422R

IN THE HONOURABLE SUPREME

COURT OF LIBERIO

THE 2022 INTRA DEPARTMENTAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION

Ms. FARKHANDA BIBI

(PETITIONER)

V.

THE STATE OF LIBERIO

(RESPONDENT)

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

 422R

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................ii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES..........................................................................................................iv

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION..............................................................................................vi

QUESTIONS PRESENTED.........................................................................................................vii

STATEMENT OF FACTS...........................................................................................................viii

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS..................................................................................................….x

PLEADINGS...................................................................................................................................1

I. THE CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN THE SUPREME

COURT OF LIBERIO

A. Allegations against one Person can’t be considered as a Question of Public Importance,

neither any Fundamental Right is Infringed…………………………………………….2

B. Defamation and Freedom of Press………………………………………………………2

C. Trial under different Provisions of Law…………………………………………………3

D. Search by Police…………………………………………………………………………4

II. THE FILING OF FIR NUMBER 272/2022 IS IN CONTRAVENTION TO ARTICLE 13 OF

THE CONSTITUTION……………………………………………………………………

A- Section 154 OF CrPC……………………………………………………………………4

B- FIR by two Different People in two Different Cities……………………………………5

C- FIR Filed under Different Enactments of Law…………………………………………..6

ii
 422R

D- Exception Not Available in Defamation Ordinance……………………………………....6

E- Article 17 of ICCPR……………………………………………………………………….7

III- STATEMENT MADE BY MS. FARKHANDA BIBI IS NOT ALLOWED UNDER

THE CONSTITUTION OF LIBERIO

A- Considering the Limitations of Article 19………………………………………………….8

B- Defamation by doubtful reports…………………………………………………………….9

C- Right to Privacy…………………………………………………………………………….9

D- Article 14 of the Constitution……………………………………………………………...10

E- Insulting the President……………………………………………………………………..10

IV- THE ACTIONS OF STATE AGENTS WERE ALLOWED UNDER THE

CONSTITUTION OF LIBERIO

A- The Restrictions of Fundamental Rights…………………………………………………11

B- Search Warrant and Privacy of Citizens…………………………………………………11

C- Reasonable Grounds of Police Officers………………………………………………….12

D- Seizure without Witnesses……………………………………………………………….13

PRAYER FOR RELIEF................................................................................................................14

iii
 422R

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

I. STATUTES

The Constitution of Liberio 1973…………………………………………………1, 3, 4, 8, 10, 12

The Code of Criminal Procedure 1898………………………………………………………5, 11, 13

The Liberio Penal Code 1860………………………………………………………………………...7

The Defamation Ordinance 2021…………………………………………………………………….3

II. INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966……………………………………...7

III. CASE LAWS

Zulfiqar Mehdi v. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation, 1998 SCMR 793........................2

Dr. Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri v. Federation of Pakistan and others, PLD 2013 SC 413……….2

Mst. Allah Rakhi v. D.P.O. Gujranwala and 5 others [2009] MLD 99……………………………5

Manzoor Hussain (Chaeywala) v. Station House Officer, etc. [1989] NLR 39…………………..6

NABI BAKHSH and 3 other Vs. the STATE and others [2021] PTD 1078……………………...6

Fida Jan vs. The State [2001] SCMR 36…………………………………....................................12

iv
 422R

Muhammad Naeem vs. The State [1992] SCMR 1617…………………………………………..13

v
 422R

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Council for the petitioner hereby humbly submits that the Honorable Supreme Court of

Liberio has jurisdiction under Article 184 of The Constitution of Liberio. The jurisdiction has

been invoked under Article 184 which provides the grounds for the original jurisdiction of the

Supreme Court. The Petitioner would like to humbly submit that the petition is maintainable and

the Court may exercise its jurisdiction.

vi
 422R

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. WHETHER THE CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION OF MS. FARKHANDA IS

MAINTAINABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF LIBERIO?

2. WHETHER THE FILING OF FIR NUMBER 272/2022 IS IN CONTRAVENTION TO

ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONSTITUTION?

