MULTI MOOT - JULY 2023

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF VALLUVANADU

IN MATTER OF:

IRA and ORS ........................................................................................... RESPONDENTS

VERSUS

ABHAY ........................................................................................................ PETITIONER

(UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDICA)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
MULTI MOOT-JULY 2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS

S.NO TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 2

2 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4

3 BOOKS REFERRED 4

4 TABLES OF CASES 4

5 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 5

6 STATEMENT OF FACTS 7

7 STATEMENT OF ISSUES 8

8 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 9

9 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 10

10 PRAYER 18

RESPONDENT MEMORIAL
MULTI MOOT-JULY 2023

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Sec. Section

AIR All India Report

Art. Article

Hon’ble Honorable

Ltd. Limited

SC Supreme Court

u/s under section

r/w read with

Yrs. Years

RESPONDENT MEMORIAL
MULTI MOOT-JULY 2023

v. / vs. Versus

Cr.L.J. Criminal Law Journal

& And

Pg. Page

Ors. Others

Anr. Another

Edn. Edition

SC Scheduled Caste

ST Scheduled Tribe

RESPONDENT MEMORIAL
MULTI MOOT-JULY 2023

EWS Economically Weaker Sections

CrPC Criminal Procedure Code

DPSP Directive Principles Of State Policy

RESPONDENT MEMORIAL
MULTI MOOT-JULY 2023

LEGISLATIONS INVOLVED

The Constitution of Indica,1950

TABLE OF CASES

● Ramesh thappar Vs state of madras

● Indian express newspaper Vs Union of India
● S.mugolkar Vs unknown, 1978
● Odyssey communications pvt Ltd Vs LokvidayanSangatana
● LIC vs ManubhaiD.Shah
● Directorate General of Doordarshan Vs AnandPatwardhan
● Rajagopal Vs state of Tamilnadu
● Emmanuel Vs state of kerala
● Bennett Coleman & Co Vs Union of India
● BrijBhushan v. State of Delhi

BOOKS REFERRED

● Dr J. N. Pandey, The Constitutional law of india 57th edition (2020)

ONLINE REFERENCE

➢ indiankanoon.org
➢ www.loc.gov
➢ eci.gov.in
➢ blog.ipleaders.in
➢ www.latestlaws.com

RESPONDENT MEMORIAL
MULTI MOOT-JULY 2023

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE WRIT PETITION HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF
VALLUVANADU UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1949.

Article 226 in The Constitution Of Indica,1950

226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs

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

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

(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or
in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause (
1 ), without

(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea
for such interim order; and

(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court
for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose
favour such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose
of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or

RESPONDENT MEMORIAL
MULTI MOOT-JULY 2023

from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or
where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next
day afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of,
the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the
aid next day, stand vacated

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

RESPONDENT MEMORIAL
MULTI MOOT-JULY 2023

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Abhay is a renowned social activist and philanthropist, actively working towards the welfare
of underprivileged children (and marginalized communities) in the state of Valluvanadu of
the Union of Indica. He has dedicated his life to numerous charitable causes and runs a well-
known NGO named ABHAYAM, providing education and healthcare services to
marginalized communities. Ira is a news reporter working with Watchful, a prominent media
organization. Ira published a series of articles and aired news segments alleging the
misappropriation of funds by several NGOs meant for charitable causes. The content spread
rapidly, reaching a wide audience and causing a storm of public outcry (and creating a fear of
credibility in the minds of the people on all the NGOs across the country). Despite Abhay's
sincere commitment to transparency and accountability in his NGO's Financial Affairs,
Donors, and Supporters, the members of the marginalized communities began questioning the
credibility of ABHAYAM. In response to this Abhay approached the court to protect his right
to reputation, dignity, and personal integrity, as well as his Right to Life, as guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India

RESPONDENT MEMORIAL
MULTI MOOT-JULY 2023

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE 1:

WHETHER IRA'S ACTIONS HAVE INFRINGED UPON ABHAY'S RIGHT TO

REPUTATION, DIGNITY, AND PERSONAL INTEGRITY, THEREBY AFFECTING HIS
RIGHT TO LIFE AS GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA?

____________________________________________________________________________

ISSUE 2:

DOES THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION, AS GUARANTEED

UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(A) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ENCOMPASS THE
'RIGHT NOT TO READ'? FURTHERMORE, CAN THIS RIGHT BE RESTRICTED WHEN
IT CLASHES WITH AN INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT TO REPUTATION AND DIGNITY?

