THE 4TH GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2023

TC-–18
TC 18

THE SUPREME COURT OF HELIOPOLIS

WRIT PETITION NO 47 of 2023

(Art. 32 of the Constitution of India read with Order XXXVIII, Rule 7, of the Supreme
Court Rules, 2013)

Special Leave Petition No. 3478 of 2023

(Art. 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950 read with Order XXI, Rule 1, of the
Supreme Court Rules, 2013)

IN THE MATTER OF:

Athena Inc. … Petitioner

v.

Television Watchdog … Respondent

Written Submissions on behalf of the Petitioners

Counsel for the Petitione

2|Page
 THE 4TH GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................ I

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................. I

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................................II

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ................................................................................... IV

STATEMENT OF FACTS ..................................................................................................... V

STATEMENT OF ISSUES .................................................................................................. VI

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ......................................................................................... VII

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED.................................................................................................. 1

1. THAT REGULATION 9 OF THE TELEVISION BROADCASTING

REGULATIONS, 2008 ISSUED BY THE TELEVISION WATCHDOG IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. .................................................................................................... 1

1.1. THE REGULATION 9 VIOLATES FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION

PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 19(1)(A) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF HELIOPOLIS. ................. 1

1.2. REGULATION 9 DOES NOT COME WITHIN AMBIT OF REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS

AS ENSHRINED UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(A) IN 19(2). ............................................................ 6

1.3. REGULATION 9 VIOLATES FREEDOM OF TRADE AND BUSINESS UNDER ARTICLE

19(1) (G) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF HELIOPOLIS. ............................................................. 8

1.4. REGULATION 9 VIOLATES ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF HELIOPOLIS,

WHICH PROVIDES EQUALITY. ............................................................................................. 9

1.4.1 Regulation 9 provides for common benchmark of ten minutes per hour
without consideration for kind of channel .................................................................. 9

1.4.2. Regulation 9 provides for common benchmark of ten minutes per hour
without consideration for time of day ....................................................................... 10

2. WHETHER THE JUDGMENT OF HIGH COURT OF MEMPHIS HOLDING

REGULATION 9 AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL IS CONFINED TO THE
TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF STATE OF MEMPHIS? OR, SINCE REGULATION 9

I
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER(S)
 THE 4TH GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2023

IS A FEDERAL SUBJECT, CAN THE JUDGMENT BE APPLIED THROUGHOUT

THE COUNTRY OF HELIOPOLIS?.............................................................................. 11

2.1 THAT THE JUDGMENT OF HIGH COURT OF MEMPHIS HOLDING REGULATION 9 AS

UNCONSTITUTIONAL IS NOT CONFINED TO THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF THE STATE OF

MEMPHIS. .......................................................................................................................... 11

2.1.1 Whether the Telecom Regulatory Body can define the jurisdiction of a High
Court. ........................................................................................................................... 11

2.2 WHETHER THE JUDGEMENT PASSED BY A HIGH COURT IN A WRIT PETITON

QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY OF A CENTRAL ACT IS APPLICABLE THROUGHOUT THE

TERRITORY OF THE COUNTRY.......................................................................................... 12

3. TELECOM WATCHDOG DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO REGULATE

DURATION OF ADVERTISEMENTS IN PUBLIC INTEREST ................................ 14

3.1 REGULATION 9 VIOLATES ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF HELIOPOLIS,

WHICH PROVIDES FOR EQUALITY .................................................................................... 16

3.1.1. Regulation 9 provides for common benchmark of ten minutes per hour
without consideration for kind of channel ................................................................ 17

3.1.2 Regulation 9 provides for common benchmark of ten minutes per hour
without consideration for time of day ....................................................................... 17

PRAYER ............................................................................................................................... XII

II
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER(S)
THE 4TH GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2023

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviation Full Form

&; And

Art. Article

Anr. Another

Art. Article

Ors. Others

¶/¶¶ Paragraph

S. Section

SLP Special Leave Petition

v. Versus

I
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER(S)
 THE 4TH GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2023

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Statutes

Constitution of Heliopolis, Art. 19 ............................................................................................ 4

Constitution of Heliopolis, Art. 19(6) ........................................................................................ 4
Constitution of Heliopolis, Art. 32 ..........................................................................................IV
Constitution of Heliopolis, Art.19(1)(a), 14 .............................................................................. 5
Constitution of Heliopolis, Art.19(2) ......................................................................................... 5
S. 11(1)(b)(v) of the TRAI Act .................................................................................................. 8
The Television Broadcasting Regulations Act, 2006 ................................................................ 1
Constitution of India, 1950
The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995
The Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994
Standards of quality of service (Duration of advertisement in television channels) Regulations,
2012
The Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India Act, 2008

Books

M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, (8TH EDN. 2010) VOL I & II
DURGA DAS BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, (8TH EDN. 2012)
H.M. SEERVAI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, (4TH EDN.)
BRYAN A. GARNER, BLACK LAW DICTIONARY, (8TH EDN. 2004)
DURGA DAS BASU, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, (8TH EDN. 2011)
M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTION LAW, (6TH EDN. 2013)
V.N. SHUKLA, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, (13TH EDN. 2016)

Cases

Amritsar V. Hazara Singh, (1975) 1 SCC 794......................................................................... 13

Benett Coleman and Company vs Union of India AIR 1973 SC 105 ....................................... 4
Cellular Operators Association of India v TRAI., AIR 2016 SC 2336 ................................... 15
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Godavari Devi, [1978] 113 ITR 589 (Bom) ....................... 12
Express Newspaper (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, 1959 SCR 12 .................................................. 4
Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. v. Shashi Prabha Shukla, (2018) 12 SCC 85, para 33 ........................ 10
II
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER(S)
 THE 4TH GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2023

Kusum Ingots v. Union of India, (2004) 6 SCC 254 ............................................................... 13

Ministry of information and broadcasting, Government of India v. Cricket association Bengal.,
(1995) 2 SCC 161................................................................................................................... 3
Modern Dental College and Research Centre and Ors v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.,
(2016) 7 SCC 353, para 60 .................................................................................................... 7
Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. V/s Commissioner of Income Tax, (2019)
SCC ...................................................................................................................................... 14
Prithi Pal Singh Bedi v. Union of India, (1982) 3 SCC 140 .................................................... 14
Regina v. North and East Devon Health Authority, Ex parte Coughlan, [2001] QB 213 ....... 16
Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 305 .................................................. 5, 6
State of Kerala V. Vasudevan Nair,1975 Cri LJ 97................................................................. 13
State of Madras v V G Row., AIR 1952 SC 196, para 23....................................................... 15
State of Madras v. V.G Row., AIR 1952 SC 196 ...................................................................... 8
Tata Press Ltd. v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., (1995) 5 SCC 139 ................................ 2
Textile Technical Tradesmen Association v. Union of India, 2010 SCC OnLine Mad 6515 . 13