3. WHETHER THE STATEMENT MADE BY MS. FARKHANDA BIBI ON NATIONAL

TELEVISION ON 27TH JANUARY ALLOWED UNDER FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION?

4. WHETHER THE ACTIONS OF STATE AGENTS AGAINST MS. FARKHANDA BIBI

ON 20TH MAY 2022 ALLOWED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF LIBERIO?

vii
 422R

STATEMENT OF FACTS

I.

Liberio and Yoongi are the two neighboring countries. In Liberio, two distinct parties are

dominating i.e. the Labor Democratic Party and People Socialist Party. The former one is

influenced an authoritative Gujjar Family which has a powerful political background. Mr. Shehzad

Gujjar is a politician from the Gujjar Family. He was convicted of perjury and given imprisonment

for life. Liberio High Court suspended the sentence but the Supreme Court upheld the conviction on

January 10th 2022 and Mr.Shehzad was arrested immediately. He was pardoned by the President

(Article 45 of Liberio Constitution). As Mr. Shehzad could not hold any public office due to

conviction, he rather started working as an intellectual leader of Liberio. Ms. Farkhanda Bibi is a

well-known journalist and a popular social media figure.

II.

On January 27th 2022, Ms. Farkhanda in her broadcast made defamatory statements against Mr.

Shehzad Gujjar claiming that he is known as the head of land grabbers and money launderers, etc.

His son then filed an FIR through City Police under Chapter XXI of LPC. Police arrested Ms.

Farkhanda on 29th January 2022 from her home. The tension at borders of Liberio and Yoongi

escalated as there was a regime change in Yoongi .Mr. Shehzad Gujjar gave patriotic speeches to

escalate the morale of the people of Liberio, and gained immense popularity in the country. Ms.

Farkhanda was acquitted on 7th May 2022.

III.

viii
 422R

Halima Musharraf, the legal advisor of Mr. Shehzad advised him to file case under Defamation

Ordinance 2021. She claimed that the exception that resulted in Farkhanda Bibi’s acquittal is not

present in the ordinance. On 14th May, Shehzad Gujjar filed a 2nd FIR against Farkhanda Bibi in

Airport Police Station, Trost City. Farkhanda Bibi was arrested on 17 th May by the Trost Police. She

was granted bail by trial court. When she came back to her house on 19 th May, she uploaded a status

on media that she will expose Shehzad Gujjar tomorrow on her TV show and has ample evidence

against him. On 20th May, police acquired search warrant and raided at her office where they found

her passport which indicated 15 visits to Yoongi in last year.

IV.

Later, Farkhanda was fired from her professional jobs and was not allowed to work for them. Ms.

Maham Zia, the legal advisor of Farkhanda Bibi stated that they had strong suspicion that the phone

of Farkhanda Bibi was tapped. On 28 th May, Farkhanda Bibi filed a petition in Apex Court against

2nd FIR and the acts of State Agents on 20th May.

ix
 422R

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

When the constitutional petition of Farkhanda Bibi is examined, it is evident that there is no aspect

of public importance that shall result in filing of constitutional petition in the Supreme Court. Along

with that, the fundamental rights of the petitioner are also not infringed by the State. It is evident

that the remarks made by Farkhanda Bibi i.e. “head of land grabbers and money launderers” are not

included in the freedom of speech and press. Article 19 of the Constitution sheds light on

defamation. The freedom of press is not more valuable than the honor and dignity of an individual.

Also, the essence and content of punishment of the offence under LPC and Defamation Ordinance

is not identical. Hence, all of these reasons make it evident that the petition of Farkhanda Bibi is not

maintainable in the Supreme Court of Liberio.

II

The petitioner Ms. Farkhanda filed a constitutional writ claiming that that the filing of FIR no.

272/2022 is in contravention of article 13 of the constitution. She caused defamation to Mr.

Shahzad Gujjar on national television and exaggerated the facts. Hence Mr. Khurram, son of Mr.

