MOOT COURT CASE SUBMISSION – TY LLB (SEM-5TH), 2022-2023.

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

WRIT PETITION NO. ____________

IN THE MATTER OF
__________________________________________________

MR. INDRISH SANTOEA ……. PETITIONER

V/S

MR. RANCHIT MILAN….. RESPONDENT

________________________________________________________

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPENDED.

SUBMITTED BY – SHAIKH EBAAD HAJI
SUBMITTED TO: PROF. ZAMAN FATIMA RIZWI.
ROLL NO-42
DIV –B
ACADMIC YEAR – 2022-2023

1
Table of Contents

CONTENTS PAGE NO.

LIST OF ABBRIVIATIONS USED 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 5
STATEMENT OF FACT 6-7
STATEMENT OF ISSUE 8
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 9-10
ARGUMENT ADVANCED 11-12
PRAYER 13

2
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And

AIR All India Reporter

Art Article

Hon'ble Honourable

SC Supreme court

HC High court

V Versus

U/S Under section

SCC Supreme court cases

3
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

TABLE OF CASES
SR . NO NAME AND CITATION OF THE CASE PAGE
NO

1 Kedar Nath Singh v/s State of Bihar

2 Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra And

Anr, A.l.R, 1 1966 SCR(3) 744

BOOKS, REPORTS, COMMENTARIES REFERRED

SR NO NAME OF THE BOOKS, REPORTS, COMMENTARIES

1 All India Reporter.

2. Supreme court cases.

3. Constitution of india.

4
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner has involved the Jurisdiction of this court under Article 32 of constitution of
Dalmenshia claiming there in that the inherent practise and procedure of High Court to stop
publications of proceedings of the trials violates his fundamental rights under Article 19(1) a ,
which there for is Amendable to article 32.

This honourable court being not only in supreme court in hierarchy to the HC that is high
court of Dustix, is also the court which is vested with the inherent power to examine if the
fundamental rights of the petitioner is being violated.

This Court therefore, has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the present matter to it.

5
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1.The Republic of Dalmaneshiya is a developed nation with federal structure and achieved
independence from the State of Dorsana on 5th August, 1910. It has a population of 0.5
billion people. The state has strong military Power.

2. One of the most popular periodicals in the Republic of Dalmaneshiya is a magazine by the
name of San-Indrish. The magazine is run by its editor-in-chief Mr. Indrish Santoea. The
magazine has been running successfully since 2010.

3.San-Indrish, in its latest issue, ran an article with regard to a political scandal of corruption
and bribery on the part of a high-ranking member of government. This piece was widely read
and commented upon, and as a consequence of this article, a parliamentary enquiry was
commissioned. A commission of enquiry had also been set up. The article was based on Mr.
Rancit Milan who currently holds a high ministerial post in the Federal Government of
Dalmaneshiya .

4.Mr. Rancit Milan has filed a defamation suit against the magazine San-Indrish and its editor
Mr. Indrish Santoea so as to restrict the damage caused to his reputation by the virtue of the
article published in the magazine. This suit has been filed in the HC of Dustix which is a state
in the Republic of Dalmaneshiya. The Suit remains pending and is currently being tried in the
HC of Dustix.

5.In order to defend the case against San-Indrish, Mr. Indrish Santoea, the editor of the said
magazine, has come forward to give evidence in support of the magazine. Mr. Indrish
Santoea claims privilege, and has defended the article published in his magazine as one being
supported by the defence of truth. Furthermore, journalistic privilege has also been claimed
by Mr. Indrish Santoea with regard to the article published.

6.The general public has shown a great deal of curiosity in this case. Tapping into this
curiosity, members of the media flock the courtroom where the defamation trial is being
conducted and report, almost in real time and verbatim, the goings on in court.

7.The lawyers on behalf of Mr. Rancit Milan have sought to make the defamation
proceedings before the HC of Dustix, 'in camera' due to the widespread coverage by the press
of the defamation case.

8.According to the lawyers for Mr. Rancit Milan, the publication of the proceedings of the
trial and the reporting of the evidence given in the matter would have the effect of greatly
prejudicing Mr. Rancit Milan in his political career, and would also smear his 'reputation'.

9.It is pertinent to mention here that the proceedings going on in the defamation suit are also
being reported in SanIndrish magazine, the defendant in the suit.