Other Authorities

TRAI’s Quantitative Advertisement Regulation: Ensuring a Quality Viewing Experience or

Regulatory Overreach? – NUJS Law Review
Schrödinger's Constitutional Cat: Limits of the High Court's Declaration of Unconstitutionality
on JSTOR
Divided Laws in a Unified Nation: Territorial Application of High Court Decisions Abhyudaya
& Prithwijit (ssrn.com)

III
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER(S)
 THE 4TH GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2023

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner humbly submits to the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Heliopolis
in pursuance of Article 32 of the Constitution of Heliopolis read with Order XXXVIII, Rule 7,
of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 on account of violation of Fundamental Rights of the
petitioner and to Challenge the validity of Directive No. 1 of 2023 issued by the Television
Watchdog

Art. 32 of the Constitution of Heliopolis reads as:

“32. Right to Constitutional Remedies—

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of
the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.

(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs
in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari,
whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this
Part.

(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2),
Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its
jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).

(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided
for by this Constitution.”1

The present memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments in the instant case.

1
Constitution of Heliopolis, Art. 32
IV
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER(S)
 THE 4TH GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2023

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Athena Inc. (hereinafter “Petitioner”) is a news broadcasting company which began its
broadcasting operation in 2003, having its registered office in New Memphis, the
capital of Memphis.

2. Petitioner offers cheap subscription (free in villages) to its viewers and earns 90%
revenue from the advertisements broadcasted during the news break.

3. Television Watchdog (hereinafter “Respondent”) is a regulator formed under the

Television Broadcasting Regulations Act, 2006 (hereinafter “Act”), published
Television Broadcasting Regulations, 2008 (hereinafter “Regulations”).

4. Aggrieved by regulation 9 of regulations (hereinafter “The Regulation”), Petitioner

filed a writ petition in High Court of Memphis to declare The Regulation which
mentions “restrictions on duration of advertisements” as unconstitutional.

5. A similar petition is pending before the High Court of Thinis, when High Court of
Memphis ruled in Favour of Petitioner and declared The Regulation as unconstitutional
(The Judgment).
6. Respondent issued Directive No. 1 of 2023 (hereinafter “directions”) to strictly adhere
to The Regulation in jurisdictions other than state of Memphis citing the reason that the
Judgment does not apply to other jurisdictions.

7. Petitioner has filed a writ petition before Supreme Court of Heliopolis challenging the
validity of directions and Respondent has filed a Special Leave Petition against The
Judgment before the same. Supreme Court has clubbed the cases and is up for final
hearing.

V
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER(S)
 THE 4TH GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2023

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether Regulation 9 of the Television Broadcasting Regulations, 2008 is violative

of the provisions of the Constitution and is thus, unconstitutional?

2. Is the judgment of the High Court of Memphis holding Regulation 9 as

unconstitutional confined to the territorial limits of the State of Memphis? Or,
since Regulation 9 is a federal subject, can the judgment be applied throughout
the country of Heliopolis?

3. Whether Telecom Watchdog has the power to regulate duration of advertisements

in public interest?

VI
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER(S)
 THE 4TH GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2023

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. REGULATION 9 VIOLATES FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION

PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 19(1)(a) AND FREEDOM OF TRADE AND
COMMERCE UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(g) FREEDOM TO PRACTICE AND
PROFESSION OR CARRY OUT ANY OCCUPATION TRADE OR BUSINESS OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF HELIOPOLIS.

Freedom of speech and expression has been guaranteed under article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution of Heliopolis. Regulation 9 hits at the heart of freedom of speech and expression.
It arbitrarily decides the duration of time for which advertisement can be shown. It is arbitrary
and lacks any basis in law. Freedom of speech and expression is a guaranteed part of the
fundamental rights that are enshrined in the Constitution of Heliopolis, it is already established
that article 19(1)(a) is a paramount fundamental right that has been granted to the citizens of
this country. It allows for the propagation of ideas and expression. It also allows for a proper
political discourse to take place through exchange of ideas and information which is the part
of a healthy democratic society by suspending the amount of time that advertisement can be
shown regulation 9 clearly aim aims at reducing the revenue that the petitioner can earn
petitioner provides free and reliable news in rural areas. By limiting the number of
advertisements that can be shown. The regulatory body has indirectly and because of the
regulation also significantly reduced the amount of revenue that a media house can earn. It is
essential for the sustenance of the petitioner to earn revenue.

2. JUDGMENT OF HIGH COURT OF MEMPHIS HOLDING REGULATION 9 AS

UNCONSTITUTIONAL IS NOT CONFINED TO THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF
THE STATE OF MEMPHIS

The Judgement of High Court of Memphis which held Regulation 9 as unconstitutional is not
confined to the territorial limits of state of Memphis. The High Court is a constitutional body
that drives its power directly from the Constitution of India. On the other hand, the telecom
watchdog is a statutory body that is a creation of an act of Parliament. It is an established
constitutional principle that Constitution of Heliopolis is supreme. It is a basic argument of
jurisprudence that a statutory body cannot impose restrictions on the jurisdiction of a High
Court. It can only be decided by the Supreme Court and the High Court itself as they are the
sole interpreter of the constitution. If any judgement of the High Court and act enacted by the
VII
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER(S)
 THE 4TH GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2023

Parliament is declared unconstitutional and stays inoperative throughout the country it has been
held by the Supreme Court that if a validity of a Central act is challenged in the High Court by
issuing which can invalidate the law in question and clear it as unconstitutional. Such law shall
remain invalid across the territory of the country. The cause of action in the present case is not
restricted only to the state of Memphis, but it arises in all states. Thus, the decision of the High
Court of Memphis cannot be restricted to only one state, rather it applies to the whole of
Heliopolis.

3. WHETHER TELECOM WATCHDOG HAS THE POWER TO REGULATE

DURATION OF ADVERTISEMENT IN PUBLIC INTEREST?