Shahzad Gujjar filed FIR against her on which she was acquitted by the court. She was acquitted on

the exceptions provided in the penal code but the 2nd FIR was filed on the basis of the defamation

ordinance. The defamation ordinance is a special law whereas Penal code is a general law and

special law prevails over general law and the exception on which she was acquitted is not present in

the defamation ordinance. The FIR filed by Mr. Shahzad Gujjar is valid as the prior FIR was filed

by his son and in different city. The one defamed was Mr. Shahzad Gujjar hence he is the aggrieved
x
 422R

party and only he can file a case of defamation. According to article 154 of CrPC every person has

the right to file fir if he has seen or an aggrieved party to the cognizable offence and every FIR must

be investigated. Ms. Farkhanda exaggerated the facts and caused defamation to a public leader of

the country and defamation is a cognizable offence according to the penal code and defamation

ordinance. And for every cognizable offence FIR is filed, hence the FIR filed was valid and not

against article 13 of the constitution.

(III)

The freedom of Speech and Expression‟ duly acclaimed internationally and to be the foundational

fundamental right to be inherited since the birth of a mankind, its scope and significance has far

reaching affects to create a balanced, democratic, tolerant, equitable, promising and peaceful civil

society, to be termed it as the mother of all liberties however, this liberty and freedom is not to let it

to be unbridled but to some limitations and restrictions by establishing a balance between this

freedom and diversified society in terms of ethnicity, religion, sect and language etc., even in the

US law- which is considered as the most broader law in freedom of speech and expression which

doesn’t support limitations in the strict sense – also supports some restricted and narrow limitations,

so, the purpose of these limitations is to restrict the freedom not to be stretched to the extent to

worsen the diversification of the society, to create violence and to hurt the feeling of others for

which this freedom helps to fertilize various views during dialogue in a society to make it a

civilized democracy to deliver a good governance to be directly translated in to the wellbeing of the

people. Hence, it is no freedom of speech/press to defame Shehzad Gujjar on live Broadcast and

inflict harm to his self-esteem and dignity. It is completely illegal and shall be treated under the

provisions of the legal statutes of Liberio.

IV

There is no such thing as outright and unlimited privileges of people. Close by, there is no
xi
 422R

understanding of uncontrolled and outright freedom. The aggregate interests of society, harmony

and security of the state will be given weightage. The Court may issue search warrant when it

considers that the purpose of inquiry, trial or procedure shall be served by the search or inspection.

The search of Farkhanda Bibi’s office made by police in this case on basis of section 96 is not

unconstitutional. Also, the police had reasonable grounds to search the premises of the petitioner

and police itself is considered as good witness as precedential value of police as good witnesses in

absence of witnesses of that area is proven through several case laws.

xii
 422R

PLEADINGS

1-

THE CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF LIBERIO

According to article 184(3) of the Constitution of Liberio 1, a petition is maintainable in the Supreme

Court, when it establishes two jurisdictional requirements.

i. That the question rose in the petition is of public importance.

ii. That it relates to the fundamental rights enforcement under Chapter I, Part II of the

Constitution.

When the constitutional petition of Farkhanda Bibi is examined, it is evident that there is no aspect

of public importance that shall result in filing of constitutional petition in the Supreme Court. It is

because Farkhanda Bibi’s hatred for Mr. Shehzad Gujjar can be seen through the words she used in

her statement i.e. he is the leader of the land grabbers and money launderers. These are not proved

crimes but mere allegations used to assassinate the character of Mr. Shehzad Gujjar. As the

constitutional petition lacks the aspect of public importance, it is not maintainable in the Supreme

Court of Liberio. According to Article 199(1) of the Constitution of Liberio 2, the High Court has

jurisdiction for the matters requiring the enforcement of the fundamental rights. Hence, there were

alternate remedies available to the petitioner rather than directly filing petition under Article 184(3).

She should have filed the petition in the High Court of Liberio before invoking the jurisdiction of

1
Constitution of Liberio 1973, a 184 (3)
2
Constitution of Liberio 1973, a 199 (1)
1
 422R

the Supreme Court. The petition, therefore, is not maintainable in the Supreme Court.