6
10.After a hearing on the issue, the HC of Dustix was pleased to allow the application made
on behalf of Mr. Rancit Milan, and HC decided that the proceedings in the defamation suit
would be carried out 'in camera'.

11.This order of the HC is challenged in several petition 3/5 Article 32 of the Constitution of
Dalmaneshiya by Various journalists including Mr. Indrish Santoea. It is claimed that the
order of the HC violates Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of Dalmaneshiya, which
guarantees free speech to the citizens of Dalmaneshiya. According to the petitioners before
the Supreme Court, legal custom in the Republic of Dalmaneshiya was quite clear in that
'open justice' is a fundamental tenet of Dalmaneshiyan legal system and any order which
suppressed the principle of open justice would be liable to be quashed and set aside. These
petitions before the Supreme Court are pending.

12.While the HC of Dustix was hearing the application for an in-camera hearing made by the
advocates for Mr. Rancit Milan, Mr. Indrish Santoea was also faced with another legal
problem. During the course of the defamation suit, Mr. Indrish Santoea actively used the
social media app 'Activeline', to provide real time updates on the internet with regard to the
proceedings in the defamation matter.

13.However, certain members belonging to Mr. Rancit Milan's party made a complaint to the
management of 'Activeline' seeking a suspension of Mr. Indrish Santoea's account on
'Activeline', for violating community guidelines'. Therefore, in addition to challenging the
order whereby proceedings in the defamation matter were to be held in camera, Mr. Indrish
Santoea has, in the same petition before the Supreme Court of Dalmaneshiya, also challenged
the decision made by Activeline' whereby his account was permanently suspended without
giving any reasons.

7
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE NO.I

Whether the principle of 'open justice' i.e. open access to court rooms and hearings is an
absolute principle or is it subject to exceptions?

ISSUE NO.II

Whether the order passed by the HC of Dustix violates the right of free speech
guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of Dalmaneshiya to Mr. Indrish
Santoea and other journalists?

ISSUE NO. III

Whether the actions of the social media platform 'Activeline' violate the fundamental
right to free speech guaranteed to Mr. Indrish Santoea under Article 19 (1) (a).

8
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE NO.I

Whether the principle of 'open justice' i.e. open access to court rooms and hearings is an
absolute principle or is it subject to exceptions?

It is contended that open justice is not an absolute principle and has certain exceptions.
certain cases which are sensitive in nature such as those involvingmatters of national security,
public security, privacy, cases of rape, matrimonialdispute such as impotency judicial
separation, etc which are laid down in section 327 of criminal procedure code, 1973 can be
subjected to the in-camera proceeding. In the case of Mr.Rancit Milan, exposure of
information to the public could have led to riot (as he's a respected politician) and would
result in public damage.

a) It was held in Ujam Bai v. State of U.P. that, The power to prohibit publication of
proceedings is essentially the same as the power to hold a trial in camera and the law
empowering a trial in camera is a valid law and does not violate the fundamental right in
regard to liberty of speech."

Further, it was held that,Cases may occur where the requirement of the administration of
justice itself may make it necessary for the court to hold a trial in camera. While emphasizing
the importance of public trial, we cannot overlook the fact that the primary function of the
Judiciary is to do justice between the parties who bring their causes before it.

b) Cases may occur where the requirement of the administration of justice itself may make it
necessary for the court to hold a trial in camera. While emphasising the importance of public
trial, we cannot overlook the fact that the primary function of the Judiciary is to do justice
between the parties who bring their causes before it. There can be no doubt that an open trial
held in public is the general rule and seems to be the very concomitant of a fair and
reasonable trial, yet the public can be excluded from the hearings of the trial and the
proceedings can be held in camera only under very exceptional

Circumstances.section 327 of criminal procedure code, 1973

ISSUE NO.II

Whether the order passed by the HC of Dustix violates the right of free speech
guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of Dalmaneshiya to Mr. Indrish
Santoea and other journalists?

Freedom of press is not provided article 19(1)(a), but its need to be comprehended from the
said article. The HC has inherent jurisdiction to hold a trial in camera only if the end of
justice is clearly and reasonable require adoption of such course of action.

9
Power of court under sec 151 of cpc 1908, save the inherent power of HC, to make such order
as may be necessary, to prevent the abuse of the process of the court and the need to meet the
end of justice.

Such power includes the power to hold the part of the trail in camera, to prohibit excessive
publication of a particular part of proceeding in such a trial. Such inherent power of the court
dose not empowered it to prohibit the entire trial proceedings.