The telecom watchdog does not have the power to regulate the duration of advertisement in
public interest. The decision to regulate the duration of advertisement in public interest is
dependent upon the principle of proportionality. The telecom watchdog has not followed the
principle of proportionality as it is devoid of transparency. It is unconstitutional as it violates
Article 14 of the Constitution of Heliopolis. Transparency, reasonableness and credible nexus
must be proven between the restriction imposed and the effect it has. There has been no
consultation with the stakeholders before imposition of regulations and restrictions. No
reasoning whatsoever has been provided before imposing the said regulation and restriction. It
is also to be noted that reasonable restrictions that have been imposed here have an extremely
severe effect on the petitioner. It has the potential to threaten its economic survival and its
ability to provide free and fair news, which is the crux and purpose of the petitioner's existence
and operation. There has been no transparency, lack of reasoning in adequate public
consultation and a consultation with stakeholders before in enacting such regulation. Hence,
Regulation 9 should be declared as violative of the provisions of the constitution of Heliopolis.

VIII
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER(S)
 THE 4TH GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2023

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. REGULATION 9 OF THE TELEVISION BROADCASTING REGULATIONS, 2008

ISSUED BY THE TELEVISION WATCHDOG IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

1.1. Regulation 9 VIOLATES FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION PROVIDED FOR IN

ARTICLE 19(1)(A) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF HELIOPOLIS.

The counsel for the petitioner humbly submits that television Watchdog is empowered to make
regulations under the television broadcasting regulations Act, 2006. 2 The statute under section
19(1) of the Television Broadcasting Regulations Act, enables the television watchdog to carry
out provisions of the act. The Regulation 9 puts restrictions on the duration of advertisements,
which reads as "no program shall carry advertisements exceeding 10 minutes per hour, which
may include up to 8 minutes per hour of commercial advertisement, and up to 2 minutes per
hour of a channel’s self-promotional programs". According to this regulation, no program at
all is allowed to carry advertisements exceeding 10 minutes per hour. Regulation 9 Was bought
by the television watchdog in order to ensure the quality of viewing experience of the
consumers as multiple representations were made by the public to the television watchdog with
regards to the increase in advertisement during the content feeds. So, it can be said that this
regulation is bought into force by the television watchdog in public interest. However, the
restrictions provided under article 19(2) of the constitution of Heliopolis does not include
public interest as a ground for reasonable restriction.

Athena Inc. is a news broadcasting company that is primarily focused on providing free,
independent, and reliable news across the country. Around 90% of the revenue which the
petitioner generates is through advertisements broadcast during the news breaks. The petitioner
provides free news in rural areas where most of its viewers reside.

The petitioner humbly submits that Regulation 9 is detrimental to the interests of broadcasting
companies and serves as a hurdle in the survival of Broadcasters as their revenue suffers due
to drop in the advertisements as suggested by the said regulation. It directly affects the revenue
of the petitioner which in turn affects the ability of the petitioner to provide free, fair, and
reliable news across the country. Advertising is cornerstone of our economic system. Low

2
The Television Broadcasting Regulations Act, 2006
1
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER(S)
 THE 4TH GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2023

prices for customers depend upon the volume of advertisement which is proportional to the
duration of advertisement for a news channel. The reference for this argument can be derived
from the following para in the Tata Press vs MTNL: -

“Advertising is considered to be the cornerstone of our economic system. Low prices for
consumers are dependent upon mass production, mass production is dependent upon volume
sales, and volume sales are dependent upon advertising.”3

In Tata Press Ltd. v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.,4 , the Supreme Court invoked three
reasons for protecting commercial speech. Advertisements, it held, were an important source
of revenue for newspapers. And a free and independent media (reliant upon the revenue that
would keep it independent), in turn, was the lifeblood of democracy). 5 Second, advertisements
were necessary for ensuring low prices in a market economy 6. And third Advertisements
ensured a free flow of information, which would enable consumers to make an informed choice
about products7.

The counsel humbly submits that in the present case, the petitioner has a reputation for being
one of the most independent and reliable news broadcasters in the country. Regulation 9
infringes upon the revenue stream of the petitioner; it would become impossible for the
petitioner to sustain itself and provide its services to the people of this country for free.
Regulation 9 restricts the free flow of information by bringing restriction upon the petitioner
and severely limiting its functioning. Advertisements, whether it be in any medium, ensure a
free flow of information by providing customers with the info of the products advertised,
Broadcasters showing advertisements between their content feeds ensures such information
reaches the consumer which in turn enables consumers to make an informed choice about
products

It can be inferred that such a regulation will have a detrimental effect on the freedom of speech
and expression that is being guaranteed under Article 19. Limiting the duration of
advertisements will have a domino effect on the revenue that is necessary for the survival and

3
Tata Press Ltd. v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., (1995) 5 SCC 139
4
ibid
5
ibid, Para 19
6
ibid para 22
7
ibid, para23
2
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER(S)
 THE 4TH GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2023

functioning of petitioner. The result of regulation 9 would compel the broadcasting companies
like Athena inc. to charge subscription fees in rural areas where it was broadcasting for free.

Freedom of speech goes to the heart of the natural rights of an organized, democratic and
freedom-loving society to impart and acquire information about common interests. As the
petitioner has the right to inform the people of this country, the people also enjoy a right to stay
informed. This regulation affects not only the rights of petitioner but also impairs and infringes
upon a citizen's right to stay informed.

The right to participate in the affairs of the country is meaningless unless the citizens are well
informed on all sides of the issues, in respect of which they are called upon to express their
views. One-sided information, disinformation, misinformation, and non-information all equally
create an uninformed citizenry which makes democracy a farce when medium of information
is monopolized either by a partisan central authority or by private individuals or oligarchic
organisations. This is particularly so in a country like ours where about 65 per cent of the
population is illiterate and hardly 1-1/2 per cent of the population has access to the print media
which is not subject to pre censorship. When, therefore, the electronic media is controlled by
one central agency or a few private agencies of the rich, there is a need to have a central
agency, as stated earlier, representing all sections of society. Hence having a representative
central agency to ensure the viewers' right to be informed adequately and truthfully is a part
of the right of the viewers under Article 19 (1) (a). 8

The right to freedom of speech and expression also includes the right to educate, to inform and
to entertain and the right to be educated, informed, and entertained. The former is the right of
the telecaster and the latter that of the viewers. 9

This petitioner has earned a reputation of being one of the most independent and reliable news
broadcasters of the country10. Thus, this regulation has the potential to become a tool to crush
dissent by infringing upon freedom of speech and expression. This regulation is inconsistent
with the provisions of the constitution. It is also imperative to point out that in a democracy the
power of states and their ability to impose restrictions is limited. These limits are defined and

8
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India v. Cricket Association Bengal., (1995) 2 SCC
161
9
ibid, para 78
10
Fact on record, para 5
3
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER(S)
 THE 4TH GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2023

must follow the rule of reason, logic, and proportionality. This regulation is neither reasonable
nor proportionate to the logic stated by the respondent.

