IMS UNISON UNIVESITY, DEHRADUN

MOOT COURT EXERCISE III

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF FOLKLORE

IN THE MATTER OF –
MR. APOORV LAKHWARA & NEWS FOLKLORE ...... PETITIONER

V.

STATE OF NEERPUR ...... RESPONDENT

Memorandum on Behalf of the Respondent

PALAK SRIVASTAVA (IUU18BBL012)

ANANYA TRIPATHI (IUU18BBL032)

NISHTHA KAJLA (IUU18BBL004)

(XTH SEMESTER)
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................. 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................ 4-5

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .................................................................................... 6

STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................ 7-10

STATEMENT OF ISSUES ................................................................................................... 11

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ......................................................................................... 12

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ............................................................................................ 13-20

1. Whether the petitions filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Folklore under
Article 32 of the Constitution of Folklore are maintainable or not?
2. Whether the charges framed by the Session’s Judge of Neerpur against the
petitioner are maintainable or not?
3. Whether the order passed by the District Magistrate of Neerpur sanctioning a ban
of Media coverage of the trial is an encroachment of the fundamental right of
freedom of speech and expression or not?

PRAYER ................................................................................................................................ 21

2
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS WORDS

& And

Acc. According

AIR All India Reporter

Anr Another

COF Constitution of Folklore

HC High Court
Hon’ble Honourable

Ors. Others

P Petitioner

R Respondent

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

Sec. Section

V. Versus

FIR First Information Report

F.P.C Folklore Penal Code

3
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

LIST OF CASES

1. Andhra Industrial Works v. Chief Controller of Imports and Ors AIR 1974 SC 1539
2. All India Labor Forum v. Union of India W P No: 2012
3. Directorate Of Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain & Ors Appeal (civil) 1892 of 2007
4. Academy of Nutrition Improvement v. Union of India WP(C) 80 of 2006, 4 July 2011
5. A.P. v.A.P. Health, Medical, Housing and Infrastructure Development Corporation, Hyd.
and Anr 2002 (2) ALD
6. BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of India 2001 AIR SCW 5135
7. Cooper v. Union of India [1970] 3 SCR 530
8. State of M.P. and Others vs. Nandlal Jaiswal and Other (1986) 4 SCC 566
9. L. Chandrakumar V. Union of India AIR1997SC1125
10. A.V. Venkateshwaran v. R.S.Wadhwani AIR 1961 SC 1906
11. Pramod Shriram Telgote v. State of Maharashtra (2018)
12. Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab (2001)
13. Ramshish Yadav v. State of Bihar (1999)
14. Smt. Gian Kaur v. The State of Punjab (1996)
15. Shivaji Sahabrao v. State of Delhi (2020)
16. Krishan Pandey v. The Chief of Army Staff (1992)
17. State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi (1997) 8 SCC 386 : 1998 SCC (Cri)
76,
18. Sahara India Real EstateCorporation Ltd. and Ors. v. Securities and Exchange Board of
India and Anr. (2012) 10 SCC 603.
19. R.K. Anand v. Delhi High Court (2009) 8 SCC 106
20. Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (2004) 7 SCC 528
21. Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras (1950) SCR 594
22. Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Ors (2006) 3 SCC 374
23. Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India (2018) 10 SCC 639

4
STATUTES

1. Constitution of Folklore, 1950;

2. Folklore Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

3. Folklore Penal Code, 1860

5
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTTION

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Bharat has the jurisdiction in this matter under Article of the
Constitution of Bharat which reads as follows:

“32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

(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.”

6
 SATEMENT OF FACTS

BACKGROUND

The Republic of Folklore, (hereinafter referred as ‘Folklore’) became independent on August

