OF THE AUTHOR(S) WHO POSTED THE
COMMUNICATE THE REQUESTED INFORMATION IS LEGAL AND NOT
VIOLATIVE OF THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.
The right to Freedom of expression is not absolute and may be subject to reasonable
restrictions under international law. The prosecution of Mr. Dolfopa Sorial for refusal to
communicate identity of author is justified because freedom of expression and privacy is not
absolute, The article published was affecting the public order and national security and The
restrictions are imposed in proportion and with necessity. The restriction on Freedom of
expression enshrined in Constitution of Flavia fulfils the principles and requirements that
have been endorsed by the UNHR, the ICCPR, ECHR and AHRLR.
III. THE REFUSAL BY THE GOVERNMENT TO GRANT ACCESS TO THE

REQUESTED OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS IS VALID AND HOLDS GOOD IN LAW.
The refusal by the government to grant access to the documents is valid as the public interest
in non disclosure outweighs the interest in disclosing such documents. Doc (a) and (b) belong
to a class of documents which are protected not by the contents but by the nature of their
class. Doc (c) cannot be revealed to the Petitioner since it would cause an unwarranted
intrusion in the privacy of President Mosante and his family members.
XIX
IV. THE PROSECUTION AGAINST ‘THE FLAVIAN EXPRESS’ AND MR.

DOLFOPA SORIAL IS NOT LIABLE TO BE QUASHED.
The prosecution is not liable to be quashed because the content was defaming the President
and it was made without any solid base. The accused still haven't been able to prove the
genuineness of their article. Hence, it is defamatory. Secondly, the tone used in the article and
the content was intended at spreading hatred about the government and cause violence.
V. SECTIONS 124-A AND 500-A OF THE FLAVIAN PENAL CODE ARE

EXPRESSION
Section 124-A criminalizes Sedition and 500-A criminalized defamation of President. It is

constitutional and not violative of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression
because the restriction on such content is reasonable and supported by law. No right is
absolute in favors of maintaining public order. Hence, such content cannot be allowed to
circulate.
XX
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE I: THE ORDER OF RESTRAINMENT SOUGHT BY THE GOVERNMENT

ON PUBLICATION OF NEWS FROM KAZALIA IS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE.
¶1. The Counsel on behalf of respondent submits that the order is prescribed by law[1.1]; the order is
necessary in a democratic society[1.2]; and restrictions pursue the legitimate aim of protecting
public order[1.3].
I.1. The order is prescribed by law

¶2. The Respondent submits that the order is prescribed by law, because of accessibility,
foresee ability and precision.1 First and foremost, since the order of the court for restrainment
it is considered to be prescribed by law.2
¶3. Secondly, the order is foreseeable as to its effects.3 There is detailed explanation of the
requirements for the issuance of the order. It describes for whom and by whom the order
might be issued, in addition to, what kind of requirements it might establish. Particularly, the
order might be issued ‘for any person distributing, hosting or caching, or acting as a conduit
of, publishing material which is illegal.’4 In addition, the order has to be issued by a court
order, therefore it is subject to independent judicial review.
¶4. Thirdly, Article published by Flavian Express caused people to revolt against the
government and was against the order published to not Publish news regarding Kazalia and as
a professional company should have been familiar with the legislation, and could also have
sought legal advice. Taking into account the above-mentioned, it must be concluded that the
order is prescribed by law, since (i) the order is sufficiently precise and (ii) Flavian Express,
as a professional entity, should have been familiar with it.
I.2. The order is necessary in a democratic society

¶5. The order against Mr. Dolfopa Sorial is necessary in a democratic society as it (i)
corresponds to a pressing social need and (ii) is proportionate to a legitimate aim.5
1
The Sunday Times v United Kingdom, 6538/74, 49 (ECHR : 1979); Lindon, OtchakovskyLaurens and July v
France, 21279/02 and 36448/02, 41 (ECHR : 2007); Malone v United Kingdom, 8691/79 (ECHR: 1984); Gillan
and. Quinton v United Kingdom, 4158/05 (ECHR : 2010); Rekvényi v Hungary, 25390/94 (ECHR: 1999).
2
Karataş v Turkey, 23168/94, 72, 40 (ECtHR: 1999); Zana v Turkey, 69/1996/688/880 (ECHR: 1997).
3
VgT Verein gegen Tierfabriken v. Switzerland, 24699/94 (ECHR: 2001); Rotaru v Romania, 28341/95
(ECtHR: 2000).
4
Delfi AS v Estonia, 64569/09, 129 (ECtHR: 2015).
5
Id.; Pentikäinen v Finlan, 1882/10 (ECtHR: 2015); o vement Raëlien S isse v Swit erlan, 16354/06 (ECtHR: 13
July 2012); Kurier Zeitungsverlag und Druckerei Gmbh v Austria, 1593/06 (ECtHR: 2012) Chauvy and others v
Janowski v Poland, 25716/94 (ECtHR: 1999); Jersild v Denmark, 15890/89 (ECtHR: 1994).
1
I.2.A. The order corresponds to a pressing social need

¶6. Firstly, the adjective ‘necessary’ implies the existence of a ‘pressing social need’. 6
Pressing social need is considered to occur in a case where there is a direct and immediate
connection between the expression and the protected interest.7
¶7. Secondly, the States enjoy a MOA in assessing whether such a need exists.8 This margin
is given to both the domestic legislator and to the bodies, judicial amongst others that are
called upon to interpret and apply the laws in force.9The limits of permissible criticism are
wider with regard to the government than in relation to a private citizen. However, where
such criticism of a politician incite to violence against a public official or a sector of the
population, the State authorities enjoy a wider MOA when examining the need for an
interference with Freedom of Expression. Also, while enjoying a wide MOA and evaluating
particular situation, the background of the situation must be taken into account.10
¶8. Thus it is submitted that, since there were violent protests in Kazalia and the threat of
secessionists forces trying to create instability with the aid of Rastow, it is justified that there
is a pressing social need of maintaining peace over the region of Kazalia. Secondly, having
regard to the fact that the court of Flavia had a wide margin of appreciation, 11 the court
assessed the situation not in an isolated manner.
I.2.B. The order was proportionate