The Supreme Court in Express Newspaper (P) Ltd. v. Union of India11 held that when
Freedom of speech, expression and freedom of trade, business are intertwined the state cannot
restrict this latter freedom “by directly and immediately curtailing” the freedom of speech,
since there is no hierarchy of the freedoms under Article 19. 12 The impugned law in this case
was enacted according to state in public interest a ground provided for in 19(6) therefore it was
a valid restriction, but the court ruled otherwise and it was held that the impugned law directly
violated the newspaper’s freedom of speech by placing a restraint on its right to publish any
number of pages it wishes.13 The counsel for petitioner humbly submits that in the present case,
there exists a nexus between advertisement and generation of revenue. Athena Inc has
advertisement as its major source of revenue which will be curtailed if regulation 9 is
implemented. Thus, advertisement, which falls under the ambit of freedom of speech and
expression and broadcasting of news which falls under the ambit of freedom to practice any
profession or to carry out any occupation trade or business are intertwined. Even though article
19(6) lays down that the state can impose restriction in the interest of public, but in the present
case, due to the intertwining of fundamental rights of freedom of speech and freedom to carry
out trade, profession and occupation, the state, in the present case cannot curtail the rights of
this petitioner.

In the case of Benett Coleman and Company v Union of India14 Direct effect test was
propounded. The test in determining the question whether legislation or executive action
infringes fundamental rights is to examine its effects and not its object or subject matter. It
was contended on behalf of the government that the subject matter of newsprint policy was to
regulate and control newsprint and not to control newspapers. The subject matter of the import
policy was rationing and equitable distribution of newsprint. The Supreme Court rejected this
contention and approved the effect test with if the direct effect of the lowest to embrace the
fundamental right. Its object or subject matter will be irrelevant. The direct effect in the present

11
Express Newspaper (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, 1959 SCR 12
12
Constitution of Heliopolis, Art. 19
13
Constitution of Heliopolis, Art. 19(6)
14
Benett Coleman and Company vs Union of India AIR 1973 SC 105
4
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER(S)
 THE 4TH GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2023

case was newspaper control as restrictions placed on their growth in circulation. The
government sought to reduce the number of pages by issuing a Newsprint Control Order which
fixed the maximum number of pages (10 pages) which a newspaper could publish was
challenged as violative of fundamental rights guaranteed in Article 19 (1)(a) and Article 14 of
the Constitution.15 The Government defended the measure on the grounds that it would help
small newspapers to grow and to prevent a monopolistic combination of big newspapers. The
Government also sought to justify the reduction in the page level on the ground that the big
dailies devoted high percentage of space to advertisements and, therefore, the cut in pages
would not be felt by them if they adjusted their advertisement space. The Court held-The
newsprint policy is not reasonable restriction within the ambit of Article 19(2). The newsprint
policy abridges petitioner's right of the freedom of speech and expression.16

In the present case, regulation 9 has a direct effect on the freedom of speech and expression of
the petitioner; it will also reduce the revenue of the petitioner which will force it to close shop.
Hence, Regulation 9 fails the direct effect test and should be held unconstitutional. As the
petitioner supplies the news to the majority of its viewers free, viewers who reside in rural area.
Regulaiton 9 would make it impossible for the petitioner to sustain the capital flow required to
continue its operation and hence it would be forced to close its operation. It can also be
concluded that regulation 9 has a direct effect on the survival of portioner, it infringes upon the
freedom of speech and expression and hence should be held unconstitutional.

The question as regards to freedom of Press again came before the court for consideration in
Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India17 the Daily Newspapers (Price and Control) Order,
1960, which fixed a minimum price and the number of pages which could be published by a
newspaper was challenged. The State justified the law as a reasonable restriction on a business
activity of a newspaper in the interests of the general public. It was held by the court that the right of
freedom of speech and expression cannot be taken away with the object of placing restrictions on the
business activity of a citizen. Freedom of speech can only be restricted on the grounds mentioned in
clause (2) of Article 19. It cannot, like the freedom to carry on business, be curtailed in the interests of
the general public. An important aspect of this case was that Court assumed that every

15
Constitution of Heliopolis, Art.19(1)(a), 14
16
Constitution of Heliopolis, Art.19(2)
17
Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 305
5
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER(S)
 THE 4TH GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2023

newspaper develops a business plan for carrying out its activities for a period of time This plan
is influenced by factors such as place of publication, Number of pages, labor conditions, price
18
of raw material and the availability/expected revenue from of advertisements. This case is
very similar to the case at hand as here also there were no prior regulations and to sustain their
business the broadcasters must have made plans as to the type of content, duration of
advertisements etc. but the said regulations deter those plans. Also, Regulation 9 is also bought
in order to serve the interest of general contrary to the restrictions that are provided for in 19(2)
for restricting freedom of press hence it is humbly submitted before the court that regulation 9
is unconstitutional.

1.2. REGULATION 9 DOES NOT COME WITHIN THE AMBIT OF REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS
AS ENSHRINED UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(A) IN 19(2).

Freedom of Speech and expression can be limited only based on a rock-solid reason backed by
public interest. However, the directive issued by the telecom watchdog is neither reasonable
nor proportionate. If such regulation stands then it would be the subversion of the fundamental
right that has been guaranteed to us. Under the garb of regulation, the watchdog’s decision is
not proportionate. It fails the test of proportionality as enshrined under-

Another significant feature which can be noticed from the reading of the aforesaid clause is
that the State is empowered to make any law relating to the professional or technical
qualifications necessary for practicing any profession or carrying on any occupation or trade
or business. Thus, while examining as to whether the impugned provisions of the statute and
rules amount to reasonable restrictions and are brought out in the interest of the general
public, the exercise that is required to be undertaken is the balancing of fundamental right to
carry on occupation on the one hand and the restrictions imposed on the other hand. This is
what is known as the "doctrine of proportionality".

