1

Name of the Case

NEWS NOW … Applicant

Vs.

The State of KEMRI … Defendant

WRITTEN MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF NEWS NOW

(APPLICANT)

Table of Contents
 2

● Statement of Jurisdiction

● Summary of Facts

● Issues Raised

● Summary of Arguments

● Arguments Advanced

Issue:- I

Whether Article 19(1) (a) is violated by the State government?

Issue:- II

Whether the repeated telecast of the news relating to the death of the sadhus is constituting

the media trial or any impediment in carrying out legal proceedings in the instant case?

Issue:- III

Whether the repeated telecast of the news relating to the death of the sadhus is likely to cause
the breach of peace in the state of KEMRI?

● Conclusion & Prayer

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
 3

The counsels representing the petitioner have endorsed their pleadings before the hon'ble
high court of KEMRI under article 2261 of the constitution of Indipa in which the hon'ble
court has the jurisdiction.

The present memorandum sets forth the facts. contentions and arguments.

____________________________________________________
1. (1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the territories in
relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any
Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus,
mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights
conferred by Part III and for any other purpose

(2) The power conferred by clause ( 1 ) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person
may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause
of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such
Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories

(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner,
is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause ( 1 ), without
(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim
order; and
(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court for the vacation
of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or
the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the
date on which it is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is
later, or where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards
on which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry
of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the aid next day, stand vacated

(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the
Supreme court by clause ( 2 ) of Article 32

Summary of Facts
For the sake of brevity and convenience of the hon'ble court, the facts of the case are
summarized as follow
 4

1. On 2nd April 2019, two sadhus were beaten to death by an angry mob consisting of
around 100 to 150 men, in front of a police station somewhere in the corporation area
of Pombay.
2. While the Sadhus were being beaten the police personnel were mute spectators. Some
incidents were captured by the CCTV camera situated outside the said police station.
The footage went viral and there was anguish expressed from people mainly through
social media regarding the said incident.
3. Being a news channel, the fourth pillar of democracy; and delivering news to the
citizens of Indiqa, ‘NEWS NOW’ was constantly highlighting this news and was
repeatedly demanding strong action against the mob.
4. The representatives of the channel ‘NEWS NOW’ were constantly visiting the police
station but the police denied to give any concrete information. The Chief Minister
though expressed grief over the matter, and promised that the law will take its own
course.
5. Two months passed away after the sadhu’s murder and there was neither an arrest nor
any significant progress over the said matter, but ‘NEWS NOW’ was still following
the matters of sadhus.
6. Through ‘NEWS NOW’ repeated coverage, the pressure was built and the police were
forced to take action.
7. And somewhere in July 2019, the FIR was registered regarding the offence however,
there was still no significant development on the matter.
8. It should also be highlighted that, in August 2019 when the murder of sadhus was still
been followed by the ‘NEWS NOW’, the Chief Minister, during an interview to some
other channel indirectly criticized Mr. Arap, Head & Anchor of ‘NEWS NOW’.
9. The Chief Minister said that he needs to pay attention to various important issues of
immediate public interest, and some channels are neglecting the interest of the state
and are running their own agenda for superficial gains.
10. Due to this ‘NEWS NOW’ intensified its struggle and even identified some of the
people who were involved in the angry mob.
11. Then retaliating to the criticism by the Chief Minister, Mr. Arap pointed out the
indolence and reluctance of the state government to take any firm action against this
act of injustice.
12. On 1st September 2019, the state government issued a letter to the channel ‘NEWS
NOW’ to immediately stop the telecast the news relating to the murder of sadhus, as it
 5

may give rise to communal riots and thus the peace and order of the state may be in
danger.
13. On 6th September 2019, the channel gave a reply to the government that the telecast of
the said news is their fundamental right and the government cannot fix the agenda of
this channel.
14. On 10th September 2019, the state government of KEMRI banned the telecast of the
Channel ‘NEWS NOW’ in the entire state of KEMRI with immediate effect.
15. As a result, the broadcast of ‘NEWS NOW’ was stopped in the state of KEMRI.
16. ‘NEWS NOW’ filed a writ petition in the High Court of KEMRI stating that the
action of the state government was a gross violation of the fundamental rights of
freedom to speech and expression.

Issues Raised
ISSUE I

Whether Article 19(1) (a) is violated by the State government?

ISSUE II

Whether the repeated telecast of the news relating to the death of the sadhus is constituting
the media trial or any impediment in carrying out legal proceedings in the instant case?