A- Allegations against one Person can’t be considered as a Question of Public

Importance, neither any Fundamental Right is Infringed

Mere allegations made against Mr. Shehzad Gujjar cannot be considered to be a question of public

importance. Public Importance means something which is to be shared or participated in or enjoyed

by public at large and is not limited to a particular class of community. Hence a constitutional

petition for public importance shall deem to protect the interests of a community as a whole. It can

not be claimed that a petition against an influential personality should always be for the public

interest. The fact that those statements were not based on any sort of evidence, then how can it be

considered to be for the public interest. It was held in Zulfiqar Mehdi v. Pakistan International

Airlines Corporation3, that if a controversy is raised in which only a particular group of people is

interested and the body of the people as a whole or the entire community has no interest, it cannot

be treated as a case of public importance. The grievance of Farkhanda Bibi merely falls under the

ambit of individual grievance and is not maintainable in the Supreme Court. Hence, Farkhanda Bibi

needs to establish a locus standi. Court acknowledged the importance of locus standi in Dr. Tahir-

ul-Qadri v. Federation of Pakistan and others 4, holding that mere filing of petition under Article

184(3) of the Constitution itself would not provide him locus standi to seek relief as he has not put

forward any question of public importance and the enforcement of fundamental rights.

B- Defamation and Freedom of Press

In the first part, we proved that the question of public importance was never involved in the matter.

Along with that, the fundamental rights of the petitioner are also not infringed by the State. It is

evident that the remarks made by Farkhanda Bibi i.e. “head of land grabbers and money launderers”

3
Zulfiqar Mehdi v. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation, 1998 SCMR 793
4
Dr. Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri v. Federation of Pakistan and others, PLD 2013 SC 413.
2
 422R

are not included in the freedom of speech and press. Article 195 of the Constitution sheds light on

defamation. The freedom of press is not more valuable than the honor and dignity of an individual.

The defamatory statements by Farkhanda Bibi were aimed to lower the value of respondent among

the public. Hence, Farkhanda Bibi has no right to publish such statement that injures the interests,

character and reputation of Mr. Shehzad Gujjar. In the Saifullah Khan Case, this Court strictly

interpreted the requirements of Art. 184(3) of Constitution of Liberio, and held that the text of the

Constitution is clear regarding the need for infringement of fundamental rights and those too that

are present in the text of the Constitution. Therefore, the original jurisdiction without the

establishing infringement of fundamental rights is barred. This law is to protect the rights of the

public and attempt to defame the respondent by using allegations such as “head of land grabbers

and money launderers” will invoke the power of Section 500 of Pakistan Penal Code which

provides imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both with

regard to defamation.

C- Trial under Different Provisions of Law

The first FIR was lodged under Chapter XXI of the Liberio Penal Code whereas the second FIR

was filed under Section 76 of the Defamation Ordinance of Liberio. The essence and content of

punishment of the offence under LPC and Defamation Ordinance is not identical. The phrase ‘same

offence’ means the same act or omission make punishable under the same provision of law. The test

for identity of offences is that if they have the same ingredients and if same evidence is required to

prove them. The 2nd FIR was perfectly valid and does not come under Double Jeopardy and the

constitutional petition is not maintainable in the Supreme Court.

5
Constitution of Liberio 1973, a (19)
6
The Defamation Ordinance 2021, s (7)
3
 422R

D- Search by the Police

The police searched the office of Farkhanda Bibi after issuance of warrant and on reasonable

grounds and came to know that she visited Yoongi 15 times in the last year. The search by the

police at her office was completely valid as they had all the reasonable grounds along with the

search warrant to go and check the place. Also, the fact that there was a need to search because of a

criminal matter; hence it was completely fine to check everything present at the office. It does not

violate the privacy of an individual because the search was made subject to law. Article 147 puts

emphasis that after the search warrant is obtained, even then, the fundamental rights shall be given

due respect and in this case, the police officials only investigated the office of a journalist because

of the reasonable grounds that she is involved in some sort of activity that needs to be traced out.