Jurisprudentially, "proportionality" can be defined as the set of rules determining the

necessary and sufficient conditions for limitation of a constitutionally protected right by a law
to be constitutionally permissible.

18
ibid, ¶25
6
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER(S)
 THE 4TH GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2023

According to Aharon Barak (former Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Israel), there are four
sub-components of proportionality which need to be satisfied, a limitation of a constitutional
right will be constitutionally permissible if:

(i) it is designated for a proper purpose;

(In the measures undertaken to effectuate such a limitation are rationally connected to the
fulfilment of that purpose;

(ii) the measures undertaken are necessary in that there are no alternative measures that may
similarly achieve that same purpose with a lesser degree of limitation; and finally(iv) there
needs to be a proper relation ("proportionality stricto sensu" or "balancing) between the
importance of achieving the proper purpose and the social importance of preventing the
limitation on the constitutional right.19

The aforementioned test of proportionality has not been followed by the Telecom Watchdog in
the present petition. The regulation in its entirety is quite vague. The purpose of regulation 9 is
not consistent with the effect it is having on the petitioner. It is in no way protecting the interest
of news viewers. By restricting the duration of advertisement to 10 minutes, the regulator has
imposed limitation on the amount of revenue that the petitioner can make. An impact on
revenue will cripple the petitioner's ability to provide reliable and free news to its viewers. The
viewers enjoy the right to get access to reliable news. Media being the fourth pillar of
democracy cannot be restricted or controlled under the garb of regulation. The effect of having
a restriction of 10 minutes for showing advertisement will disable the functioning of petitioner
by bringing abruption on their revenue stream effectively rendering them incapable of
maintaining their news channel. Media is a labor-intensive industry where journalists,
technicians, support staff, visual effects, computer generated imagery, logistics, transportation,
and camera operators are employed. It takes a significant amount of money to maintain such
infrastructure. As the petitioner provides its services for free in rural areas (where almost 90%
of its revenue comes from)20. This regulation will financially choke the petitioner from
continuing its function.

19
Modern Dental College and Research Centre and Ors v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., (2016) 7 SCC 353,
para 60
20
Moot Clarification no 17
7
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER(S)
 THE 4TH GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2023

The regulator has claimed that it has in the public interest limited the duration of advertisement.
It is found on an abstract and arbitrary reasoning, and it has not come up with any proper
reasoning as to why it was necessary for the duration to be regulated. It has also not been
reasonable in imposing such regulation. Use of abstract and vague reason has been prohibited
by the Supreme Court, which has held that abstract standard cannot be used for imposing
restrictions. It can be interpreted from the following para-

To define the scope of the judicial review under CI. (5) of Art. 19 where the phrase "imposing
reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right" also occurs, and four "out of the five Judges
participating in the decision expressed the view (the other Judge leaving the question open)
that both the substantive and the procedural aspects of the impugned restrictive law should be
examined from the point of view of reasonableness; that is to say, the Court should consider
not only factors such as the duration and the extent of the restrictions, but also the
circumstances under which and the manner in which their imposition has been authorized. It
is important in this context to bear in mind that the test of reasonableness, wherever prescribed,
should be applied to each individual statute impugned, and no abstract standard, or general
pattern of reasonableness can be laid down as applicable to all cases. The nature of the right
alleged to have been infringed, the underlying purpose of the restrictions imposed, the extent
and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied thereby, the disproportion of the imposition, the
prevailing conditions at the time, should all enter into the judicial verdict. 21

1.3. REGULATION 9 VIOLATES FREEDOM OF TRADE AND BUSINESS UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)
(G) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF HELIOPOLIS.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that Regulation 9 issued by the Television
watchdog does not satisfy the four-prong test as laid down by the court in various cases as.

Firstly, there was no need for a regulation regarding the increase in advertisements on TV
channels. The television watchdog, being the regulatory body under S. 11(1)(b)(v) of the TRAI
Act must discharge the functions of ensuring the Quality of service and laying down standards
of service.22 Television watchdog while discharging those functions did not consider the fact
that imposing restrictions on advertisement severely restricted the revenue of the petitioner. It
also didn’t account that majority of the viewers watch the news for free

21
State of Madras v. V.G Row., AIR 1952 SC 196
22
S. 11(1)(b)(v) of the TRAI Act
8
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER(S)
 THE 4TH GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2023

Secondly, the regulation imposes a limit of 10 minutes of advertisements per hour. Which
effectively means that broadcasters are allowed to show advertisements for only an exceedingly
small portion of time. This would mean that revenue goes down significantly which will also
indirectly degrade the quality of the services that are provided by broadcasters to the
consumers. Hence it can be said that it was not a rational step by the television watchdog to
impose a limitation of the duration of advertisements per hour.

Thirdly, the regulation has a disproportionate effect on the rights of the Broadcasters as the
regulation limits advertisement. The broadcaster provides free services to people of rural areas.
Advertisements are broadcast in between content feeds to generate income and profit. If
advertisement duration is restricted, then the profit potential and opportunity of the petitioner
is restricted thereby threatening its survival. The only thing that the Regulation achieves is
striking a death kneel on the survival of broadcaster by severely reducing the quantity of
advertisements. Regulation 9 violates Article 19(1)(g) by restricting duration of the
advertisements which force the petitioner to shut shop and sufferheavy economic
damages.

1.4. REGULATION 9 VIOLATES ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF HELIOPOLIS,

WHICH PROVIDES EQUALITY.

It is humbly submitted before the honorable Supreme Court that Regulation 9 of the Act
violates Article 14 of the Constitution of Heliopolis.

Article 14 of the Constitution of Heliopolis Declares that “the State shall not deny to any person
equality before the law or equal protection of laws within the territory of Heliopolis”. Equality
before the law is a negative concept, implying the absence of any special privilege in favor of
individuals and the equal subject of all classes to the ordinary law, whereas equal protection of
law is a more positive concept implying equality of treatment and equal circumstances. The
rule is that like should be treated alike and not that unlike should be treated alike. It is therefore
submitted before the Honorable Court that. Regulation 9 violates Article 14 as Firstly; it sets a
common benchmark of 10 minutes per hour without any consideration for the kind of channel.
Secondly, Regulation 9 provides for a common benchmark of 12 minutes per hour without
consideration for the time of the day.