ISSUE III

Whether the repeated telecast of the news relating to the death of the sadhus is likely to cause
the breach of peace in the state of Kemri?
 6

Summary of Arguments
Right to information and the right to communicate the information via media is guaranteed
under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India. In, State of Uttar Pradesh v Raj Narain.
The Supreme Court of India held that Article 19(1) (a), in addition to guaranteeing freedom
of speech and expression, guarantees the right to receive information on matters concerning
public interest.
So. The ban on telecast of ‘NEWS NOW’ by the Govt. of KEMRI doesn’t only violate
fundamental rights but also undermines the fourth pillar of democracy, i.e., the Media.
The act of accusing ‘NEWS NOW’ of a media trial by the defendant is quite malicious. As
we all know media trials are termed Sensationalization of a case by the Media by taking it in
their own hand declaring the accused as a convict, even before the court. It’s an idea which is
never supported by the ‘NEWS NOW’ or any of its employees.
‘NEWS NOW’ has always followed the guidelines prescribed by the Press Council of India
for reporting cases and avoiding trials by the media. The ‘News Now’ warns its journalists
not to give excessive publicity to victims, witnesses, suspects and accused as that amounts to
an invasion of privacy.
During the aftermath of the ‘Sadhu’s Murder’, the news agency simply tried to cover news
and delivered it to its viewers sitting at home.
 7

It never tried to be a hindrance in the investigation/legal proceeding rather it helped in

creating pressure to expedite the investigation.
The repeated telecast by the ‘NEWS NOW’ not only created public pressure on completing
the investigation but also called out the indolence and reluctance of the state government to
take any firm action against this act of injustice. ‘NEWS NOW’ was never the cause of
breach of peace in the state of KEMRI, rather it was the inaction of state agencies to protect
the citizens of KEMRI and bring justice to them.

Argument Advanced
ISSUE - I
Whether Article 19(1) (a) is violated by the State government?

In the case of, State of Uttar Pradesh v Raj Narain. the Supreme Court of India held that
Article 19(1) (a), in addition, to guaranteeing freedom of speech and expression, guarantees
the right to receive information on matters concerning public interest, and murder of sadhus
by an angry mob is very much the matter concerning public interest. So, by banning the
telecast of a news channel, i.e., the ‘NEWS NOW’, the government of KEMRI violated the
fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, i.e., Article 19(1) (a).

ISSUE - II
Whether the repeated telecast of the news relating to the death of the sadhus is
constituting the media trial or any impediment in carrying out legal proceedings in the
instant case?

During the aftermath of the ‘Saddhu’s Murder’, ‘NEWS NOW’ diligently followed the
investigation and reported it to its viewers. Since the State agencies were slow to take any
action towards the investigation, ‘NEWS NOW’ held them accountable for their indolency
and reluctance to take any action. Not only that ‘NEWS NOW’ also held the Cheif Minister
accountable for not prioritizing this case, to which the State Government of KEMRI issued a
 8

letter to the channel ‘News Now’ to immediately stop the telecast the news relating to the
murder of sadhus, and later put a ban of the telecast of ‘NEWS NOW’. The State
Government of KEMRI not only tried to cover up its own incompetence but also violated the
rights of the citizens of KEMRI by infringing their right to receive information concerning
public interest.
In the case of Kedar Nath Singh vs. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court held that criticism of
public measures on government action, however strongly worded, would be within the
reasonable limits and would be consistent with the fundamental right of free speech and
expression.

ISSUE - III
Whether the repeated telecast of the news relating to the death of the sadhus is likely to
cause the breach of peace in the state of Kemri?

The State Government of KEMRI is justifying the ban under Article 19(2) saying that it was
detrimental to public peace and order of the state of Kemri is unconstitutional and unjustified.
As in the case of Romesh Thappar vs. State of Madras, the Supreme Court observed that only
an act serious enough to constitute a danger to the foundations of the State or a threat to
overthrow it could justify curtailment of the right to freedom and expression.
And reporting news and holding the government accountable is neither a danger to the
foundations of the State nor a threat to overthrow it.
 9

Prayer for Relief

In the Light of the Arguments Advanced, Cases And Jurisdiction cited above, the Petitioner
humbly requests the Hon'ble Supreme Court Of India, to admit the Writ Petition, and in so
doing. Adjudge and Declare that:

1. The banning of telecast of ‘NEWS NOW’ by the State Government of KEMRI is

violative of Article 19 (1) (a) and infringes the Fundamental Right to Freedom of
Speech and Expression.

2. The news reporting of ‘Saddhu’s Murder’ by ‘NEWS NOW’ wasn’t constituting to

media trial or impediment in carrying out legal proceedings of the case.

3. The repeated telecast of the news relating to the death of the sadhus wasn’t an attempt
to breach the peace in the state of Kemri.

and pass any other Order, Direction or Relief that it may deem fit in the best interests of
Justice, Fairness, Equity and Good Conscience. For this act of kindness, the Petitioner shall
duty-bound forever pray.
10