RESPONDENT MEMORIAL
MULTI MOOT-JULY 2023

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1:WHETHER IRA'S ACTIONS HAVE INFRINGED UPON ABHAY'S RIGHT

TO REPUTATION, DIGNITY, AND PERSONAL INTEGRITY, THEREBY
AFFECTING HIS RIGHT TO LIFE AS GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA?

It is most humbly submitted that in this instant case Ira has every right to publish an article on
her wish and the Constitution of India guarantees freedom of speech and expression to all
citizens.To preserve the democratic way of life it is necessary that people should have the
freedom to express their feelings and to make their views known to people at large.

ISSUE 2: DOES THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION, AS

GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 19(1) (A) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,
ENCOMPASS THE 'RIGHT NOT TO READ'? FURTHERMORE, CAN THIS RIGHT
BE RESTRICTED WHEN IT CLASHES WITH AN INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT TO
REPUTATION AND DIGNITY?

It is most humbly submitted in this instant case Ira as a reporter has every right to express and
criticize.As the same every one has The Right Not to Read.The right to freedom of speech
and expression also includes the right to communicate, print and advertise information.This
right also includes commercial as well as artistic speech and expression.

RESPONDENT MEMORIAL
MULTI MOOT-JULY 2023

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1:Whether Ira's actions have infringed upon Abhay's Right to Reputation,
Dignity, and Personal Integrity, thereby affecting his Right to Life as guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India?

It is most humbly contended by the respondent that in this instant case Ira has every right to
publish an article on her wish and the Constitution of India guarantees freedom of speech
and expression to all citizens.

IRAS RIGHT TO PRESS :To preserve the democratic way of life it is necessary that
people should have the freedom to express their feelings and to make their views known to
people at large. Freedom of speech includes propagation of one’s views through print media
or any other communication channels like radio and television, subject to reasonable
restrictions imposed under Article 19(2) of the Indian constitution.

Although freedom of the press is not mentioned in Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, yet it
has been a part of freedom of speech and expression as considered by judges of the Supreme
Court through decided cases.

RomeshThappar vs State of Madras 1 In this case, the petitioner used to a publish and
circulate a newspaper names “cross roads” which used to review and criticize the schemes
and activities of the government of Madras. The government of Madras banned the entry and
circulation of this newspaper in the state by the restriction of public safety grounds.
The supreme court in this case said that the right of circulation of the newspaper lies solely
with the establishment i.e., the company of the newspaper and the state of Madras cannot
interfere with the same. The ground of Public safety under Article 19(2) is not a reasonable
restriction and hence a ban on entry and circulation of the newspaper by the state of Madras
cannot be imposed under Article 19(2).

1
1950 AIR 124, 1950 SCR 594

RESPONDENT MEMORIAL
MULTI MOOT-JULY 2023

Indian Express Newspaper vs Union of India 2 Prior to this notification newsprint had enjoyed
exemption from customs duty. The petitioners challenged the import duty on newsprint under
the Customs Tariff Act 1975 and the auxiliary duty under the Finance Act 1981, as modified
by a notification under the Customs Act 1962 with effect from March 1, 1981. They
contended that after this notification the costs and circulations had been affected highly and it
also had a crippling effect on freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian
Constitution and the freedom to practice any trade or occupation under Article 19(1)(g).

The Supreme Court of India in this case held that Article 19 of the Indian Constitution does
not use the phrase “freedom of press” in its language, but it is contained within Article 19(1)
(a). There cannot be any interference with the freedom of press in the name of public interest.
The purpose of the press is to enhance public interest by publishing facts and opinions,
without which a democratic electorate cannot take responsible decisions. It is, therefore, the
primary duty of courts to uphold the freedom of press and invalidate all laws or
administrative actions which interfere with it contrary to the constitutional mandate .

The freedom of speech and expression as under Article 19 also includes the freedom of the
press. During the Constituent Assembly Debates, Damodar S. Seth argued that freedom of the
press should be explicitly included in the Article due to the present age where the press holds
immense value. However, it was decided that a separate provision for the same is not
required.

IRAS RIGHT TO CRITICIZE :

The right to criticise the , essential for maintaining accountability, is also a part of the
freedom of speech and expression. Dissent and criticism have been hailed as crucial elements
for a democracy. This right also includes the right of a political rival, like anyone else, to
criticise , and it cannot be curtailed on the charge of defamation. 2 While criticism of the
government and its officials may be valid, it cannot condone a political rival seemingly
engaging in spreading false news and allegations, about a political personality, in a schematic
and planned manner. Criticism of this kind would amount to defamation and is not protected
under Article 19(1)(a).