15, 1947. Folklore is a progressive and secular nation and believes in peaceful co-operation with
its neighbours. By virtue of the Constitution of the Republic of Folklore, 1950, it is a Federal
Nation with the legislative powers enumerated in VII Schedule of the Constitution. The ruling
party at the Central Level is Samaaj Insaaf Party (S.I.P.), and it belongs to the Czarist sect. The
ruling party in the State of Crimson (one of the States in Folklore on the South- Western side of
the Country) belongs to the Arxist religious sect and is known as the Crimson Political Party
(C.P.P.).
Manvi Kalra, a 21-year-old model was working with Cascade Talents Pvt. Ltd. She was living in
the famous Opal City in the State of Crimson. Manvi hailed from Neerpur district located in the
State of Vaishar. She was ambitious and made her mark in the modelling world with continuous
coverage with world-renowned magazines like Rogue, Harpy, Cathedral etc. She had also signed
few movies in 2018 with the Creative Pictures Production house. Her first two movies were
blockbuster hits.
Manvi was a resident of F-702, Champagne Apartments, Malibu Street, Topaz district, Opal
City. She was living with Mr. Apoorv Lakhwara, 29 years old struggling T.V. serial actor and
Radio Jockey. Their relationship was not made official by either of them; however, they were
often spotted around the city by media reporters. Manvi had a few friends in the industry. Most
of the people were jealous of her success. She used to spend considerable amount of time with
Apoorv, who was addicted to drugs. Eventually she found herself emotionally dependant on
Apoorv and afraid of being left alone, she suggested that they should open a joint account to
manage their finances together as a foundation of shared responsibility and trust in their
relationship.
INCIDENT

One day Manvi’s father Mr. Sujal Kalra came to Opal city for a surprise visit on March 12, 2020,
and upon entering the apartment, he saw Manvi and Apoorv taking drugs and found empty
bottles of alcoholic drinks on the floor. Upon realising that Manvi has a substance abuse problem

7
he insisted on taking her to Neerpur. When Manvi refused, he forcefully took her with him, and
they flew to Neerpur on March 13, 2020. Upon reaching home, her father told the family about
what he saw. The family was upset and worried about their honour and Manvi’s career. Her
brother, Hritik tried his best to get her to cut all ties with Apoorv, upon her refusal he slapped her
and kept her passport and phone hidden so she couldn’t run away. Thereafter, Manvi locked
herself in her room for days.
Manvi spent a few months at her home, ashamed of her actions she refrained from talking to
anyone at home for the first week. Manvi’s mother, Mrs. Sonia urged her to open up and took
her out for a walk on March 21, 2020, to a nearby park. During the walk, Manvi mentioned that
she missed home and didn’t have any friends in Opal City. She confessed that as a result of
Apoorv’s insistence she started consuming drugs to relieve her anxiety and subsequently found
herself addicted to drugs. Being a progressive lady, Mrs. Sonia informed her husband about her
conversation with Manvi and urged him to arrange a therapist to help her. The Psychologist,
Doctor Anmol Gulati held daily sessions with Manvi for two months. Around April 1, 2020, he
informed the Kalra family that Manvi was suffering from anxiety and depression. The incessant
substance abuse had also taken a toll on her mental health; following this incident her family
became more supportive of her. She started to feel better and recovered. Manvi was not in
contact with Apoorv since March 13, 2020.

Then on July 15, 2020, she decided to go back to Opal City for the fulfillment of some
contractual obligations. Manvi also promised her family that she would break all her ties with
Apoorv. Manvi reached her house on July 16, 2020, around 2 AM and when she entered her
apartment, she found Apoorv and his friends consuming drugs which enraged Manvi. She then
confronted Apoorv, who in his intoxicated state made harsh personal comments about her.
Manvi broke up with him and asked him to leave. Apoorv packed his bags and left her apartment
by 03:30 AM.

CAUSE OF ACTION

July 27, 2020, the media channels across Folklore were broadcasting the news of Manvi’s demise
with blazing and controversial headlines. On the morning of July 27, 2020, at 10 AM, the police
found Manvi’s body hanging on the ceiling fan with bloodstains around her groin. The safe was
broken and empty and the house was ransacked. Apoorv went to Topaz district Police Station

8
and lodged an F.I.R. u/s 154 of Folklore Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 with Inspector Aditya
Khanna which is attached herewith as Annexure 1. The police lodged the F.I.R. on July 27, 2020,
around 09:25 PM for offences u/s 397 and 306 of Folklore Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter
referred as ‘F.P.C’), based on Apoorv’s statements and the evidence at the crime scene. Police
also recovered a suicide note written by Manvi in Crimsonion Language which is attached
herewith as Annexure 2.

In the suicide note is mentioned that she is becoming insane day by day and can’t go through the
same phase again. She considers herself to be lucky girl born in her family as everyone stood by
her side and she is sorry that she crushed her parents’ dream. She also mentioned that she is
pregnant and immensely embarrassed. She had put the family through enough troubles
throughout her life. She doesn’t want to burden her family and by ending her life they all can
stop worrying about her as well.