¶9. The Respondent submits that the order is proportionate. The ECHR held in Handyside v
United Kingdom that restriction imposed in the sphere of FOE must be proportionate to the
legitimate aim pursued.12 If there are various options to achieve the objective, the one which
least restricts the protected right should be selected.13
6
Zana v Turkey, 69/1996/688/880, 51 (ECHR: 1997).
7
Perinçek v Swit erlan, 27510/08, 71 (ECtHR: 2015); Hak—Chul Shin v Republic of Korea, 926/2000 (HRC:
2000); General Comment No 34’ in Article 19: Freedoms of Opinion and Expression (2011) UN Doc
CCPR/C/GC/34; Article 19, Freedom of expression and ICTs: Overview of international standards (2013).
8
Scharsach And News Verlagsgesellschaft GmbH v Austria, 9394/98 (ECtHR: 2003); Lingens v Austria,
9815/82 (ECtHR: 1986); Chassagnou and others v France, 25088/94, 28331/95 (ECtHR: 1999); S and Marper v
UK, 30562/04 (ECtHR: 2008); Z v Finland, 22009/93 (ECtHR: 1997).
9
Handyside v The United Kingdom, 5493/72, 48 (ECHR: 1976).
10
Karataş v Turkey, 23168/94 72, 51 (ECtHR: 1999); KG v Austria, 31457/96 (ECHR: 2000).
11
Scharsach And News Verlagsgesellschaft GmbH v Austria, 39394/98 (ECtHR: 2003); Lingens v Austria
9815/82 (ECtHR: 1986); Chassagnou and others v France, 25088/94, 28331/95 (ECtHR: 1999).
12
Handyside v United Kingdom, 5493/72, 48 (ECtHR: 1976); Funke v France, 10828/84 (ECHR: 1993); Z v
Finland, 22009/93(ECHR: 1997); Velichkin v Belarus Comm. no 1022/2001, UN Doc
CCPR/C/85/D/1022/2001 (HRC: 2001); Malcolm Ross v Canada, Comm. no 736/1997, UN Doc.
CCPR/C/70/D/736/1997 (HRC: 2000).
13
Ricardo Canese v Paraguay, Series C no 111, 96 (IACtHR:2004); Doğan v Turkey, 50693/99, 153 (ECtHR:
2006); Amnesty International and Others v Sudan, AHRLR 297 (ACHPR: 1999).
2
¶10. Principle of proportionality requires the restrictions to be the least intrusive instruments
to the aim pursued. 14 In Rassemblement jurassien, the ECHR noted that duration of
restrictions must be taken into account when assessing whether a measure of interference is
proportionate.15 In that case, as in the case at hand, prohibition of political demonstrations
was limited in time and ECHR concluded that it was permissible.
¶11. In conclusion, restriction on Publishing the news regarding Kazalia does not violate
international principles, including Articles 19 and 20 of the UDHR and 19 and 21 of the
ICCPR as restrictions imposed under the order of the Flavian Government are permissible
limitations under the three-part test. As it was stated beforehand, the protection of public
order is considered a legitimate aim, which can justify the limitation of Freedom of
Expression and other related rights. Therefore, the Respondent submits that the order of
restrainment sought by the Government on publication of news from Kazalia pursues such a
legitimate aim.
¶12. In the present case, it can be held that the government of Flavia chose the least
restrictive measure. The government of Flavia has the ability to block Kazalia’s Internet
users’ access to specific Internet services. However, it does not have the technical ability to
block specific posts from a specific social media service. If it blocks, it must block the entire
service.As a result the order is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.
I.3 Restrictions pursue the legitimate aim of protecting public order

¶13. A restriction of Freedom of expression is permissible if they pursue a legitimate aim.16
Interference to Freedom of expression can be justified by the demands of public order. 17 It
includes prohibitions on speech which may incite crime, violence, or mass panic18 riots and
14
Lingens v Austria, 9815/82, 39 (ECtHR: 8 July 1986); R. v Oakes, 1 SCR 103, 46 (The Supreme Court of
Canada: 1986); HRC, General Comment No 34, Article 19: Freedoms of Opinion and Expression UN Doc
CCPR/C/GC/34, para 34 (2011).
15
Rassemblement jurassien v Switzerland, 8191/78, 11 (ECtHR: 1979).
16
ICCPR, UNTS 171 arts. 19(3)(b) and 21(1976); ACHR art. 13(2) (1978) ; UNHRC, ‘General comment No
34’ on Article 19 (Freedom of Opinion and Expression) UN Doc CCPR/C/GC/34 (2011) ; Dahlab v
Switzerland, 42393/98 (ECHR: 2001); Interights and Others v Mauritania, AHRLR 87 (ACHPR: 2004).
17
Driemand and Others v Norway, ECOSOC 33678/96 (ECHR: 2000); The Siracusa Principles on the
Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, UN Doc
E/CN.4/1985/4, cl I(A)(22)-(24)(1984).
18
Surek v Turkey, 26682/95 (ECtHR: 1999); Dogan v Turkey, 4119/02 (ECtHR:); Sarah Joseph and Melissa
Castan, The international Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: cases, materials, and commentary, 618.
3
affrays19 where the organizers and participants have violent intentions20 and when there is a
concrete threat to an important legally-protected interest.21
¶14. Case law of the HRC and the ECHR confirms that the sensitivity of security situation or
disturbance between the different groups in a state should be taken into account when
evaluating the aim of the restrictions.22 In the present case, Flavia has been experiencing a
tense political situation and increasing social unrest in State of Kazalia. Thus, it had to place
restrictions in order to prevent public disorder. These restrictions were taken in line with
Flavia’s international obligations..
1.4 There was a link between Article published in Flavian express and the violence during the
protests in Kazalia.
¶15. The restriction is only justified if the anticipated danger has proximate and direct nexus
with the expression23 calling for violence.24 Further, such expressions must incite or produce
imminent lawless action. 25
¶16. In Sürek v Turkey,26 the ECHR noted that the expression is considered as inciting to
further violence when it communicates a message that recourse to violence is a necessary and
justified measure of self-defence in the face of the aggressor.27 This was the exact situation as
it is in the present case. Article Published by Flavian Express used seditious and
provocative28 language that incites people to carry knives or other weapons in a protest. Later
that same language was used by the attackers in a violent protest.
¶17. Hence, the expression of anonymous article caused public danger and could be directly
linked to the violent actions. Therefore, the Respondent submits that the order of restrainment
sought by the Government on publication of news from Kazalia pursues such a legitimate aim
19
Id.
20
Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v Bulgaria, 29221/95 and 29225/95, 77 (ECtHR:
2001); Galstyan v Armenia, 26986/03, 101 (ECtHR: 2007).
21
Rassemblement jurassien v Switzerland, 8191/78, 9 (ECtHR: 1979); The Siracusa Principles on the Limitation
and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, UN Doc E/CN.4/1985/4,
cl I(A)(22)-(24) (1984).
22
Kim Jong-Cheol v Republic of Korea, Comm. no 968/2001, UN Doc. CCPR/C/84/D/968/2001 (HRC: 2001);
Zana v Turkey, 18954/91 (ECHR: 1997).
23
Oberschlick v Austria, 15974/90 (ECHR: 1991); Sürek v Turkey, 24762/94 (ECHR: 8 July 1999).
24
S. Rangarajan v P.J. Ram (2) SCR 204, 226(SC India: 1989).
25
Bradenburg v Ohio, 395 US 444, 447 (1969).
26
Sürek v Turkey, 24735/94 (1999).
27
Id.; Dogan v Turkey, 4119/02 (ECtHR, 2006).
28
Surek v Turkey, 26682/95 (ECtHR: 1999); Bradenburg v Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969); Hess v Indiana, 414 US
105 (1973); Contribution of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of
Opinion and Expression UN Doc A CONF189/PC2/24 (2001).
4
ISSUE II: HON’BLE COURT’S ORDER DIRECTING MR. DOLFOPA SORIAL TO