2
1986 AIR 515, 1985 SCR (2) 287

RESPONDENT MEMORIAL
MULTI MOOT-JULY 2023

In Re: S. Mugolkar v. Unknown (1978) 3The Supreme Court held that the judiciary cannot be
immune from fair criticism, and contempt action is to be used only when an obvious
misstatement with malicious intent seeks to bring down public confidence in the courts or
seeks to influence the courts.

IRAS RIGHT TO COMMERCIAL SPEECH

Commercial speech is speech that suggests a commercial transaction or is an expression
entirely related to the economic interest of the speaker and his listener or audience.[1] Simply
put, it can be understood as an expression of commercial interest.[2] Article 19(1)(a) of the
Indian constitution protects Indian citizens' right to free speech and expression.[3]

IRAS RIGHT TO BROADCAST:

Indian constitution has provided the Indian citizens with fundamental rights and one of these
rights is Right to free speech and expression which is covered under article 19(1)(a). The
right to free Speech and expression is also expanding and evolving with the developing
modes of communications. Broadcasting is also a recently developed and effective mode of
communication like internet and other e-communications so, it is also covered under article
19(1)(a).

Odyssey Communications (P) Ltd. v. LokvidayanSangatana 4The petitioner in this case

objected to the airing of the HoniAnhoni television series on the channel Doordarshan
because he believed it promoted superstition and blind faith in the public. As a result of the
petitioner's inability to provide any evidence that could prove that the society had suffered
any harm, the petition was rejected. The Supreme Court ruled that viewers have the freedom
to show films on Doordarshan as long as they abide by the channel's rules and regulations. In
accordance with Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, broadcasting is a part of the
fundamental right to freedom of expression and may only be restricted within the terms of
Article 19(2) that is reasonable restrictions on Article 19(1). The court determined that this
right is quite comparable to a citizen's freedom to express his or her opinions through any
other medium, such as newspapers, periodicals, holdings for advertisements, etc.

3
1978) 3 SCC 339, 1978 3 SCR 162
4
1988 AIR 1642, 1988 SCR Supl. (1) 486

RESPONDENT MEMORIAL
MULTI MOOT-JULY 2023

LIC v. Manubhai D. Shah 5Right to broadcast was also recognized in this case. The challenge
in this case was Doordarshan's reluctance to air the documentary "Beyond Genocide" about
the Bhopal gas tragedy." Doordarshan declined to air the movie for a number of reasons,
including that it was out of date, no longer relevant, lacked moderation and restraint, was
unfair and unbalanced, political parties were bringing up a number of issues related to the
tragedy, the victims' claims for compensation were still pending, the movie would likely stir
up trouble in an already tense environment, and it criticised the state government's actions.
The Supreme Court ruled that Doordarshan, a state-controlled organisation that relied on
public finances, was not permitted to refuse to air the movie since it was unable to present a
convincing justification under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, upholding the right to
broadcast.

Directorate General of Doordarshan v. AnandPatwardhan 6 This case arose when Doordarshan

refused to telecast respondent's documentary film titled Father, son and Holy war. The
documentary was the third of a respondent-produced trilogy that addressed communal
violence. Doordarshan declined to show the preceding films despite the fact that they had
won national prizes, claiming that doing so would lead to law and order issues.The first two
movies, whose telecast had been rejected by Doordarshan, were the ones to which the
respondent was successful in his challenge. The High Court's order mandating the telecast of
the movie was affirmed by the Supreme Court. It stated that because Doordarshan is a state-
controlled organisation supported by public funds.

It is unable to reject the respondent's request to air a documentary film unless there are
conditions which are laid down in Article 19(2). Since Doordarshan is a national broadcaster
and has power over the public's airwaves, it is required to air a movie that addresses social
injustices including caste, class, and violence against women.
All the above cases show that Right to broadcast is a fundamental right covered under Article
19(1)(a) of the constitution. Since, it deals with public at large so there are also laws for
regulating it and they have evolved with time.

5
1993 AIR 171, 1992 SCR (3) 595
6
Appeal (civil) 613 of 2005

RESPONDENT MEMORIAL
MULTI MOOT-JULY 2023

ISSUE 2: Does the right to freedom of speech and expression, as guaranteed under
Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India, encompass the 'Right not to Read'?
Furthermore, can this right be restricted when it clashes with an individual's Right to
Reputation and Dignity?