On July 29, 2020, I.O Aditya Khanna was informed by the Forensics expert Doctor Charlie
Mehta that Manvi was pregnant and the bloodstains on her thighs and groin were a result of a
miscarriage or forced abortion. The expert also concluded that she was 4 months pregnant. On
July 30, 2020, the I.O. contacted Manvi’s family and explained to her father about the pregnancy
and recovery of the suicide note with the dead body.

AFTERMATH

On August 1, 2020, Apoorv left for his home-town Gryllspur, in the State of Viridian by train.
When the train reached Gryllspur Railway Station, the Police of Neerpur arrested him from the
Railway Station on August 2, 2020, at around 5 PM and brought him back to Neerpur Police
Station at around 10 PM on the same night. During the journey he was informed that an F.I.R.
had been lodged against him under sections 306, 397, 307, 403 and 302 r/w 34 of F.P.C, 1860 by
one Mr. Sujal Kalra on 31st July, 2020, and accordingly he was produced before the Judicial
Magistrate of Neerpur on August 3, 2020, around 4:30 PM. The Learned Magistrate put Apoorv
under police custody for ten days on August 3, 2020. On August 8, 2020, around 3 AM, Apoorv
made a handwritten and signed confession to I.O. Harshit Singh. He conceded that with the help
of C.P.P. members, he caused the death of Manvi. This information reached the media houses

9
through unofficial sources and their correspondents rushed to Neerpur to conduct the interview
of Mr. Apoorv and Manvi’s family.

Based on the confessional statement of Apoorv, the Neerpur Police submitted the charge-sheet
before the Session’s Court on August 16, 2020. Apoorv was charged under sections 306, 397,
403, 307 and 302 r/w 34 of F.P.C, 1860. Learned Session’s Judge in his judicial prudence
charged Mr. Apoorv under sections 306, 302, 397 and 403 of F.P.C, 1860. He also directed the
Additional Session’s Judge to commence with the trial from November 29, 2020, without any
prejudice to the ongoing investigation in the Topaz district. In order to maintain law and order
and to uphold the rights of the accused and the deceased, the District Magistrate of Neerpur had
passed an office order restraining all media houses from covering Manvi’s death till the disposal
of the case before the Additional Session’s Judge of Neerpur.

Aggrieved by the order of the Session’s Court of Neerpur, Apoorv approached the Supreme
Court of Folklore to set aside the charges and trial proceedings pending before the Additional
Session’s Judge, Neerpur. He also sought direction from the Hon’ble Court for time-bound
completion of investigation in Topaz district.News Folklore, a private news channel has also
challenged the order of the District Magistrate before the Apex Court which prohibits the media
agencies from reporting the case, contending that the order prejudices the fundamental right of
freedom of speech and expression. Both the cases have been clubbed and listed by the Supreme
Court of Folklore for hearing.

The laws of Folklore are pari materia to that of India.

10
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

 Whether the petitions filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Folklore under Article 32 of
the Constitution of Folklore are maintainable or not?

 Whether the charges framed by the Session’s Judge of Neerpur against the petitioner are
maintainable or not?

 Whether the order passed by the District Magistrate of Neerpur sanctioning a ban of Media
coverage of the trial is an encroachment of the fundamental right of freedom of speech and
expression or not?

11
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. WHETHER THE PETITIONS FILED BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF FOLKLORE

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF FOLKLORE ARE MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that Petition can be filed under
Article 32 of the Constitution for enforcement of Fundamental Rights, Article 32(1) states
that, Article 32 can only be invoked for enforcement of rights as guaranteed by Part III and,
for issuing writs to enforce Rights as guaranteed under Part III.

In the present case, there has been no violation of the fundamental rights since, the action
taken by the State was in furtherance of the principle of economic and social justice.

II. WHETHER THE CHARGES FRAMED BY THE SESSION’S JUDGE OF NEERPUR AGAINST THE

PETITIONER ARE MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that that Learned Session’s Judge in
his judicial prudence charged Mr. Apoorv under sections 306, 302, 397 and 403 of F.P.C, 1860
and passed an office order restraining all media houses from covering Manvi’s death till the
disposal of the case before the Additional Session’s Judge of Neerpur.