REVEAL THE IDENTITY OF THE AUTHOR(S) WHO POSTED THE
COMMUNICATE THE REQUESTED INFORMATION IS LEGAL AND NOT
VIOLATIVE OF THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.
¶18. The right to Freedom of expression29 is not absolute and may be subject to reasonable
restrictions under international law.30 The prosecution of Mr. Dolfopa Sorial for refusal to
communicate identity of author is justified because freedom of expression and privacy is not
absolute (i), The article published was affecting the public order and national security (ii) and
The restrictions are imposed in proportion and with necessity (iii). The restriction on
Freedom of expression enshrined in Constitution of Flavia fulfils the principles and
requirements that have been endorsed by the UNHR,31 the ICCPR,32 ECHR33 and AHRLR.34
II.1 The freedom of expression and privacy is not absolute

¶19. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) reiterates that everyone
has the right to freedom of opinion and freedom of expression, and that they are free to
express themselves through any medium they choose.35 Yet, the ICCPR also recognizes that
these freedoms are subject to certain measures for the protection of national security or the
public order. Any restriction on the freedom of speech must be prescribed by law, pursue a
legitimate purpose, and be necessary for a democratic society.36 The penalization of a media
outlet, publishers or journalist solely for being critical of the government or the political
social system espoused by the government can never be considered to be a necessary
restriction of freedom of expression.37
¶20. Several international documents recognize a person’s right to freedom of expression.
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states that “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
29
UDHR, UNGA Res 217A (III) art. 19 (1948) ; ECHR, 213 UNTS 1932 article 10(1) (1953).
30
Worm v Austria, 22714/93 (ECHR: 1997).
31
Hak—Chul Shin v Republic of Korea, 926/2000 UN Doc. CCPR/C/80/D/926/2000 (2004); Womah Mukong
v Cameroon, Comm. no 458/1991 UN Doc. CCPR/C/51/D/458/1991 (1994).
32
Francisco Martorell v Chile, 55 (IACtHR: 3 May 1996); Herrera-Ulloa v Costa Rica, (ICCPR: 2004).
33
Ceylan v Turkey, 23556/94, 24 (ECHR: 1999); Murat Vural v Turkey, 9540/07, 59 (ECHR: 2015); Perinçek
v Switzerland, 27510/08, 124 (ECHR: 2015).
34
The Law Society of Zimbabwe v The Minister of Transport and Communications and Another (ZwSC: 2004).
35
, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art. 19 (1976).
36
United Nations General Assembly Resolution, 217A (III) (1948).
37
Concluding observations on the Syrian Arab Republic, CCPR/CO/84/SYR.
5
media.”38 The European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) also recognizes the right to
freedom of expression. In Section 2 of that same Article, however, the ECHR clarifies that
those rights are not unlimited. Freedom of expression “may be subject to such formalities,
conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a
democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety.”39
From the above analysis of provisions and precedents it can be emphasized that fundamental
rights related to freedom of expression and privacy are not absolute and have reasonable
restrictions for certain reasons such as public order and national security.
II.2 The article published was affecting the public order and national security
¶21. Right to freedom of expression, under international human rights law, may be
restricted to protect the rights of others and public order, if necessary in a democratic
society to do so and it is done by law.40 In case of Human Rights violations the ECHR
checks whether interference is justifiable in principle and proportionate, 41 and whether
there is a reasonable relationship between the interference and the legitimate aim
pursued.42
¶22. The requirement that the restriction must have a ‘legitimate aim’ simply means
that the purpose of interference with the right to privacy must be one of the aims listed
in Article 29(2) of the UDHR. This is further also recognized in the Siracusa
Principles wherein as part of a responsibility to maintain public order and protect the
nation’s security the state may exercise their power through the parliament, courts, or
other competent independent bodies. 43 in the present case, The act done by the
government is merely another such example of the State passing an Act to ensure the
protection of the nation’s security and public order and is hence in pursuance of a
legitimate aim.
¶23. The term ‘public order’ has been defined in the case of Madhu Limaye v Sub
Divisional Magistrate,44 to mean public peace, safety and tranquillity, more precisely it
38
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Article 19 (1948).
39
, European Convention of Human Rights, Art 10(1) (1950).
40
Supra Note 35; Id..
41
Kokkinakis v Greece, 17 EHRR 397 (1993).
42
Chorherr v Austria, 17 EHRR 358 (1993) ; M. H. Devedrappa v Karnataka State Small Industries
Development Corporation, 3 SCC 732 (SC India: 1998); K. Narayana v State, 3 Kant LJ 463 (SC India: 1991).
43
UN Commission on Human Rights, The Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Dec. 20, 2019, 3:31 PM),
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4672bc122.html.
44
AIR 1971 SC 2486; State of Bihar v Shailabala Devi, AIR 1952 SC 329 (SC India: 1952); Ramji Lal Modi v
State of UP, AIR 1957 SC 620 (SC India: 1957).
6
was defined as “the absence of all acts which are a danger to the security of the State
that is, the absence of insurrection, riot, turbulence, or crimes of violence”. In the
instant case the State has been threatened by the acts of insurgent groups 45 and the
unrest calls for immediate action on part of the State.
¶24. However, in arguendo, even if the prevalence of such a public order situation is
not accepted there also exists a potent threat to the nation’s security. According to the
Siracusa Principles 46 national security may be invoked to justify measures limiting
certain rights only when they are taken to protect the existence of the nation or its
territorial integrity or political independence against force or threat of force. Further,
the Johannesburg Principles47 provide that restrictions sought to be justified on the
ground of national security are legitimate when it is to protect its capacity to respond 48
to the use or threat of for, New york times Ltd. vs. United States, 49 better known as the
"Pentagon Papers”. In this case, the question before the court was whether the
constitutional freedom of the press, guaranteed by the First Amendment, was
subordinate to a claimed need of the executive branch of government to maintain the
secrecy of information. The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment did protect
the right of the New York Times to print the materials which are against national
security and it can be restricted.
¶25. In the instant case the insurgents have gone to the extent of resorting to coercive
methods like riots and bombings to make the government meet their demands, in fact
talks of them demanding independence are also ripe. Thus, in order to prevent these
acts it is necessary to take such steps.50
II.3. The restrictions are imposed in proportion and with necessity
II.3.A. Essential conditions for reasonable restriction