1.4.1 Regulation 9 provides for common benchmark of ten minutes per hour without
consideration for kind of channel

9
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER(S)
 THE 4TH GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2023

The rule under Article 14 states that like should be treated alike and not that unlike should be
treated alike. In the present case unequals are treated equally as the petitioners here are news
broadcasters and the set limit imposed by the Television watchdog is imposed irrespective of
the type of the channel, whether treating free to air, pay, news, sports, music are subject to
regulation providing for 10 minutes for advertisements.

The Petitioner humbly submits that not making a distinction between the channels according
to the type of content they publish, and the subscription type they follow is arbitrary and
violative of Art 14 of the Constitution of Heliopolis. Different channels have different revenue
models and all of them can't be subjected to the same regulations and if such regulation is
implemented it would be detrimental to the interests of the channels that have a revenue model
whereby, they are hugely dependent on advertisements for their fiscal survival. The petitioners
in the present case earn 90% of their revenue proceeds from advertisements and imposing a
limit of 10 minutes puts their survival in question.

1.4.2. Regulation 9 provides for common benchmark of ten minutes per hour without
consideration for time of day

The Counsel for petitioners would like to reiterate the fact that the rule under article 14 is that
like should be treated alike and not that unlike should be treated alike Different hours of the
day have different viewership and hence imposing a common limit of 10 minutes for
advertisements each hour throughout the day amounts to violation of Article 14.

In the judgement of Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. v. Shashi Prabha Shukla,23it can be interpreted
that the regulation must be objective, transparent and non-binary. There was no consultation
between the stake holders, nor did the respondent try to gauge the economic impact of the
regulation. There was a complete lack of transparency as to why the regulation was issued.
Only abstract and vague reasons were given. Hence it would be pertinent to hold this
regulation as unconstitutional.

Jurisprudentially thus, as could be gleaned from the above legal enunciations, a public
authority in its dealings must be fair, objective, non-arbitrary, transparent and non-
discriminatory. The discretion vested in such an authority, which is a concomitant of its power,
is coupled with duty and can never be unregulated or unbridled. Any decision or action
contrary to these functional precepts would be at the pain of invalidation thereof. The State

23
Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. v. Shashi Prabha Shukla, (2018) 12 SCC 85, para 33
10
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER(S)
 THE 4TH GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2023

and its instrumentalities, be it a public authority, either as an individual or a collective must

essentially abide by this inalienable and non-negotiable prescriptions and cannot act in breach
of the trust reposed by the polity and on extraneous considerations. In exercise of uncontrolled
discretion and power, it cannot resort to any act to fritter, squander and emasculate any public
property, be it by way of State largesse or contracts, etc. Such outrages would clearly be
unconstitutional and extinctive of the rule of law which forms the bedrock of the constitutional
order.

2. WHETHER THE JUDGMENT OF HIGH COURT OF MEMPHIS HOLDING

REGULATION 9 AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL IS CONFINED TO THE
TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF STATE OF MEMPHIS? OR, SINCE REGULATION 9 IS
A FEDERAL SUBJECT, CAN THE JUDGMENT BE APPLIED THROUGHOUT THE
COUNTRY OF HELIOPOLIS?

2.1 THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT OF MEMPHIS HOLDING REGULATION 9 AS

UNCONSTITUTIONAL IS NOT CONFINED TO THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF THE STATE OF

MEMPHIS.

2.1.1 Whether the Television Watchdog can define the jurisdiction of a High
Court.

The Telecom watchdog has issued a direction (Directive No:1 of 2023) to the petitioner and
other broadcasters to strictly adhere to the regulation 9 in other jurisdictions except State of
Memphis where the High Court had declared regulation 9 as unconstitutional. The elementary
argument that the counsel seeks to address is whether a regulatory body that has been created
by an act of parliament can decide and determine the limits on the jurisdiction of a High Court.

The watchdog is a statutory body that has been created by an act of Parliament. It is to be noted
that the High Court is a constitutional body that has been formed by the constitution. The
question that needs to be raised is whether a regulatory body that has been created by an act of
parliament has the power to determine the limits of a constitutional body which derives its
power directly from the constitution.

The legal position regarding such issues is clear. In the present constitutional mechanism, the
constitution reigns supreme with all other branches of state being bound to act under the ambit
of the constitution. The powers of a High Court are defined by the constitution and any disputes
11
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER(S)
 THE 4TH GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2023

regarding the limits of the jurisdiction of the High Court can only be addressed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court. The regulatory body, i.e., the respondent did not approach the Supreme Court.
Instead, it issued a directive of its own defining where the order of the High Court will apply.
Nowhere in the law of the land has it been provided that a statutory body can impose limits
upon the jurisdiction of a constitutional body. Any issue regarding the determination of
jurisdiction of High Court can be dealt only by Hon’ble Supreme Court.

It would be extremely bad in law to accept the directive issued by the respondent as it goes
against the constitutional framework of the country where any substantial question of law can
only be entertained by the Supreme Court or the High Court. The determination of jurisdiction
of High Court will lead to substantial question of law that could be dealt by the Supreme Court
and not the Telecom Watchdog. The petitioner holds that telecom watchdog has no authority
to decide the jurisdiction of a high court or where the orders of any high court could take effect.

By issuing a directive on the limits of jurisdiction of the High Court, the respondent has gone
way beyond the powers granted to it. Hence such direction must be rendered ultra vires to the
Constitution of Heliopolis. It would therefore be pertinent to point out that allowing such a
directive to exist would subvert the constitutional process as well as the rule of law and set a
terrible precedent. Such a directive must be declared as unconstitutional in order to preserve
constitutional sovereignty.

2.2 WHETHER THE JUDGEMENT PASSED BY A HIGH COURT IN A WRIT PETITION

QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY OF A CENTRAL ACT IS APPLICABLE THROUGHOUT THE

TERRITORY OF THE COUNTRY.

The petitioner humbly submits that the judgement of a High Court which deals with the
constitutionality of a Central act is valid throughout the territory of Heliopolis. The first is a
judgment with regards to this question of law was dealt by the Bombay High Court in
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Godavari Devi24 held that the Madras High Court's
declaration of unconstitutionality of a provision of the Income Tax Act has effect on income
tax assessments in Maharashtra.