III. WHETHER THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE OF NEERPUR SANCTIONING
A BAN OF MEDIA COVERAGE OF THE TRAIL IS AN ENCROACHMENT OF THE FUNDAMENTAL

RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION OR NOT?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the District Magistrate of
Neerpur sanctioning a ban of Media coverage of the trial is not an encroachment of the
fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression and it is a reasonable restriction on
the freedom of the press. It is aimed at protecting the right to a fair trial, privacy, and dignity
of the deceased and her family, and maintaining law and order.

12
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. WHETHER THE PETITIONS FILED BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF

FOLKLORE UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF FOLKLORE ARE

MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that Petition can be filed under
Article 32 of the Constitution for enforcement of Fundamental Rights, Article 32(1) states
that, Article 32 can only be invoked for enforcement of rights as guaranteed by Part III and,
for issuing writs to enforce Rights as guaranteed under Part III as mentioned in the case of
Andhra Industrial Works v. Chief Controller of Imports and Ors 1.

In the present case, there has been no violation of the fundamental rights since, the action
taken by the State was in furtherance of the principle of economic and social justice and thus
cannot be termed as arbitrary or as one which was without the application of the mind.

The respondent submits that the Court has held that only if there is a violation of
Fundamental Rights can it step in under the Jurisdiction of Article 323. The petitioner is
raising a mere scholarly objection, without any locus standi. No one has been displaced, there
has been no forceful assimilation and nothing has been done to the environment. Hence when
there is no damnus, the Petitioner cannot seek a remedy. When an authority has been
specifically set up to hear the issues pertaining to the nature of this writ petition, the
petitioner need not waste the time of this Hon’ble Court. The respondent maintains the
applicability of the maxim, interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium. 2 This fundamental maxim is
the basis for the conception of Res judicata, as also the principle of Judicial Infallibility. In
addition, Res judicata pro veritate occipitur, or a judicial decision must be accepted as
correct.3 In Govt. of A.P v. A.P Jaiswal, the court observed the importance of consistency in

1
AIR 1974 SC 1539
2
“In the interest of the state, there should be an end to litigation.
3
Mulla, Code Of Civil Procedure 69 (14thed, 2004)

13
 judicial decisions. 4 It was this Hon’ble court’s order to take alternative steps to solve the
power crisis in the country. Moreover, when this matter has already been dealt in All India
Labor Forum v. Union of India 5 , thus principle of Res Judicata is applicable here.
Therefore the respondents submit that the petition is not maintainable.

The respondent most humbly submits that the Supreme Court has long held that interference
into policy actions is not within the its jurisdiction in the case of Directorate Of Film
Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain & Ors 6 as reiterated in the recent Iodine Salt Case in case of
Academy of Nutrition Improvement v. Union of India7.It has been held that a writ petition
cannot be maintainable if its sole purpose is to question a policy decision of the Government
in case of Association of Drugs and Pharmaceuticals, Manufacturers, A.P. v.A.P. Health,
Medical, Housing and Infrastructure Development Corporation, Hyd. and Anr 8. The position
of law on the matter of policy decisions is quite clear, from decisions such as BALCO
Employees Union in case of BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of India 9, and a
host of other cases. The list is truly extensive in case of Cooper v. Union of India 10, as the
underlying principle is sound in law. Unless there is prima facie evidence to prove that
exercise of discretion has been arbitrary, unreasonable or mala fide, the Court cannot step
into the shoes of the Government to decide the validity of a policy in case of State of M.P.
and Others vs. Nandlal Jaiswal and Other11

The tribunals are competent enough to hear this particular case by the virtue of L.
Chandrakumar V. Union of India 12. Alternative remedy is a bar unless there was complete

4
Mulla, Code Of Civil Procedure 69 (14thed, 2004)
5
W P No: 2012
6
Appeal (civil) 1892 of 2007
7
WP(C) 80 of 2006, 4 July 2011
8
2002 (2) ALD
9
2001 AIR SCW 5135
10
[1970] 3 SCR 530
11
(1986) 4 SCC 566
12
AIR1997SC1125

14
 lack of jurisdiction in the officer or authority to take action impugned in case of A.V.
Venkateshwaran v. R.S.Wadhwani13, however, the existence of a competent body to hear this
particular case questions the maintainability of the writ petition filed. It was held this
Hon’ble apex court in Asstt. Collector of Central Excise v. Jainson Hosiery where there is
alternative statutory remedy court should not interfere unless the alternative remedy is too
dilatory or cannot grant quick relief. Thus, the respondents humbly submit that the present
writ petition is not maintainable on the ground that alternative remedy has not been
exhausted.