Also, there is no reporting of any other incident that shall depict the violation of the fundamental

rights of the petitioner. Also, there no concept of absolute and unrestricted human rights. When

there is a question of the security of state (danger to the state) then the fundamental rights will lose

their meaning because if the state is in danger, its subjects are in danger too. Hence, no fundamental

right is violated and neither is there any question of public importance that can make the

constitutional petition maintainable under article 184(3) of the Constitution.

II-

THE FILING OF FIR NUMBER 272/2022 IS IN CONTRAVENTION TO

ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONSTITUTION

A- Section 154 OF CRPC

7
Constitution of Liberio 1973, a (14)
4
 422R

Section 1548 of code of criminal procedure deals with the information to cognizable offence and the

first information report (FIR). For every cognizable offence there must be a FIR registered and after

that investigation is done for each FIR .as the statement made by Ms. Farkhanda caused defamation

to Mr. Shahzad Gujjar and defamation is a cognizable offence under the penal code and defamation

ordinance so FIR for defamation must be registered .as two separate FIRs were registered,

investigation and trail on both the FIRs must be done. Hence the FIR filed on basis of defamation

ordinance is valid and MS farkhanda must face trail and punished according to it.

B- FIR by two different People in two Different Cities

Ms. Farkhanda made a defamatory statement against Mr. Shahzad Gujjar on national television

which was an insult to Mr. Shahzad Gujjar and his family. Mr. Khurram Gujjar, son of Mr. Shahzad

Gujjar filed a FIR against Ms. Farkhanda but she was acquitted by the court. Then another FIR by

Mr. Shahzad Gujjar himself was filed. Hence both the FIRs are valid as they were registered by two

different people in two different cities. Both the parties were aggrieved as the statement caused

insult not only to Mr. Shahzad Gujjar but his family too hence Mr. Khurram Gujjar being the son of

Mr. Shahzad Gujjar and Mr. Shahzad being the direct victim of defamation have the right to file the

FIR for defamation.

In the case law Mst. Allah Rakhi v. D.P.O. Gujranwala and 5 others9 (2009 MLD 99) there is no bar

against the registration of second F.I.R. regarding the same occurrence, rather, in the case of Mrs.

Ghanwa Bhutto (supra), the order of registration of third of F.I.R. was passed by Hon'ble Karachi

High Court, which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Wajid Ali Durani and

another. Hence according to tis precedent if registration of 2nd FIR regarding same occurrence is not

barred by the court then in case Ms. Farkhanda 2nd FIR is valid.

8
The Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, s(154)
9
Mst. Allah Rakhi v. D.P.O. Gujranwala and 5 others [2009] MLD 99
5
 422R

Similarly in the case of Manzoor Hussain (Chaeywala) v. Station House Officer, etc.10 (NLR 1989

Cr.L.J. 39) learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the mere fact that an FIR has

already been registered does not debar the petitioner to lodge the second FIR in respect of the same

offence and that it is the statutory duty of the officials respondents to record the same. Hence

according to this case law the 2nd FIR can be filed. And mere filing of 2nd FIR does not cause double

jeopardy.

C- Fir Filed under Different Enactments of Law

Ms. Farkhanda made a statement that was defamatory to Mr. Shahzad Gujjar and his family. Hence

his son filed an FIR on the basis of article 499 of the penal code but Ms. Farkhanda was acquitted

by the court because of the exceptions mentioned in penal code. Mr. Shahzad himself filed the FIR

on the basis of the defamation ordinance. Both the FIRs were filed under different enactments of

law. In the case of NABI BAKHSH and 3 others Vs. the STATE and others11 2021 PTD 1078

Balochistan high court, two Firs were filed under different enactments of law. it was held that The

perusal of both the FIRs lodged under different enactments reflect that the acts committed by

petitioner do not fall within the definition of same offences, therefore, principle of double jeopardy

would not come into force. Hence according to this precedent the FIRs filed against Ms. Farkhanda

was under different enactments hence both FIRs are valid and does not contradict the article 13 of

the constitution.