¶26. The principle that any restriction with a qualified right such as the right to privacy or
freedom of expression must be “necessary in a democratic society.” Is one of the
cornerstones the law. In general, it means that a state must not only demonstrate that it is
45
Moot Proposition ¶.
46
UN Commission on Human Rights, The Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1984), principle 29 (Dec. 21, 2019, 3:38 PM)
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4672bc122.html.
47
UN Commission on Human Rights, ‘The Johannesburg Principles on National Security’ (1995) (Dec. 21,
2019, 3:48 PM) www.unhcr.org/refworld/category,LEGAL,ART19,,,4653fa1f2,0.htmll.
48
Moot Proposition ¶.
49
43 U.S. 713 (1971).
50
Moot Proposition.
7
interference with a person’s right to meet as “pressing social need” but also that it is
proportionate and necessary51 for such restriction to the legitimate aim pursued.52
¶27. The same principles have been applied to interpret Article 19 ICCPR. 53 The Human
Rights Committee also sometimes uses the word “appropriate” in its analysis. For instance, in
relation to Article 19 ICCPR (freedom of expression), the Committee observed that
restrictive measures “must be appropriate to achieve their protective function.”54 Restrictions
must be applied only for those purposes for which they were prescribed and must be directly
related to the specific need on which they are predicated.55 The above Restrictions duly pass
the test of ‘Necessity’
¶28. Restrictions must be “necessary” for a legitimate purpose. Thus, for instance, a
prohibition on commercial advertising in one language, with a view to protecting the
language of a particular community, violates the test of necessity if the protection could be
achieved in other ways that do not restrict freedom of expression.56 On the other hand, it is
being complied with the test of necessity when it transferred a teacher who had published
materials that expressed hostility toward a religious community to a non-teaching position in
order to protect the right and freedom of children of that faith in a school district. 57 When a
State invokes a legitimate ground for restriction of freedom of expression, it must
demonstrate in specific and individualized fashion the precise nature of the threat, and the
necessity and proportionality of the specific action taken, in particular by establishing a direct
and immediate connection between the expression and the threat.58
II.3.B Such restrictions are in ‘Proportion’

¶29. The UN Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) stated that Paragraph 3 lays down specific
conditions and it is only subject to these conditions that restrictions may be imposed: the
restrictions must be “provided by law”; they may only be imposed for one of the grounds set
out in subparagraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph 3; and they must conform to the strict tests of
51
Tristan Donoso v. Panama, Series C No. 193, 56 (Inter H American Court of Human Rights: 2009).
52
Handy side v. the United Kingdom, 5493/72, (1976).
53
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347(1967); ICCPR, Arti 17; UN Special Rapporteuron the Promotion and
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms While Countering Terrorism, A/HRC/13/37, (2009),
(Dec. 24, 2019, 3:27 AM), http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/terrorism/rap
porteur/docs/A_HRC_13_37_AEV.pdf.
54
Id.
55
The Committee’s general comment No. 22, Official Records of the General Assembly, Forty eighth Session,
Supplement No. 40 (A/48/40), annex VI.
56
Davidson and McIntyre v. Canada, comm. No. 359, 385/89.
57
Ross v. Canada,comm. No. 736/97, (2006).
58
Shin v. Republic of Korea, comm. No. 926/2000 (2000).
8
necessity and proportionality.59The principle of proportionality has to be respected not only

in the law that frames the restrictions but also by the administrative and judicial authorities in
applying the law.” 60 offences such as “encouragement of terrorism” 61 and “extremist
activity”62 as well as offences of “praising”, “glorifying”, or “justifying” terrorism, should be
ensured that they lead to necessary or proportionate interference or restriction with freedom
of expression.
¶30. Courts in several states have clarified that substantively, “adequacy” or
“appropriateness” do not mean that the measures a tissue have to be entirely successful.
Instead, they impose a requirement analogous to the Canadian concept of “rationally
connected,” although “appropriateness” is applied more rigorously. Theme assure must not
just have some logical link to its intended objective, but should also be “effective” at
achieving it. A measure which is inherently incapable of achieving the stated objective, or
which is demonstrably grossly ineffective in achieving it, cannot ever be said to be
“appropriate,” “necessary,” or “proportionate.”63
¶31. By applying the above principles, it is very clear that in the present case the restrictions
were put by the legal authority and it was clearly stated that such a restriction was necessary
in the interest of national security and maintenance of public order as the acts were of
extremist in nature and it was increasing the threat to national security. So the above
restrictions were fulfilling the tests of necessity and proportionality.
ISSUE III: WHETHER THE REFUSAL OF THE GOVERNMENT TO GRANT

ACCESS TO THE REQUESTED OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS IS VALID.
¶32. It is humbly submitted before this honourable court, that the refusal by the government
to grant access to the requested official documents is valid and holds good in law.
III.1. The Government’s refusal of Document (a) - The deliberations in the government
proceeding Mr. Mosante’s announcement abolishing the Special Category Status of
Kazalia, is valid.
¶33. Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act, states that “No one shall be permitted to give
any evidence derived unpublished official records relating to any affairs of the state except
59
ICCPR, General Comment No. 34 on Art. 19 (1976).
60
Marques v. Angola, General comment No. 27, 14. (2002).
61
Concluding observations on the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
(CCPR/C/GBR/CO/6).
62
Concluding observations on the Russian Federation (CCPR/CO/79/RUS).
63
Gillan and Quinton v. United Kingdom 50 EHRR 45(2010); NECESSARY & PROPORTIONATE
International, Principles on the Application of Human Rights Law to Communications Surveillance Background
and Supporting International Legal Analysis, (2014).
9
with the permission of the officer at the head of the department concerned, who shall give or
withhold such permission as he thinks fit”64.
¶34. Thus, it is said that the permission of the officer or the head of the department is
necessary to submit any “unpublished” records in a court. In State of Punjab vs Sodhi
Sukdhev Singh65, the court held that “In this enquiry the court has to determine the character
or class of the document. If it comes to the conclusion that the document does not relate to
affairs of State then it should reject the claim for privilege and direct its production. If it
comes to the conclusion that the document relates to the affairs of State it should leave it to
the head of the department to decide whether he should permit its production or not”.
¶35. The Court has maintained that “what is in the interest of national security is “not a
question of law, but a matter of policy”66. The court has held that there can be exceptions
from the principles of natural justice when there are overriding situations of National
security.
¶36. Section 8(1)(a) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 states that “there shall be no
obligation to give any citizen,—(a) information, the disclosure of which would prejudicially
affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic
interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence”67 Section
8(1)(i) of the Act states that “cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council
of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers: Provided that the decisions of the Council of
Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were
taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or
over: Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this
section shall not be disclosed;”68.
¶37. It is submitted that, even under the Right to Information Act, the Document(a) cannot be
disclosed to the Petitioner, since it can affect the sovereignty and integrity and is a threat to
the National Security. Moreover, as the deliberations in the Government form a part of
cabinet papers, they are “privileged” and thus cannot be disclosed.
Clause (a)(iii) of Principle 9 of The Global Principles on National Security and Right to
Information states that “Information about specific measures to safeguard the territory of the
64
Indian Evidence Act, §123(1872).
65
State Of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh, A.I.R. 493 (India: 1961).
66
Ex-Armymen’s Protection Services (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, 5 SCC 409, 416 (India: 2014).
67
Right to Information Act, No.22, Acts of Parliament , §8(1)(a) (2005).
68
Id.
10
state, critical infrastructure, or critical national institutions (institutions essentielles) against