It is most humbly contended by the respondent that in this instant case Ira as a reporter has
every right to express and criticize.As the same every one has The Right Not to Read.The
Right not to read the freedom of speech and expression

IRAS FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION:

The Constitution of India guarantees freedom of speech and expression to all citizens.
According to Article 19(1)(a): All citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and
expression.This implies that all citizens have the right to express their views and opinions
freely.This includes not only words of mouth, but also a speech by way of writings, pictures,
movies, banners, etc.The right to speech also includes the right not to speak.Restrictions on
the freedom of speech of any citizen may be placed as much by an action of the state as by its
inaction. This means that the failure of the State to guarantee this freedom to all classes of
citizens will be a violation of their fundamental rights.The right to freedom of speech and
expression also includes the right to communicate, print and advertise information.This right
also includes commercial as well as artistic speech and expression.

Other rights that allow or help Indian society develop and progress are supported by freedom
of speech and expression which is also a fundamental human right. Free speech and
expression have always been important throughout history as it facilitates many changes, one
of which is the French revolution.

Free speech and expression not only includes the right to express what one thinks but it also
includes listening to others. When a person expresses his/her opinion, it only carries the
intrinsic value of that opinion and being silent on that opinion is an injustice to the basic
human rights.

RESPONDENT MEMORIAL
MULTI MOOT-JULY 2023

R. Rajagopal vs State of Tamil Nadu 7 The Supreme Court in this case held that the magazine
had the right to publish the autobiography written by the prisoner, without his consent or
authorization. It held that the state cannot prevent the publication but may sue the plaintiff for
defamation after the article is published, but they had no right to stop the petitioners from
publishing the book. It held that every person has the right to publish his/her autobiography
because of his/her fundamental rights under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution and hence,
the case was in favor of the petitioners.

Emmanuel vs State of Kerala 8 Three students were expelled from their school in 1985 for not
singing the national anthem of India. Since they were from the religious background of
Jehovah’s witnesses, they just stood silently during the national anthem of India in the
School’s morning assembly. After they were expelled from school, their father filed a writ
petition in the High Court of Kerala stating that the expulsion was a direct violation of their
fundamental right which is Freedom of speech and expression and freedom of religion which
is protected by the Indian Constitution under Article 19 and 25. The court dismissed the case
and stated that “no words or thoughts in the national anthem was capable of offending
religious convictions”[9]. Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, their father later
filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court of India.

The Supreme Court held that the expulsion of school children merely for not singing the
national anthem was a direct violation of their right to freedom of expression. It was stated
that there were no provisions of law that made the three students or any individual obliged to
sing the national anthem and the state of Kerala’s department of education lacked statutory
force to require school children to participate.

In Bennett Coleman & Co v. Union of India(1972), 9 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the
freedom of the press embodies the right of the people to free speech and expression. It was
held that “Freedom of the press is both qualitative and quantitative. Freedom lies both in
circulation and in content.”

The Supreme Court observed in Union of India v. Assn. for Democratic Reforms, "One-sided
information, disinformation, misinformation and non-information, all equally create an
uninformed citizenry which makes democracy a farce. Freedom of speech and expression

7
1995 AIR 264, 1994 SCC (6) 632
8
1987 AIR 748, 1986 SCR (3) 518
9
1973 AIR 106, 1973 SCR (2) 757

RESPONDENT MEMORIAL
MULTI MOOT-JULY 2023

includes the right to impart and receive information which includes freedom to hold
opinions".

In the case of BrijBhushan v. State of Delhi 10, the validity of order imposing pre-censorship
on an English Weekly of Delhi, which directed the editor and publisher of a newspaper to
submit for scrutiny, in duplicate, before the publication, all communal matters, all the matters
and news and views about Pakistan, including photographs, and cartoons, on the ground that
it was a restriction on the liberty of the press, was struck down by court.

AIR 1950 SC 129)

10

RESPONDENT MEMORIAL
MULTI MOOT-JULY 2023

PRAYER:

In the light of issue raised, argument advanced and authorities cited , may this HON’BLE
court may be pleased to

1. To hold that the respondent’s action have not infringed upon petitioner’s Right to
Reputation, Dignity and Personal Integrity, thereby affecting his Right to Life under Article
21 of the Constitution of India.

2. To hold that right to freedom of speech and expression, as guaranteed under Article
19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, does encompass the ‘Right not to Read’ and that such a
right does not get restricted when it comes into conflict in this case.

AND / OR

To pass any suitable orders that it deems fit in the interest of law, equality, and a good
conscience and thus render justice.

And for this, the respondent as in the duty bound shall humbly pray.

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT

RESPONDENT MEMORIAL