D- Special Law Prevails over General Law

Two FIRS’ were filed against Ms. Farkhanda, one by Khurram Gujjar and one by Shahzad Gujjar

both by different person and on the basis of different enactments. The FIR filed by Mr. Khurram

Gujjar was on the basis of penal code whereas FIR filed by Mr. Shahzad Gujjar was on the basis of

10
Manzoor Hussain (Chaeywala) v. Station House Officer, etc.[1989] NLR 39
11
NABI BAKHSH and 3 other Vs. the STATE and others [2021] PTD 1078
6
 422R

defamation ordinance. The defamation ordinance is a special law whereas the penal code is a

general law. There is an established principle in law that the special law prevails over general law.

Hence the first FIR was filed on the basis of general law and the 2nd FIR was on the basis of special

law. Hence the registration of 2nd FIR is valid and not in contradiction with article 13 of the

constitution.

E- Exception not available in Defamation Ordinance

The first FIR filed by Mr. Khurram Gujjar, son of Shahzad Gujjar was on the basis of the penal

code of the country. The penal code12 has given exceptions under section 499 on which MS.

Farkhanda was acquitted by the court. But such exceptions is not included in the defamation

ordinance and as special law prevails over general law, defamation ordinance will prevail over

penal code, the 2nd FIR is valid and MS .farkhanda must be punished under article 7 of the

defamation ordinance as mentioned in the FIR.

F- Article 17 of ICCPR

Article 17 of The International Convention on Civil and Political Rights13 states no one shall be

subjected to unlawful attacks on his honor and reputation. As Ms. Farkhanda statement damaged the

reputation of Mr. Shahzad Gujjar and his family which means she has violated the article 17 of

ICCPR. The country has signed and ratified the ICCPR in 2010.

3-

tatement made by Ms. Farkhanda Bibi is not allowed Under the Constitution of

Liberio:
12
The Liberio Penal Code 1860, s (499)
13
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights1866, a(17)
7
 422R

The statement made by Ms. Farkhanda Bibi on national television on 27th January is allowed under

the Under Article 19 (Freedom of Speech\Expression) of the Constitution of Liberio until and

unless it is not doing any damages, either verbal or with actions, to the reputation of a person.

Mr.Shehzad Gujjar was convicted of a crime known as Perjury. He then was awarded life time

imprisonment, in 2019.

The High court of Liberio suspended the statement till the disposal of appeal, considering the

upcoming elections. However, again the conviction of Mr. Gujjar was upheld by the Supreme Court

of Liberio. After which, Mr. Gujjar was arrested immediately. On 20th January 2022 Mr. Shehzad

Gujjar was granted pardon by the president of Liberio exercising his discretion under Article 45 of

the Constitution of Liberio.

In all this process, a journalist MS Farkhanda Bibi accused Mr. Gujjar of grabbing lands, laundering

money, a convict etc., and what not. In addition to this, Farkhanda Bibi insulted the President of

democratic state of Liberio on live broadcast, by calling him a dummy; that he has just used his

power, to forgive a convict, under article 45 of the Constitution of Liberio14, following that she

stated that if this person (Mr. Gujjar) calls himself a true intellectual leader, then, the future of our

country is in alarming danger.

A- Considering the Limitations of Article 19:

Article 19 of the Constitution of the Liberio, 1973 has some limitations and restrictions. Freedom of

speech and expression, freedom of press are the rights granted by the constitution no doubt, but,

there are several restrictions and limitations that are supposed to be respected. To strike a balance

between ‘freedom and diversity in society’ in terms of faith, belief and religion, otherwise, the

unbridled freedom may create disorder and chaos in the society.