24
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Godavari Devi, [1978] 113 ITR 589 (Bom)
12
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER(S)
 THE 4TH GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2023

Later on in the case of Kusum Ingots v. Union of India25, it was opined in the form of a Obiter
Dicta by the Supreme Court that an “order passed on a writ petition questioning the
constitutionality of a parliamentary act whether interim or final keeping in the view, the
provisions contained in clause 2 of article 226 of the Constitution of India will have effect
throughout the territory of India subject to the course of applicability of the act.”

This reasoning was affirmed by the Madras High Court in Textile Technical Tradesmen v.
Union of India26. Following the obiter dictum of the Supreme Court holding declaration of
unconstitutionality of a central law by the Andhra Pradesh Court has the effect of rendering the
law unconstitutional Throughout the territory of the Country.

What this Effectively means that a declaration of unconstitutionality of statute by any of the
High Courts has the effect of rendering the Statute void for the rest of the country.

Further, it is a well settled law that obiter dicta of the Supreme Court are also binding upon all
other Courts, including the High Court. In Municipal Committee, Amritsar v. Hazara Singh27,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court approved the following observation of the Hon’ble High Court of
Kerala in the matter of: State of Kerala v. Vasudevan Nair28:

“Judicial propriety, dignity and decorum demand that being the highest judicial tribunal in the
country even obiter dictum of the Supreme Court should be accepted as binding. Declaration
of law by that Court even if it be only by the way has to be respected. But all that does not mean
that every statement contained in a judgment of that Court would be attracted by Article 141.
Statements on matters other than law have no binding force”

The binding effect of obiter dicta of the Supreme Court has been reiterated in the recent
decision in Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income
Tax, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that:

“It is, therefore, incorrect to state, as has been stated by the High Court, that the decision in
Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. V/s Reserve Bank of India [(1992) 2 SCC
343] must be read as not having laid down any absolute proposition of law that all receipts of
subscription at the hands of the assessee for these years must be treated as capital receipts. We

25
Kusum Ingots v. Union of India, (2004) 6 SCC 254
26
Textile Technical Tradesmen Association v. Union of India, 2010 SCC OnLine Mad 6515
27
Amritsar V. Hazara Singh, (1975) 1 SCC 794
28
State of Kerala V. Vasudevan Nair,1975 Cri LJ 97
13
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER(S)
 THE 4TH GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2023

reiterate that though the Court’s focus was not directly on this, yet a pronouncement by this
Court, even if it cannot be strictly called the ratio decidendi of the judgment, would certainly
be binding on the High Court”29

In Prithi Pal Singh Bedi v. Union of India30 Supreme Court held that when question not
specifically arising for decision but discussed and observations made, such observations even
though obiter entitled to respect by succeeding bench of the Supreme Court.

It is Humbly submitted before the Honorable court that based on these cases it is a clear rule
of law that High court ruling on unconstitutionality of a statute renders the statute
unconstitutional throughout the territory of whole country. Therefore, In the present case the
decision by high court that Regulation 9 is unconstitutional will be operative throughout the
country and the Television watchdog can’t act in contravention of the said judgement by
enforcing the regulation via a directive.

3. TELEVISION WATCHDOG DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO REGULATE THE

DURATION OF ADVERTISEMENTS IN PUBLIC INTEREST.

The petitioner humbly submits that the telecom watchdog does not have the power to regulate
the duration of the advertisement in this case for multiple reasons. The argument of the
respondent that they regulated the duration of advertisement in public interest does not have
any strong basis in law. There is a lack of reasonableness behind restricting the duration of
advertisement by the telecom watchdog through impugned regulation. In the case of State of
Madras v. V G Row, it was stated that-

“It is important in this context to bear in mind that the test of reasonableness, wherever
prescribed, should be applied to each individual statute impugned, and no abstract standard,
or general pattern of reasonableness can be laid down as applicable to all cases. The nature
of the right alleged to have been infringed, the underlying purpose of the restrictions imposed,
the extent and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied thereby, the disproportion of the
imposition, the prevailing conditions at the time, should all enter into the judicial verdict. In
evaluating such elusive factors and forming their own conception of what is reasonable, in all
the circumstances of a given case, it is inevitable that the social philosophy and the scale of
values of the Judges participating in the decision should play an important part, and the limit

29
Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. V/s Commissioner of Income Tax, (2019) SCC
30
Prithi Pal Singh Bedi v. Union of India, (1982) 3 SCC 140
14
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER(S)
 THE 4TH GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2023

to their interference with legislative judgment in such cases can only be dictated by their sense
of responsibility and self-restraint and the sobering reflection that the Constitution is meant
not only for people of their way of thinking but for all, and that the majority of the elected
representatives of the people have, in authorizing the imposition of the restrictions, considered
them to be reasonable.”31

In the aforementioned judgement, the Hon’ble supreme court held that the test of
reasonableness has to be applied on a case-to-case basis and not on an abstract standard. The
reasonable standard must be sound and cannot be abstract. It must also be read in the
circumstances of the case. In this case, the petitioner is dependent on revenue coming from its
advertisements. The circumstances clearly indicate that imposing such harsh restrictions on the
duration of advertisements will threaten the survival of petitioner. The petitioner broadcasts
news for free to people who reside in rural areas. It would be impossible for it to sustain and
continue its operation without charging a steep subscription fee that it does not charge to cater
to the needs of rural Heliopolis. This regulation would be inconsistent for its lack of reason.
The petitioner has given very abstract reasons. Respondent has failed to consult the necessary
stake holder, nor has it attempted to understand how the news broadcasting industry works.

It is also pertinent to note the effect of such regulation. If such regulation sees another ray of
sun, then telemarketing news channels will have to shut show because their entire functioning
depends upon the duration of advertisement they show. If such a regulation stands the test of
law, it would automatically force the closure of multiple media houses as well.

Lack of Transparency in limiting the duration of advertisement. In the case of Cellular

Operators Association of India v TRAI,32 it was held that transparency has to be ensured by
TRAI while exercising its powers and functions including legislative function of enacting
subordinate legislation. This can be interpreted from the following text of the judgement.

“Section 11(4) of the Act requires that the Authority shall ensure transparency while exercising
its powers and discharging its functions.

