Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai

IV Novice Intra Moot Court Competition

Participant Code: 24

Before

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Masoba

The Republic of Masoba

In the Matter of

W.P. (C) No.____ of 2021 (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of Masoba)

Ms. Vareena Patoor________________________________________Plaintiff

V.

Union of Masoba __________________________________________Defendant

W.P. (C) No. 0007 of 2021 (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of Masoba)

Ray of Justice Foundation__________________________________Plaintiff

V.

Union of Masoba ________________________________________Defendant

Written Submission on the Behalf of Plaintiff / Petitioner

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PLAINTIFF-

 Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai
IV Novice Intra Moot Court Competition

Table of Content:
List of Abbreviations................................................................................................................3

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

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

Statement of Facts....................................................................................................................7

Statement of Issues...................................................................................................................9

Summary of Arguments........................................................................................................10

Arguments Advanced.............................................................................................................11

1. That The Writ Petition Is Maintainable In The Hon’ble Court........................................11

1.1 The Petitioner Has Sufficient Locus Standi And Sufficient Interest.........................11

1.2 No Alternate and Efficacious Remedy is Available to the Petitioner........................11

1.3 The Hon'ble Court is a “Sentinel on the Qui Vive”...................................................12

2.That Media Trials Impairs The Administration Of Justice Under Contempt Of Court Act,
1971......................................................................................................................................12

2.1 Denial Of Free Trial...................................................................................................12

2.2 Media Prejudicing A trial...........................................................................................13

3. That The Media Reporting Should be Regulated.............................................................13

3.1 200th Law Commission...............................................................................................13

PRAYER.................................................................................................................................15

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PLAINTIFF-

 Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai
IV Novice Intra Moot Court Competition

List of Abbreviations

 §: Section
 ¶: Paragraph
 V.: Versus
 Hon’ble: Honourable
 Const.: Constitution
 SCC: Supreme Court Cases
 AIR: All India Reporter
 SCR: Supreme Court Reporter
 BomCR: Bombay Cases Reporter
 CBI: Central Bureau of Investigation
 Ms.: Miss
 Art.: Article
 SC: Supreme Court
 SCR: Supreme Court Report
 Arb LR: Arbitration Law Reporter
 ed.: Edition
 NOC: Notes of Cases
 Re: In the matter of
 Ors.: Others
 CBI: Central Bureau of Investigation
 Cri LJ: Criminal Law Journal

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PLAINTIFF-

 Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai
IV Novice Intra Moot Court Competition

Index of Authorities

CASES

1. Hindi Hitrakshak Samiti v. Union of India, (1990) 2 SCC 352: AIR 1990 SC 851

2. Mohini v. State of Karnataka, (1992) 3 SCC 666: AIR 1992 SC 1858
3. Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124
4. K.K. Kouchunni v. State of Madras, AIR 1959 SC 725
5. State of Madras v. V.G. Row, AIR 1952 SC 196.
6. Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 98.
7. Subhash Chandra v. S. M. Agarwal, 1984 Cri LJ 481(Del).
8. Nilesh Navlakha and Ors. vs. Ministry of Information and Broadcasting the
Secretary/Joint Secretary and Ors. (10.09.2020 - BOMHC) : MANU/MH/1232/
9. M.P. Lohia v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2005 SC 790

BOOKS REFERRED

1. BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (9th ed. 2009)

2. D.D. BASU, SHORTER CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (VOLUME 1, 1 ST
EDITION: 2011)
3. D.D. BASU, SHORTER CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (VOLUME 2, 1 ST
EDITION: 2011)
4. H. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India (Volume 1, 4th Edition: 2017)
5. M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (8th Edition. 2018)

STATUTES AND LEGAL PROVISIONS REFERRED

1. Constitution of India, 1950

2. Contempt of Court Act, 1971

WEBSITES REFERRED

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PLAINTIFF-

 Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai
IV Novice Intra Moot Court Competition

1. www.scconline.com
2. www.manupatra.com
3. www.manupatrafast.com
4. www.lawctopus.com
5. www.lexisnexis.com

MISCELLANEOUS

1. 2ooth Law Commission: Trial by Media: Free Speech versus Fair Trial Under
Criminal Procedure

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PLAINTIFF-

 Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai
IV Novice Intra Moot Court Competition

Statement of Jurisdiction

The Petitioner has filled a Writ Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of Masoba, 1950.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Masoba exercises jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate over the
matter under Art. 32 of the Constitution of Masoba, 1950.