14
The Constitution of Liberio 1973, a (45)
8
 422R

Liberio has promulgated statutory laws i.e. Defamation Ordinance, 200215 (LVI2002) to be

adjudicated in civil nature and also the insertion of section 295A & 295C in Liberio Penal Code,

1860 (XLV of 1860) and Prevention of Electronic Crime Ordinance, 2009 (VIII of 2009) etc. The

prime object is to adjudicate in criminal nature to further rationalize the state laws to secure

protected interests of people to restrict the ‘freedom of speech and expression’, not to hurt the

feelings of others. Consider the elaboration;

B- Defamation by doubtful reports

The false reports published in the newspaper can cause irretrievable and irreparable damage to the

reputation and social status of a citizen and can bring bad name to the country. Therefore, it is

necessary and desirable that journalists should be most watch full not to publish defamatory

material attached upon individuals unless they first undertake responsible pains to ascertain that

there are strong and cogent grounds for believing truthfulness for the information which is sent to

them. The printer, publisher, editor and proprietor for a newspaper are as much responsible for a

defamatory, damaging and disparaging news report published in their columns as if they were the

original author and motivator. In the case of defamation, there is no special privilege of a journalist.

Hence, Farkhanda Bibi had no right under Article 19 of the Constitution of Liberio.

C- Right to Privacy:

Freedom of press is the part of the freedom of speech and expression, so, the person engaged in the

business of newspapers or any electronic business have not the right greater than the ordinary

person, as the freedom of press and speech is not absolute and unlimited, the protection extended to

the press can’t be stretched to cover wrongdoings, the press must compromise on private matters,

morality and decency, otherwise by crossing a limit of criticism, they cross all other limits by

15
The Defamation Ordinance 2002
9
 422R

invading is someone else’s business, even without their permission. Freedom implies freedom to

say and publish what every citizen wants as long as rights of others are not trampled upon (PLD

1975 Lah. 1198). Subject to the Article-19, the freedom of press has been ensured by Article-19 of

the constitution, for all government functionaries and state machinery is supposed to act in such a

manner which is advantageous to promote aim of the constitution (PLD 1989 Lah. 12). Freedom of

expression, would not give permission to damage honor and prestige of an individual or of a

country and nation (1990 CLC 1500).

If the right to freedom of speech and expression is granted under Article 19 of the constitution, then,

it do not entitle any print or electronic media to start a defamatory complain against any person to

harm his political career mere on baseless grounds, as this freedom is not absolute, but subject to

some restrictions as Article 19 do not protect defamatory matter either in written or oral, as such, an

appropriate remedy is available in the law to an aggrieved person if he has established his locus

standi.

D- Article 14 of the Constitution:

Article 14 of the constitution enunciates that the dignity of a person and home is inviolable. If any

defamation is caused to any person, it also ultimately affects the dignity, honor and respect of a

person. No attempt either individual or collective is allowed to be made to degrade and disgrace any

person which has been protected by the constitution but has also given a great value to the dignity

of a man and home, whilst exercising a right under Article 19, one should take care to ensure that

his freedom of speech and expression should not transgress the limits of Article 1416 of the

constitution.

E- Insulting the President

16
The Constitution of Liberio 1973, a (14)
10
 422R

Just like Farkhanda Bibi has insulted the President of the state, this is also illegal.

Section 124 Liberio Penal Code. Assaulting President, Governor, etc., with intention to compel or

restrain the exercise of any lawful power: Whoever, with the intention of including or compelling

the President of Liberio, or the Governor of any Province, to exercise or refrain from exercise in

any manner of the lawful powers of the President, or Governor, assaults, or wrongfully restrains, or

attempts wrongfully to restrain or overawes, by means of criminal force or the show of criminal

force, or attempts so to overawe, the President, or Governor, shall be punished with imprisonment

of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

4-

THE ACTIONS OF THE STATE AGENTS WERE ALLOWED UNDER THE

CONSTITUTION OF LIBERIO

A- The Restrictions of Fundamental Rights

Absolute and unrestricted rights of individuals do not exist. Alongside, there is no concept of

uncontrolled and absolute liberty. The collective interests of society, peace and security of the

state shall be given weightage.