threats or use of force or sabotage, the effectiveness of which depend upon secrecy”69.
¶38. Thus, it is submitted that, the Deliberations in the government preceding the abrogation
of the Special status of Kazalia, can be withheld on the grounds of National Security, since,
there has been a secessionist movement and there is an existing threat in the region which is
further being escalated by Rastow. Article 6 of the European Convention for Human Rights,
mandates that any person who is charged with a crime has a right to a fair trial 70. An implied
right under this Article is that the proceedings should be adversarial and both parties must be
given the opportunity to have knowledge of the evidence . However, in Rowe and Davis vs
The United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights held that the disclosure of
evidence is not an absolute right and in cases like National security the public interest will
outweigh the rights of the accused71. Thus, it is submitted that, the Right to a Fair trial is not
absolute and it can be limited in securing the public interest like National Security.
III.2. The Government’s refusal of giving access to Document (b) is valid

¶39. Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act, states that “No one shall be permitted to give
any evidence derived unpublished official records relating to any affairs of the state except
with the permission of the officer at the head of the department concerned, who shall give or
withhold such permission as he thinks fit”72. Thus, it is submitted that, the deliberations in
the Government relating to the decisions of allotment of land in Kazalia and the Contract of
renovation of the Kazalia palace, cannot be given as evidence in the Court since they are
unpublished official records relating to the affairs of the state.
¶40. In State of UP vs Raj Narain73, the Court held that “The Court will proprio motu exclude
evidence the production of which is contrary to public interest. It is in the public interest that
confidentiality shall be safeguarded. The reason is that such documents become subject to
privilege by reason of their contents. Confidentiality is not a head of privilege. It is a
consideration to bear in mind. It is not that the contents contain material which it would be
damaging to the national interest to divulge but rather that the documents would be of
classes which demand protection.” Then in SP Gupta vs Union of India74, the Court reiterated
that “There is one such class of documents which for years has been recognised by the law as
69
The Global Principles on National Security and Right to Information (Tshwane Principles), Principle 9(a)(iii)
(2013).
70
European Convention for Human Rights, Art. 6 (1953).
71
Rowe and Davis vs The United Kingdom, App no 28901/95, (ECHR: 2000).
72
Id. at 66.
73
State of UP vs Raj Naraian, 1975 A.I.R. 865 (SC India: 1975).
74
S.P. Gupta vs Union of India, A.I.R. 1982 SC 149 (SC India: 1982).
11
entitled in the public interest to be protected against disclosure and that class consists of
documents which it is really necessary for the proper functioning of the public service to
withhold from disclosure. The documents falling within this class are granted immunity from
disclosure not because of their content but because of the class to which they belong. This
class includes cabinet minutes, minutes of discussions between heads of departments, high
level inter-departmental communications and despatches from ambassadors abroad ”.
¶41. In Conway vs Rimmer75, the Court held that “But at the same time it must be conceded
that even in a democracy, government at a high level cannot function without some degree of
secrecy. No minister or senior public servant can effectively discharge the responsibility of
his office if every document prepared to enable policies to be formulated was liable to be
made public. It is therefore in the interest of the State and necessary for the proper
functioning of the public service that some protection be afforded by law to documents
belonging to this class. What is the measure of this protection is a matter which we shall
immediately proceed to discuss?” Thus it is submitted that, the deliberations in the
Government form a part of the cabinet papers and are not to be disclosed, because they
belong to a class of documents which are given immunity from disclosure, despite their
contents.
¶42. Section 8(1)(i)76 of the RTI Act exempts cabinet papers including the deliberations, from
public disclosure. Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act exempts information relating to third parties
which may affect their position, from disclosure.
It is submitted that, the Government is not under any obligation to disclose the deliberations
regarding the decisions of allotment of land and the contract of renovation of Kazalia Palace,
even under the RTI act, as they are privileged and not to be disclosed and they can potentially
harm the commercial interests of the AZM group.
III.3. The refusal of the Government to grant access to the asset details of Mr Mosante
and his relatives is valid.
¶43. It is contended by the Respondent, that the refusal of the Government in not providing
access to the asset details of Mr. Mosante and his relatives is valid as it causes an
unwarranted intrusion into their privacy. Section 131 of the Indian Evidence Act, states that,
“No one shall be compelled to produce documents in his possession or electronic records
under his control, which any other person would be entitled to refuse to produce if they were
75
Conway vs Rimmer, AC 910 (UK: 1968).
76
Supra 70.
12
in his possession, or control, unless such last-mentioned person consents to their

production.77.
¶44. Therefore, it is submitted that, though the Government has the Asset declarations of Mr.
Mosante and his relatives, it cannot be compelled to produce such documents, because Mr.
Mosante can refuse to submit documents which are personal in nature. The right to privacy is
a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution78. The Right to privacy includes the
Right to be left Alone. In Puttaswamy vs Union of India79, the Apex court laid down a three
fold test by which the right to privacy can be restricted. It held that “the State can impose
restrictions on the right to privacy to protect legitimate State interests but it can only do so by
following the three-pronged test summarized below:i.Existence of a law that justifies an
encroachment on privacy;ii. A legitimate State aim or need that ensures that the nature or the
content of this law falls within the zone of reasonableness and operates to guard against
arbitrary State action; and iii.The means adopted by the State are proportional to the objects
and needs sought to be fulfilled by the law.”
¶45. It is submitted that, though the Government has possession of the Asset details of Mr
Mosante and his relatives, disclosing such documents to the Petitioner would affect his right
to privacy and such intrusion would not be valid since the circumstances do not satisfy the
threefold test. Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act exempts information which are
personal in nature from disclosure. In Girish Chandra Deshpandey vs CIC 80, the Supreme
Court held that, under Section 8(1)(j), the information about a Public Official’s Assets is
violative of his right to privacy and it can be denied. Thus, it is submitted that, even under the
Right to Information Act, 2005, the details about the assets of Mr Mosante and his relatives
cannot be given to any person since it is personal information.
ISSUE IV: THE PROSECUTION AGAINST ‘THE FLAVIAN EXPRESS’ AND