ISSUE NO. III

Whether the actions of the social media platform 'Activeline' violate the fundamental
right to free speech guaranteed to Mr. Indrish Santoea under Article 19 (1) (a).

The present argument is based on the question whether active line and other social media
platform are amenable to writ jurisdiction as they perform a public function. The petitioner
begs permission to establish that the social media platform ‘Active Line is amenable to the
jurisdiction of writ court.

10
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

a) It is humbly submitted that the order passed by HC of Dustix cannot be violative of the
fundamental rights guaranteed in part III of the constitution of Dalmaneshia. There shall be
an in-camera hearing, as Mr. Rancit Milan is a respected politician who is currently holding a
high ministerial post in the federal government of Dalmaneshiya, as it's common to hear
many rumors about politicians, political decisions or opinion, this might have created some
negative opinions in the minds of the citizen of Dalmaneshiya. It would create
misunderstanding leading to an unwanted confusion thereby leading to the error in the
decision and wasting the time of the court.

b) The comment cannot be fair when it is based upon untrue facts. A comment based upon
invented and untrue facts is not fair. Thus, in the review of a play when immorality is
imputed by suggesting that it contained an incident of adultery, when in fact there was no
such incident in the play, the plea of fair comment cannot be taken. Similarly, if in a
newspaper, there is a publication of a statement of facts making serious allegations of
dishonesty and corruption against the plaintiff, and the defendant is unable to prove the truth
of such facts, the plea of fair comment, which is based upon those untrue facts, will also fail.
As the petitioner had no valid proof that the publications against the respondent were based
on true facts, the defence of truth held by the petitioner would not be applicable and thus, the
petitioner can be said to have defamed the respondent.

11
c) While making reporting, the journalists are expected to be careful and cautious In case of
grievance ventilated by individuals on ground that certain defamatory statements are made by
publication in the newspapers, reputation of the concemed aggrieved parties on one hand and
freedom of press on the other have to be equally balanced. Defamation is a crime and there is
a punishment of imprisonment of 2 year and penalty to pay for the losses of the respondent."

d) In Salena Dandasi v Gajjala Malla Reddy, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, awarding
compensation by way of damages to a tune of Rs 10.000. The plaintiff said that the
journalists were expected to be careful and cautious while proceeding to make publications.
Recording a statement of facts reflected by record the Court said, was something different
from making publication giving exaggerated versions with several deviations and
improvements Such reporting, the Court said, would virtually reduce trur episode to its
lowest bottom, for the reason that at that stage public might not be able to draw any
distinction between that portion which might be true and that portion which might be untrue
Reporting of distorted and deviated versions with comments, without proper verification of
facts, might not fall within the umbrella of protective journalism, the Court ruled Such
defamatory statements made in publication, the Court said, could not be warded off under the
guise of freedom of press.

e) In the case of Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr, it was
held that oepn justice is the right of the petitioner, but it was subject to certail restrictions
under which the case proceedings could be held in camera'. One of the exceptions to this was
defamation. Since the petitioner published defamatory statements against the respondent, the
reputation of the respondent was compromised. Thus, the proceedings could be held in
camera. The order is based on a good and valid law. The power to prohibit publication of
proceedings is essentially the same as the power to hold a trial in camera and the law
empowering a trial in camera is a valid law and does not violate the fundamental right in
regard to liberty of speech because, the person restrained is legally prevented from entering
the Court and hearing the proceedings, and the liberty of speech is affected only indirectly.

f) Freedom of speech and expression does not permit defamation and I think it would be a
little far-fetched to say that an advertiser has the liberty to disparage the product of its
competitor without any check, under the garb of freedom of speech."

Hence, it would unfair to Mr. Rancit Milan if such statements are delivered to the public as
the public may not be able to draw any distinction between that portion that is true and that
portion that is untrue.

12
 PRAYER

It is prayed, in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, and authorities cited, that
this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare that :

1] Statements against Mr. Ranchit Milan are defamatory.

2] The "Judicial Order" issued by the High Court of Dustix is valid and does not violate the
petitioner's freedom to speech.

3] The suspension of the petitioner's account is on valid grounds and is not in violation to
freedom of speech and expression.

AND/OR

Pass any other as the court may deem fit in the interest of Justice

Equality and good conscience.

And for this act of kindness the respondents shall as duty bound ever humbly pray.

__________________________
SD/-
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPENDENT.

13