B- Search Warrant and Privacy of Citizens

Section 9617 is that, ‘when search warrants may be issued’. When we look into its provisions,

we come to know that court may issue search warrant when it considers that the purpose of

inquiry, trial or procedure shall be served by the search or inspection. The search of Farkhanda

Bibi’s office made by police in this case on basis of section 96 is not unconstitutional.

The significant aspect of the case that has piqued the interest is whether the petitioner, as a
17
Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, s (96)
11
 422R

resident, was not entitled to the protection of Article 1418 of the Constitution of Liberio, because

we understand that the purpose of conducting raids after obtaining search warrants from the

Court is to ensure the privacy of the citizens whose homes are raided. In terms of the basic right

entrenched in Article 14 of the Constitution, it is an inherent right that cannot be denied to any

citizen despite the fact that he is involved in a case, but due care has been taken by the raiding

party as a result of the events and circumstances of this case.. As a result, we are inclined to

conclude that the police party did not violate the petitioner's fundamental rights as guaranteed

by Article 14 of the Liberio’s Constitution.

The fundamental rights have no meaning when state is in danger and along with the state; the

liberties of the individuals are in danger. The fundamental right of privacy was not infringed

through the search of the police officers. The police acquired search warrant and went on to

search as they found reasonable grounds to do so. Hence, the search made was in accordance to

law. As the search was made after the search warrant was acquired, then the question of

violation of privacy (under article 14) is invalid. In the case of Fida Jan vs The State19, it was

held by the Court that the privacy of an individual is not violated if proper warrant is acquired

before making the search.

As far as the tapping of phone is concerned, it is only the suspicion, not fact that the phone of

Farkhanda Bibi was tapped. The post on social media by Farkhanda Bibi was enough to

investigate the matter.

C- Reasonable Grounds of Police Officers

It is stated in 165(1) of CrPC20 that whenever a police officer has reasonable grounds to believe

that the investigation would make him find the thing that is needed by him, he shall investigate
18
The Constitution of Liberio 1973, a (14)
19
Fida Jan vs. The State [2001] SCMR 36
20
The Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, s 165(1)
12
 422R

it. This section authorizes a general search on the chance that something might be found and

that thing shall be specified as much as it could be in writing.

D- Seizure without Witnesses

Neither if seizure is affected at a place where no witness was available, nor facilities regarding

weighing the contraband articles was available. In this regard, Section 103 of CrPC21 clearly

states that when the investigation is necessary to be made and the witnesses are not found, and

the matter is of prime importance and no delay can be made for the investigation, then police

can make investigation for the welfare of public and for maintenance of law and order. There is

no ill-will or enmity between the Police official and the petitioner. The acts that the officials did

were according to the due process. They had the search warrant, they could not find any

inhabitants of that place, and it was an emergency situation, hence they are allowed in

accordance with Section 103 to investigate in this regard. It is well settled by now that Police

officials are good witnesses and can be relied upon if their testimony remained un shattered

during cross examination as has been held in case of Muhammad Naeem v. State22 (1992

SCMR 1617). The fact that the police is a credible witness is also proved by the case law of

Haftay Khan vs. The State. Hence, even though there were no witnesses, still the precedent

could be taken from the above mentioned two case laws that the police are also good witness.

Hence, the provision of article 103 used by the petitioner that there could be no search if there

are no witnesses of nearby area do not have any locus standi.

21
The Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, s 103
22
Muhammad Naeem vs. The State [1992] SCMR 1617
13
 422R

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER OF RELIEF

For the aforementioned reasons, the State respectfully prays that this Honorable Court:

1. DECLARE that the Constitutional Petition of Ms. Farkhanda is not maintainable in the

Supreme Court of Liberio

2. DECLARE that the filing of FIR Number 272/2022 is not in contravention to Article 13 of

the Constitution of Liberio.

3. DECLARE that the statement made by Ms. Farkhanda Bibi on National Television on 27 th

January is not allowed under freedom of expression.

4. DECLARE that the actions of state agents against Ms. Farkhanda Bibi on 20 th May 2022

are allowed under the Constitution of Liberio.

Respectfully submitted,

27th May 2022

The State

14