MR.DOLFOPA SORIAL IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED.
¶46. It is humbly submitted before this honorable court that the prosecution against The
Flavian Express and Mr.Dolfopa Sorial is not liable to be quashed as both the parties have
committed the crime of defamation of President and Sedition which has incited violence in
the country and has resulted in disruption of public order.
77
Indian Evidence Act, §131 (1872).
78
The Constitution of India, art. 21 (1950).
79
K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India, 10 S.C.C 1(SC India: 2017).
80
Girish Chandra vs CIC, 1 S.C.C. 212 (India: 2013).
13
IV.1. Limitation to the Fundamental Right of Speech an Expression

¶47. It is humbly submitted before this honourable court that there are reasonable restrictions
to every fundamental right and the actions of The Flavian Express and Mr.Dolfopa Sorial was
beyond the rights granted to them. No right is absolute nor is any right enabled without a duty
against it. “Without limitation whatever, what is an inestimable privilege in a free
government might become the scourge of the republic.”81 In a landmark case of Schering
Chemicals v Falkman82, it was held that “Freedom of the Press is extolled as one of the great
bulwarks of liberty. It is entrenched in the constitution of the world.”
¶48. This case established the principle that the press cannot be left unaccounted or it cannot
be left unanswered for the wrongs it does. It is also established that, the press is not entitled to
any absolute immunity83 for unlawful conduct. Moreover, the Press must assume great level
of responsibility considering the influential ability they possess due to the nature of the job
they do. “The extraordinary protections afforded by the First Amendment carry with them
something in the nature of a fiduciary duty to exercise the protected rights responsibly- a
duty widely acknowledged but not always observed by editors and publishers.”
¶49. In the case of Rajendra Sail v. M.P. High Court Bar Association and Others84, the
court analysed the degree of responsibility media is entitled to maintain, “The reach of
the media, in the present times of 24-hour channels, is to almost every nook and corner
of the world.Further, a large number of people believe as correct that which appears in
media, print or electronic. It must realise that its consumers are entitled to demand that
the stream of information that flows from it, must remain unpolluted by considerations
other than truth.”
¶50. Similarly, in the present case, The Flavian Express is a highly influential
newspaper with circulation throughout the country. News printed recklessly without
considering the public situation without any valid evidence of the genuineness of the
content is unlawful.
¶51. According to the Flavian Constitution Freedom of Speech can be restricted on the
grounds of public order. Public order is something more than ordinary maintenance of
law and order. ‘Public order’ is synonymous with public peace, safety and tranquility.
Anything that disturbs public tranquility or public peace disturbs public order. Thus
communal disturbances and strikes promoted with the sole object of accusing unrest
81
Story, Constitution (6th Ed), Near V Minnesota, 283 US 697(1931) ; Giltow v. N.Y., 268 US 652 (1923).
82
(1981) 2 All ER 321 (330, 347) C.A.
83
Giltow V. N.Y., 268 US 652 (1925) ; Kochuni V State Of Madras, AIR 1960 SC 1080 (1960).
84
2005 (6) SCC 109.
14
among workmen are offences against public order. In the present case, The article
published in The Flavian Express caused social and political calamities causing disrupt
to the public order causing violence and risk to many lives. Hence, The Freedom of
Speech and Expression under these circumstances can be reasonably restricted.
IV.2. The Flavian Express and Mr. Dolfopa Sorial are liable for Sedition.
¶52. It is humbly submitted before this honourable court that Mr. Dolfopa Sorial and The
Flavian Express are liable for sedition as per section 124- A of the Flavian Penal Code.
The interpretation and reading of this section necessitates 3 conditions for the crime of
sedition:
(a) That the accused spoke/ wrote the words in question (b) That he thereby brought or
attempted to bring into hatred or contempt or excites or attempts to excite disaffection, and
(c) that such disaffection was towards the Govt. established by law in Flavia
¶53. The article in question satisfies the 3 conditions in the following way:
a- The article was printed in a newspaper as submitted by the anonymous author and it was
published for all the subscribers to read it.
b- In the article certain lines was used by the writer to incite violence and distort the public
order like - “ The Opposition, which has till now been shown to exist only on paper, may
hopefully, hold the President and the Government accountable for this legalised fraud. If not,
the citizens must protest against this corruption and nepotism”
These lines are written in the motive to trigger the opposition to rage violent acts against the
government and it is written in a tone that would make any man get angry and act violently.
Towards the end he also influences the citizens to protest which could turn violent and hurt
many lives.
c- The article was targeted against the President of the Country without any proper evidence
or base. It destroyed the reputation of the President hence making people lose faith on the
Government.
¶54. Indian Sedition laws are similar to the Flavian Sedition laws and in an Indian case of S.
Rangarajan Etc vs P. Jagjivan Ram85 an analogy was drawn to test if sedition has actually
been committed. “The anticipated danger should not be remote, conjectural or far-fetched. It
should have proximate and direct nexus with the expression. The expression of thought
should be intrinsically dangerous to the public interest. In other words, the expression should
be inseparably locked up with the action contemplated like the equivalent of a “spark in a
85
1989 SCR (2) 204.
15
powder keg”. The ‘spark in a powder keg’ test means that if a content, given the
circumstances and situation, can enrage people and tempt them to cause violence, then that
amounts to sedition. In the present case, after the abolition of the special category status,
there was a big disturbance and people were rioting everywhere and there was already a
public unrest. In that time, this kind of unrest would enrage people more and it would cause a
bigger public order situation. Hence, it amounts to sedition.
¶55. In R. v. Boucher86, it was opined that only those acts that incited violence and caused
public order or disturbance with intention of disturbing constitutional authority could be
considered seditious. In Schenck v. United States87 the court while adjudging the validity of
Sedition Act 1918, laid down the ―clear and present danger test for restricting freedom of
expression. Words which, ordinarily and in many places, would be within the freedom of
speech protected by the First Amendment may become subject to prohibition when of such a
nature and used in such circumstances as to create a clear and present danger that they will
bring about the substantive evils which Congress has a right to prevent.
¶56. In this case if this test is applied, we can conclude that since a clear and present danger
can be caused due to the content of the article even if it can be safeguarded under the right of
speech in other occasions.
IV.3 The Flavian Express and Mr. Dolfopa Sorial are not liable for Defamation
¶57. Its humbly submitted before this hon’ble supreme court that the appellants are liable for
defamation under Section 500-A of the Flavian Penal Code.
As per common law, the act of defamation consists of the following elements: The statement
must be defamatory, The statement must be published and The statement must cause serious
harm
IV.3.A. The Statement must be defamatory