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PLAINTIFF-

 Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai
IV Novice Intra Moot Court Competition

Statement of Facts

1. The Union of Masoba, is a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic and republic

country with a population of about 1.38 billion people. Masoba has promulgated a
written constitution, that came into force on 26th January, 1950. Under the
Constitution of the Union of Masoba, the fundamental rights are embodied under Part
III and the Directive Principles of State Policies are embodied under Part IV, which
are imperative and hold justiciable importance in achieving the objectives of a welfare
state of Masoba
2. In February 2020, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) arrested a couple from
Shombada, Masoba's second largest district, for running a racket involving the online
distribution of child sexual abuse material (CSAM). Accused of the use of a child for
pornography purposes, and of materials showing a child in sexually suggestive acts,
etc., electronical type, pursuant to Sections 14 and 15 of the Sexual Offenses Act
2012 and Section 67B of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
3. The couple was named as tenants of a flat owned by a popular movie star, Vareena
Patoor, in Star Dust Society, although the investigation agency did not disclose the
accused's identity or exact location. Ms. Patoor was soon summoned by the
investigation agency to testify about her role in the racket. Ms. Patoor claimed in a
statement that her Manager is in charge of the tenancy and that she has no
involvement in the heinous act that is reportedly taking place in a flat she owns.
4. The news about Ms. Patoor's involvement in the racket was first broadcast on prime-
time television by the media houses. Several well-known media outlets, including
Parso Tak, Pee News, Desh Samachar, Jagat Jane, and BSTV, quickly began holding
debates on the topic. Many people who had previously worked for Ms. Patoor as her
boss or PR agent were invited to appear on these news channels to discuss Ms.
Patoor's drinking, smoking, and general behavior.
5. The teasers used before the debates on these shows were often indicative of her
involvement in the crime, with scenes from Ms. Patoor's film being used, in which she
plays a schizophrenic child kidnapper. Because of Ms. Patoor's character name in one
of her films, #MakdiGayiPakdi, and #PatoorKiFitoor, the debate on these shows used

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PLAINTIFF-

 Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai
IV Novice Intra Moot Court Competition

hashtags like #MakdiGayiPakdi and #PatoorKiFitoor. Several sensitive and key

details were leaked by the media outlets, including CCTV footage of Ms. Patoor
visiting her rented flat, where the racket was run, and other such entry details in the
society registry, where the flat is located.
6. Demonstrators from the Nanhi Jaan Foundation and other similar foundations arrived
on the sets of a film starring Ms. Patoor one day while the film was being shot. The
demonstrators yelled the hashtags/slogans from the news outlets, which were also
projected on a board by the demonstrators. A scuffle broke out between Ms. Patoor's
bodyguards and the protesters as they attempted to remove her from the sets. Ms.
Patoor was also hurt during the altercation.
7. Following this incident, Ms. Patoor approached the Attorney General of Masoba for
written permission to file a Petition under Section 15 (1)(b) of the Contempt of Court
Act, 1971 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Masoba to initiate contempt
proceedings against the proprietors of various media houses. Ms. Patoor argued in her
application that allowing the media to conduct trials on matters that are under
investigation interferes with the proper administration of justice, resulting in criminal
contempt under section 2(c)(iii) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
8. However, because the Attorney General refused to agree to the application without
providing any fair excuse, Ms. Patoor filed a Writ Petiton under Article 32 of the
Masoba Constitution to quash the Attorney General's decision for unreasonably
denying the petitioner's consent to file the petition.
9. Soon after, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is filed by Ray of Justice, through its
approved signatory Senior Advocate, Ms. Sanjica Mansingh, against the Union of
Masoba and the Masoba Press Council to give a Writ to the Respondents to ensure
that media houses do not conduct media trials in the guise of investigative journalism.
It was argued that such media trials infringe on a defendant's or accused's right to a
fair trial under Article 21 of the Masoba Constitution, which begins when criminal
proceedings in a subordinate court are about to begin or when the suspect is detained.
The PIL was accepted by the Supreme Court.
10. Considering the similarity in both the petitions, the Hon’ble Court agreed to club
petition filed by Ms. Patoor and Ray of Justice Foundation and decided to hear them
together

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PLAINTIFF-

 Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai
IV Novice Intra Moot Court Competition

Statement of Issues

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION SEEKING TO SQUASH THE

DECISION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR UNREASONABLY
WITHHOLDING THE CONSENT TO THE PETITIONER FOR FILING THE
PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE?

ISSUE 2: WHETHER MEDIA TRIAL DURING AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION

MAY LEAD TO IMPAIR THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE UNDER SECTION
2 (c)(iii) OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, 1971?

ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE MEDIA REPORTING SHOULD BE REGULATED ON

THE PREMISE THAT THE SAME MAY PREJUDICE THE RIGHT TO A FAIR
TRIAL OF A SUSPECT OR ACCUSED UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF MASOBA?

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PLAINTIFF-

 Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai
IV Novice Intra Moot Court Competition

Summary of Arguments

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION SEEKING TO SQUASH THE

DECISION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR UNREASONABLY
WITHHOLDING THE CONSENT TO THE PETITIONER FOR FILING THE
PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE?

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that the present Writ petition is
maintainable because, it has requisite locus standi and interest in the present case and there is
violation of the fundamental right to constitutional remedies. There is no alternative and
efficacious remedy in the present case. Since the court is a “sentinel on the qui vive”. The
writ petition is maintainable under Article 32 of the Constitution of Masoba

ISSUE 2: WHETHER MEDIA TRIAL DURING AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION

MAY LEAD TO IMPAIR THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE UNDER SECTION
2 (c)(iii) OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, 1971?

The counsel submits before the court that these media houses have a tremendous influence
over an average viewer and hold enough power to impair the administration of justice with
their media trials. They do their supposed investigation and announce their verdict on their
prime time show and pronounce a person guilty or not; even before the Hon’ble Court’s
verdict and thus send a wrong message to the general audience. This led to the demonstration
and scuffle outside the shooting location leaving the plaintiff, Ms. Patoor injured. Thus, this
amounts to criminal contempt as mentioned in Section 2 (c) (iii) of the Contempt of Court
Act, 1971.

ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE MEDIA REPORTING SHOULD BE REGULATED ON

THE PREMISE THAT THE SAME MAY PREJUDICE THE RIGHT TO A FAIR
TRIAL OF A SUSPECT OR ACCUSED UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF MASOBA?

It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that there needs to be regulations
bought under action for media coverage of cases under trial. Under Art. 21 is the right of the
accused or suspect to get a free trial. These need not be absolute restriction, just some

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PLAINTIFF-

 Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai
IV Novice Intra Moot Court Competition

reasonable regulations over the media coverage of the cases under trial so that the parties get
a fair trial.

Arguments Advanced

1. THAT THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE IN THE HON’BLE COURT

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that the present Writ petition is
maintainable because, it has requisite locus standi and interest in the present case and there is
violation of the fundamental right to constitutional remedies [1.1]. There is no alternative and
efficacious remedy in the present case [1.2]. Since the court is a “sentinel on the qui vive”
[1.3]. The writ petition is maintainable under Article 32 of the Constitution of Masoba1

1.1 THE PETITIONER HAS SUFFICIENT LOCUS STANDI AND SUFFICIENT INTEREST

It is humbly submitted that the Petitioner has the locus standi to file the writ petition before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of Masoba. Article 32 can be
revoked only when there is infringement of Fundamental Rights of the citizen. 2 It is humbly
submitted that the Fundamental Rights of the Petitioner to constitutional remedies have been
violated by the actions of the Attorney General by unreasonably not issuing the consent to the
petitioner.

1.2 NO ALTERNATE AND EFFICACIOUS REMEDY IS AVAILABLE TO THE PETITIONER

It is humbly submitted that, approaching the Supreme Court under Article 32 for the
protection of fundamental rights is itself a fundamental right.3 It is unnecessary to first
approach the High Court and exhaust the remedy under Article 226 before approaching the
Supreme Court.4 Hence, it was held before this Hon'ble court that mere existence of an
adequate alternative legal remedy cannot per se be a good and sufficient ground for
dismissing a petition under Article 32.5 By the reason of the above holdings, the present
petition stands maintainable in the absence of an alternate and efficacious remedy.

1
The Constitution of Masoba
2
Hindi Hitrakshak Samiti v. Union of India, (1990) 2 SCC 352: AIR 1990 SC 851
3
Mohini v. State of Karnataka, (1992) 3 SCC 666: AIR 1992 SC 1858.
4
Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124.
5
K.K. Kouchunni v. State of Madras, AIR 1959 SC 725.

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PLAINTIFF-

 Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai
IV Novice Intra Moot Court Competition

1.3 THE HON'BLE COURT IS A “SENTINEL ON THE QUI VIVE”

This Hon'ble Court has repeatedly assumed the role of the “sentinel on the qui vive” 6 to
enforce fundamental rights of the people. It is humbly submitted that in light of the prevailing
circumstances in which Ms. Patoor is deprived of her fundamental right to constitutional
remedies, the Court has the constitutional duty and obligation7 to entertain this petition.