"Transparency" has not been defined anywhere in the Act. However, we find, in a later
Parliamentary Enactment, namely, the Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India Act,
2008, that Section 13 deals with the functions of the Airports Economic Regulatory Authority,

31
State of Madras v V G Row., AIR 1952 SC 196, para 23
32
Cellular Operators Association of India v TRAI., AIR 2016 SC 2336
15
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER(S)
 THE 4TH GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2023

(which is an Authority which has legislative and administrative functions). "Transparency" is

defined, by subsection (4), as follows: -

"THE AIRPORTS ECONOMIC REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA ACT, 2008

13. Functions of Authority.

(4) The Authority shall ensure transparency while exercising its powers and discharging its
functions, inter alia, -

(a) by holding due consultations with all stakeholders with the airport;

(b) by allowing all stakeholders to make their submissions to the authority; and

(c) by making all decisions of the authority fully documented and explained."

64. This definition of "transparency" provides a good working test of

'transparency' referred to in Section 11(4) of the TRAI Act.

. In fact, a judgment of the Court of Appeal in England, being Regina v. North and East Devon
Health Authority, puts the meaning of "consultation" rather well as follows:33 -

"It is common ground that, whether or not consultation of interested parties and the public is
a legal requirement, if it is embarked upon it must be carried out properly. To be proper,
consultation must be undertaken at a time when proposals are still at a formative stage; it must
include sufficient reasons for particular proposals to allow those consulted to give intelligent
consideration and an intelligent response; adequate time must be given for this purpose; and
the product of consultation must be conscientiously taken into account when the ultimate
decision is taken."

3.1 REGULATION 9 VIOLATES ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF HELIOPOLIS, WHICH

PROVIDES FOR EQUALITY

It is humbly submitted before the honorable Supreme Court that regulation 9 of the Act violates
Article 14 of the Constitution of Heliopolis.

Article 14 of the Constitution of Heliopolis Declares that “the State shall not deny to any person
equality before the law or equal protection of laws within the territory of Heliopolis”. Is
equality before the law is somewhat a negative concept, implying the absence of any special

33
Regina v. North and East Devon Health Authority, Ex parte Coughlan, [2001] QB 213
16
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER(S)
 THE 4TH GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2023

privilege in favor of individuals and the equal subject of all classes to the ordinary law, whereas
equal protection of law is a more positive. Concept implying equality of treatment and equal
circumstances. The rule is that like should be treated alike and not that unlike should be treated
alike. It is therefore submitted before the Honorable Court that Regulation 9 violates Article
14 -

Firstly, it sets a common benchmark of 10 minutes per hour without any due consideration
for the kind of broadcaster.

Secondly, Regulation 9 provides for a common benchmark of 10 minutes per hour without
consideration for the time of the day.

3.1.1. Regulation 9 provides for common benchmark of ten minutes per hour without
consideration for kind of channel

The rule under Article 14 is that like should be treated alike and not that unlike should be
treated alike. In the present case the petitioners are news broadcasters and the set limit
imposed by the Television watchdog is imposed irrespective of the type of the channel,
whether it be sports, news, entertainment, finance Channel. All the channels are expected to
follow the same limit, i.e., 10 minutes for advertisements. The Counsel for the Petitioner
humbly submits that not making a distinction between the channels according to the type of
content they publish is arbitrary and violative of Art 14 of the Constitution of Heliopolis.
Different channels have different revenue models and all of them can't be subjected to the
same regulations. If such regulation is implemented, it would be detrimental to the interests
of the channels that have a revenue model whereby they are hugely dependent on
advertisements for their fiscal survival. The petitioners in the present case on 90% of their
revenue proceeds from advertisements and imposing a limit of 10 minutes puts their survival
in question.

3.1.2 Regulation 9 provides for common benchmark of ten minutes per hour without
consideration for time of day

The Council for petitioners would like to reiterate the fact that the rule under article 14 is that
like should be treated alike and not that unlike should be treated alike Different hours of the
day have different. Viewership and hence imposing a common limit of 10 minutes for
advertisements each and every hour throughout the day amounts to a violation of Article 14.

17
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER(S)
 THE 4TH GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2023

The respondent did not attempt to create any differentiation when it could have. There are
three main kinds of television channel which exist in Heliopolis.

a) General Entertainment Channels (GECs)

b) Music Channels
c) News Channels

These channels not only differ in content but also differ in their advertising patterns. The
content broadcast by the general entertainment channels is more static, orderly and structured.
These channels generally broadcast entertainment shows, movies, music etc. The advertising
window on such channels is fixed to strike a balance between generating revenue and the
viewership experience. These channels do not have advertisements as their only source of
revenue. They charge subscription fees, which are amongst the highest.

Whereas the content broadcast by news channels is more dynamic and changes on a day-to-
day basis. If important news is being broadcast by a news channel, it may choose not to carry
any advertisements during that clock hour. The broadcaster, at times, is compelled not to show
advertisements due to the gravity of the news being broadcast. One may consider the day of
counting of votes where citizens are glued to the TV screen of a news channel to see whether
the candidate they chose has been elected or not. The news channels on days like these have a
limited scope of taking a break and broadcasting advertisements. Thus, in order to fulfill their
commitments to the advertisers, the news broadcaster may choose to air advertisements at the
next hour. But regulation 9 has blanketly stated that no programmes should carry
advertisements exceeding 10 minutes per hour.

These news channels need extensive capital to broadcast news. The capital is generated
through advertising. Advertisement also enables news broadcasters to provide quality news
by giving them financial power thereby reducing the chances of manipulation. With ever
changing times and increasing informational needs of citizens in this country it is necessary
to generate enough capital to gather information and provide it to people at their convenience.

The watchdog here, by way of regulation 9 is treating unequal as equal by not creating a
criterion for different channels which differ in content and importance.

18
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER(S)
 THE 4TH GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2023

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited,
it is most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Supreme Court may be pleased to
adjudge and declare:

1. Declare that regulation 9 of the television broadcasting regulations, 2008 is violative of

provisions of the constitution of Heliopolis and is thus, unconstitutional.
2. Declare that broadcasting being a federal subject, judgement of high court of Memphis
can be applied throughout the country of Heliopolis
3. Declare that Television watchdog has no power to regulate duration of advertisement
in public interest.

AND/OR

Pass any other order or grant any other relief in the favour of the petitioner which this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.

For This Act of Kindness, The Petitioners shall duty bound forever pray.

Date:
Place: Republic of Heliopolis

Sd/-

Counsel(s) for the Petitioners

XII
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER(S)