¶58. In the case of Parmiter v. Coupland 88 , the definition of defamation was laid as
“Publication, without justification or lawful excuse, which is calculated to injure the
reputation of another, by exposing them to hatred, contempt or ridicule.'' The same was
further elaborated by Lord Atkins in the case of Slim v. Stretch 89 that the definition had
widened to include words which “tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking
members of society.”
86
2 [1951] 2 D.L.R.369.
87
249 U.S. 47 (1919).
88
EngR 168[1840] ; (1840) 6 M & W 105 ; 151 ER 340.
89
[1936] 2 All ER 1237.
16
¶59. In the present case, The article published on the President titled ‘Family First: The Great
Kazalia Land Scam’ was defamatory in nature. The author of the article is unknown and the
newspaper company has yet been unable to prove the worthiness of their source for the
allegations they’ve made against the President of the Country. This makes the allegations
unlawful. The allegations are untrue and are severe in nature. The article lowered the
President’s reputation in the society and made people get a sense of hatred against him. It
accused the President of fraud and corruption. Hence, for all the above reasons, the content is
defamatory in nature.
IV.3.B. The statement must be published

¶60. The statement in the present case was not just made known to a small group but it was
published in a national media without a proper legal base for the same.
T.G. Goswami v. The State 90 it was held that, “Newspapers must be more cautious than
ordinary persons in publishing defamatory matter and that the press has no special privileges
as such.” In Reynolds V Times Newspapers 91 it was held that “Once besmirched by an
unfounded allegation in a national newspaper, a reputation can be damaged forever,
especially if there is no opportunity to vindicate one’s reputation. When this happens, society,
as well as the individual, is the loser. Protection of reputation is not only important for the
individual and his family but also for the public good.” Hence, publication in a newspaper
should be well taken care of which was not done in the present case.
IV.3.C. The statement must cause serious harm

¶61. The publication of such a defamatory statement must bring substantial harm to the
plaintiff in terms of monetary or social costs which lowers the reputation of the plaintiff in
the eyes of a right-thinking man of the society. This criterion was brought into force by a UK
statute namely s.1 of the Defamation Act of 2013.
¶62. The President of a country holds a respectable position in the society. His reputation is
of national importance as it represents the state indirectly. Articles like this don’t just pose a
threat to his reputation without the country but also outside the country. This makes many
doubt his genuineness in his profession and would be a huge set back to his career. Moreover,
the upsurge and the protests which followed this article made it almost impossible for the
President to have a dignified life. Hence, it caused a substantial loss to the President
90
AIR 1952 (Pepsu) 165, 168.
91
.[2001] 2 AC 127.
17
¶63. It’s humbly submitted before the court that since all the conditions of defamation are
satisfied, Flavian Express and Mr. Dolfopa Sorial are liable for defamation.
Moreover, in the case of S. Nambi Narayanan v Siby Mathews92, The Indian Supreme Court
held Right to Reputation as a Fundamental right under Article 21 which is similar to Flavia.
Reputation can be defined as the respect or esteem which a person enjoys in society’ 93; ‘what
people think of him’94 or the good esteem in which others hold us.‘Individuals are deemed
reputable by default:This reputation is valuable and it is prima facie wrongful to impair it.’95
The right to reputation of the President is abridged in the case thus violating his fundamental
right. Hence, the petition against the accused should not be quashed.
ISSUE V: SECTIONS 124-A AND 500-A OF THE FLAVIAN PENAL CODE ARE
EXPRESSION.
V.1. Reasonable Restrictions for fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression
¶64. It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that no fundamental right is
absolute and its subject to restrictions of certain degree that are reasonable. Snyder v.
Phelp96 s wherein Mr. John G. Robert, Chief Justice said: “Speech is powerful. It can
stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and … inflict great
pain. Hence, it is to be delivered rightfully.” In the case of A.K. Gopalan v. State of
Madras97,the Supreme Court observed: “Man, as a rational being, desires to do many
things, but in civil society his desires have to be controlled, regulated and reconciled
with the exercise of similar desires by other individuals… Liberty has, therefore to be
limited in order to be effectively possessed.”Therefore, it can be stated that a speech or
expression cannot be done in such a way it infringes someone else’s fundamental
rights. No right is absolute nor is any right enabled without a duty against it. “Without
limitation whatever, what is an inestimable privilege in a free government might
become the scourge of the republic.” 98 A restriction is crucial and important to the
92
2018 10 SCC 804.
93
R Zimmermann, The Law of Obligations: Roman Foundations of the Civilian Tradition 1062
Clarendon Press, Oxford (1996).
94
T Weir, An Introduction to Tort Law 2 Clarendon Press, Oxford.
95
Eric Descheemaeker, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 29 OXJL 603-641 (2009).
96
562 U.S. 443 (2011).
97
AIR 1950 SC 27.
98
Story,Constitution (6th Ed), Near V Minnesota, 283 US 697(1931) ; Giltow v. N.Y., 268 US 652 (1923).
18
functioning of a democratic country. The Restriction must pursue a legitimate aim:

Restriction must be necessary in democratic society: Whether the limitation satisfies a
“pressing social need’99
¶65. Hence, it can be concluded that imposition of a reasonable restriction is necessary in a
democratic country and the government is at no fault punishing those that go against these
restrictions.
V.2. Restrictions imposed on sedition and defamation are reasonable