2.THAT MEDIA TRIALS IMPAIRS THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE UNDER

CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, 1971

It is most humbly submitted before the court the media houses have a tremendous influence
over the audience and thus have an indirect control over the opinion of the audience. This
popular opinion of the general masses can impair the administration of justice. This may lead
to ‘denial of free trial’ [2.1]. Commenting on the pending cases or abuse of party may amount
to contempt only when a case is triable by a judge .8 In this instant case the matter was under
trial.9 These media trials jeopardize the natural course of justice by prejudicing a trial [2.2]
which amounts to criminal contempt under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971.

2.1 DENIAL OF FREE TRIAL

The concept of ‘denial of free trial’ can be summed up as. ‘Obstruction or interference with
the administration of justice in relation to a person facing trial. The release of prejudicial
information that affects the public and, as a result, the accused, amounts to a denial of a fair
trial. Judge's mind is influenced by a prejudicial publication. Suggestions to the court on how
the case should be handled’. In this instant case the release of several confidential and key
information was a direct attempt to prejudice a fair trial. The whole media trial was based on
mere speculations and without any hard evidence thus interfering with administration of
justice. This is contempt of court under section 2 (c) (iii) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971.

6
State of Madras v. V.G. Row, AIR 1952 SC 196.
7
Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 98.
8
Subhash Chandra v. S. M. Agarwal, 1984 Cri LJ 481(Del).
9
¶ 2, Moot Proposition

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PLAINTIFF-

 Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai
IV Novice Intra Moot Court Competition

2.2 MEDIA PREJUDICING A TRIAL

Across several cases, the Supreme Court has claimed that trials by press, electronic
media, or public agitation are instances that are at best the antithesis of the rule of
law because they can lead to a miscarriage of justice. In this instant case, there was
a constant interference of media, every aspect of her personal life and character
which have nothing to do legally with the investigation of the case were under
public lens of scrutiny via the media. In an increasingly competitive market for
capturing the attention of viewers and readers, media outlets often resort to factual
misrepresentation and sensationalism. The issue finds its worst expression when
the media widely discuss sub-judge matters by publishing directly detrimental facts
and views to the interests of the parties involved in the dispute before the courts.
The Supreme Court warned the publisher, editor, and journalist of a magazine in M.P. Lohia
v. State of West Bengal10 that they had "interfered with the administration of justice" by
reporting the details of a case that was still pending.

3. THAT THE MEDIA REPORTING SHOULD BE REGULATED

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that there should be regulations over the
media coverage over cases that are under trial. Art, 21 allowing a victim or accused to get fair
trial is a very crucial right for an individual. These regulation over media are justifiable as the
fate of the accused or victim depends upon the trial. Right to fair trial has not explicitly been
made a fundamental right. That does not mean that it is a less important right. More than a
legal right, it is basic principle of natural justice that everyone gets a fair trial and an
opportunity to defend oneself. So, its very important for these trials to be fair and unbiased
without external interference and prejudice. To achieve that if reasonable regulations are
bought under action over media reporting then these actions are justifiable.

3.1 200TH LAW COMMISSION

The Law Commission in its 200th report, Trial by Media: Free Speech versus Fair Trial
Under Criminal Procedure (Amendments to the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971)
10
M.P. Lohia v. State of West Bengal, AIR 2005 SC 790

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PLAINTIFF-

 Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai
IV Novice Intra Moot Court Competition

The commission has said, “Today there is feeling that in view of the extensive use of the
television and cable services, the whole pattern of publication of news has changed and
several such publications are likely to have a prejudicial impact on the suspects, accused,
witnesses and even judges and in general on the administration of justice“.11 According to the
commission, this is criminal contempt of court; however, if the Act's laws place fair limits on
freedom of expression, those restrictions will be legal.

11
Trial by Media: Free Speech versus Fair Trial Under Criminal Procedure

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PLAINTIFF-

 Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai
IV Novice Intra Moot Court Competition

PRAYER

Therefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
requested that this Hon’ble Supreme Court of Masoba be pleased to adjudge and declare:

1. That the Writ Petition is maintainable

2. That the media trial during an ongoing investigation did impair the administration of
justice under Section 2 (c)(iii) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971
3. That there should be reasonable regulations over the media trials and media coverage
on cases under trial

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
Respondent Shall Duty Bound Forever Pray.

Date: S/d 1…………………………

Place: Supreme Court, Masoba. (Counsel for Respondent)

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PLAINTIFF-