¶66. It is humbly submitted before this honorable court that Section 124-A and section 500-A
making sedition and defamation of President a crime, is constitutional as it is not violative of
freedom of speech and expression and is necessary for maintaining a harmonious society.
Section 124-A necessitates content either spoken or written that brings hatred or disaffection
towards the government. Though the section is not elaborated enough, in precedents and
cases recently the section has been interpreted and narrowed down to only those content that
rage violence in society or is a threat to Public order. It gives rights to the citizens to legally
criticize the government actions in a motive to get legal corrections.
¶67. Defamation is Section Section 500- A states that anyone who defames a president in
public has committed a crime. This is again a crime only when baseless claims are made
against the president with a motive to put him down. This is necessary because criticising a
president without a reason affects the society larger than criticising a person not in power. It
is therefore contended that only those content that face a threat to public order is restricted
and not all content. This is necessary for the benefit of the people and it has been supported in
the following international statutes:
Article 20 (ICCPR)- 1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law. 2. Any
advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination,
hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
Article 10(2) of the ECHR -2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties
and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties
as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of
national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime,
for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others,
for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the
authority and impartiality of the judiciary
99
, The Observer and Guardian V. UK, Application No. 13585/88( European Court).
19
¶68. Justice Holmes, in Gompers v. Buck’s Stove & Range Co opined: In the name of
freedom of speech and expression, the protection is not extended to the ones who utter words
that may have all the effect of force.100 and further in Fitzgerald, T. in R. v. Sullivan101 to the
effect that "the very tendency of sedition is to incite the people to insurrection and rebellion
"and that" the law considers as sedition all those practices which have for their object to
excite discontent or disaffection, to create a public disturbance, or to lead to civil war, to
bring into hatred or contempt the sovereign or Government, the laws or the constitution of the
realm and generally all endeavours to promote public disorder"
¶69. To know if a restriction imposed is arbitrary or not a 2 part test was discussed in
Republic of Turkey v. Ahmet Husrev Altan and Mehmet Hasan Altan102
1. Restriction must be provided by law: It must have a basis in law, which is publicly
available and accessible and formulated with sufficient precision to enable citizens to
regulate their conduct accordingly103
2. The Restriction must pursue a legitimate aim: Restriction must be necessary in
democratic society: Whether the limitation satisfies a “pressing social need’104
¶70. Hence, in the present case, it can be concluded that the restriction passes both tests. First
of all, Public order is a legitimate claim to restrict a content. Secondly, The restriction also
has a legitimate aim and a pressing social need as Violence could disrupt social coherency.
Further in the US Supreme court, when analysing a law penalising defamation and sedition
the court held that "That the Act in question cannot be unconstitutional, because it makes
nothing penal that was not penal before, and gives no new power to the Court, but is merely
declaratory of the common law, and useful for rendering that law more generally known, and
more easily understood. This," they said, "cannot be denied, if it be admitted, as it must be,
that false, scandalous and malicious libels against the Government of the country, published
with intent to do mischief, was punishable by common law.”105 Hence the law cannot be held
unconstitutional as it is necessary for peaceful functioning of society
100
221 U.S 418(1911).
101
(1868) 11 Cox CC 44 at p. 50 (F).
102
Application no. 13237/17.
103
The Sunday times v United Kingdom, 6538/74 (ECHR).
104
, The Observer and Guardian V UK, Application No. 13585/88 (European Court).
105
Mr. Harper's speech, ANNALS 5TH CONG., 14I, and the reference to this argument in MADISON'S
WRITINGS VI.
20
PRAYER
In the light of the arguments advanced, cases and authorities cited above, the Respondent(s)
humbly requests the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Index to judge and declare that:
1. The order of restrainment on publication of news from Kazalia is valid and

enforceable.
2. Order directing Mr. Dolfopa Sorial to reveal the identity of the author(s) who posted
the anonymous article and punishment for refusal to communicate the requested
information is legal and not violative of the freedom of the press.
3. The refusal of government to produce the requested documents is valid
4. The Prosecution against The Flavian Express and Mr.Dolfopa Sorial is valid and not
liable to be quashed.
5. Sections 124-A and 500-A of the Flavian Penal Code are constitutional
And pass any other order that may deem fit in the best interests of justice, equity and good
conscience.
All of which is humbly prayed,

COUNSELS FOR THE RESPONDENT(S)
XXI

Under Article 32, Article 136 of Constitution of Flavia Read With Rule 47 of CPC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Under Article 32, Article 136 of Constitution of Flavia Read With Rule 47 of CPC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TEAM CODE – T-02

8th RMLNLU – SCC ONLINE INTERNATIONAL MEDIA LAW MOOT COURT

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF FLAVIA

Mr.Dolfopa Sorial…………………………………………………….. Petitioner no. 2

The Democratic Republic of Flavia and Ors. ………………………………Respondent(s)

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

TABLE OF CASES .............................................................................................................VI

LIST OF BOOKS ............................................................................................................. XIII

ARTICLES REFERRED: ................................................................................................. XIV

STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................... XVI

STATEMENT OF ISSUES ............................................................................................... XVIII

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS .......................................................................................... XIX

ISSUE I: THE ORDER OF RESTRAINMENT SOUGHT BY THE GOVERNMENT ON

I.1. The order is prescribed by law .................................................................................... 1

I.2. The order is necessary in a democratic society ........................................................... 1

ISSUE II: HON’BLE COURT’S ORDER DIRECTING MR. DOLFOPA SORIAL TO

II.1 The freedom of expression and privacy is not absolute .............................................. 5

ISSUE III: WHETHER THE REFUSAL OF THE GOVERNMENT TO GRANT ACCESS

ISSUE IV: THE PROSECUTION AGAINST ‘THE FLAVIAN EXPRESS’ AND

IV.1. Limitation to the Fundamental Right of Speech an Expression ............................ 14

V.2. Restrictions imposed on sedition and defamation are reasonable ............................ 19

PRAYER ............................................................................................................................... XXI

S.NO ABBREVIATION FULL FORM

1. A.C.H.P.R. African Commission on Human

2. A.C.H.R. American Convention on Human

3. A.I.R. All India Reporter

6. C.C.P.R Centre for Civil and Political Rights

10. CONST. Constitution

11. Doc. Document

12. E.C.J. European Court of Justice

13. ed. Edition

14. Eu. European

15. I.C.C.P.R. International Covenant on Civil and

18. Ltd. Limited

19. Mys Mysore

20. No. Number

21. OECD Organisation for Economic Co-

22. Rev. Review

23. S.C. Supreme Court

24. S.C.C Supreme Court Cases

25. S.C.R. Supreme Court Reporter

26. U.D.H.R. Universal Declaration of Human

27. U.K. United Kingdom

28. U.N. United Nations

29. U.N.H.C.R. United Nations Commission for

30. U.N.H.R. United Nations Human Rights

31. U.S. Unites States

S.NO CASE LAW CITATION PAGE NUMBER

1. The Sunday Times V United 6538/74, 49 (ECHR : 1979) 1

4. Gillan and Quinton V United 4158/05 (ECHR : 2010) 1

6. Karatas V Turkey 23168/94, 40(ECtHR : 1

10. Delfi AS v Estonia 64569/09, 129 2

11. Pentikainen V Finlan 1882/10 (ECtHR: 2015) 2

12. OVementRaelienSissve V 16354/06 (ECtHR:2012) 2

16. Zana V Turkey 69/1996/688/880, 51 2

18. Hak-Chul Shin V Republic Of 926/2000 (HRC: 2000) 2

21. Chassagnou and others V France 25088/94, 28331/95 3

23. Z v Finland 2209/93 (ECtHR: 1997) 3

24. Handyside V The United 5493/72, 48 (ECHR: 1976) 3

27. Scharsach and News 39394/98 (ECtHR: 2003) 3

28. Lingens V Austria 9815/82 (ECtHR: 1986) 3

29. Chassagnou and others V France 25088/94, 28331/95 3