Thus, the respondent submit that the present writ petition in not maintainable for the
aforesaid reasons.

II. WHETHER THE CHARGES FRAMED BY THE SESSION’S JUDGE OF NEERPUR AGAINST

THE PETITIONER ARE MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that Learned Session’s Judge in his
judicial prudence charged Mr. Apoorv under sections 306, 302, 397 and 403 of F.P.C, 1860 and
passed an office order restraining all media houses from covering Manvi’s death till the disposal
of the case before the Additional Session’s Judge of Neerpur.
The prosecution established the mens rea and actus reus that accused have done a criminal act
with the common intention to commit that criminal act, and all the accused have participated in
the commission of the offence in furtherance of that common intention. Also all three accused
have the common intention of committing the offence of murder, which has been prescribed in
facts. When two or more witness commited with an illegal act with a common evil intent they
shall be punished under the Sec. 306, 302, 397 and 403 of the FPC. 1860.

It is humbly submitted that the court held that Actus Reus and Mens Rea are both required for
the commission of crime, whereas in the Present Case Sessions Court has greatly erred in
holding the accused liable under Sec. 302 of the IPC as the prosecution has established the
required mens rea also the actus reus and Mens Rea of the Accused has been established. The

13
AIR 1961 SC 1906

15
Bombay High Court stated in the case of Pramod Shriram Telgote v. State of Maharashtra 14 that
in order to convict an individual under Section 306 of the IPC, there must be a definite mens
rea to commit the crime in reference with the case of Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab 15.

It is submitted that the prosecution has established the mens rea on the following grounds:
Accused has the intention to commit an offence and Accused have the motive to commit the
offence in reference with the case of Ramshish Yadav v. State of Bihar. 16

To prove the intention of the accused. the appellant has shown that there was the intention to
inflict that particular injury. which caused the death of the deceased and to prove the intention of
the accused, the appellant has shown that there was the intention to inflict that particular injury,
which caused the death of the deceased, and it was done intentionally. There has to be an
intention to commit the crime may preparation. Crime requires the mens rea’. Participation of a
person with the mens rea of that crime is also responsible in criminal act. In the case of Smt.
Gian Kaur v. The State of Punjab17, it was held that the accused was liable and penalised with
rigorous imprisonment for up to ten years, a fine, or both.

In the present case, the appellant submitted that the accused had taken the amount from the
deceased and the accused Apoorv asked Digvijay frequently asking me to transfer money from
the joint account to his personal offshore account.

Motive is something that prompts a man to form an intention. Motive is included in all criminal
cases based on the testimony of an eyewitness or circumstantial evidence which includes any
previous threat, previous argument, or any enmity between the parties that admittedly shows
motive in reference with the case of Shivaji Sahabrao v. State of Delhi. 18 In the present case,
there is a witness Mr. Gautam Basuri to affirm that the accused had motive to kill the deceased
intentionally, as the witness stated “I remember running into Apoorv at the main exit of the

14
(2018)
15
(2001)
16
(1999)
17
(1996)
18
(2020)

16
society around 09:35 PM on July 24, 2020. I saw him talking to a strange man, and that is when I
overheard that man speaking in Crimsonion, the regional language of Crimson state. I remember
him saying something like, “Do not forget to get the money!”, following which they started
whispering again.”

At last, on July 27, 2020, at 10 AM, the police found Manvi’s body hanging on the ceiling fan
with bloodstains around her groin. The safe was broken and empty and the house was ransacked.

It is humbly submitted before the court that the act or illegal omission must take place in
pursuance of the guilty intention. It is a voluntary act that causes harm under the criminal statute.

In the present case, considering the facts of the case and the suicide note attached mentioned that
the deceased was pregnant and felt immense embarrassment with Apoorv’s child accused has
committed an illegal act as the bloodstains on her thighs and groin were a result of a miscarriage
or forced abortion that caused the death of the deceased with criminal intention in reference with
the case of Krishan Pandey v. The Chief of Army Staff. 19

It is humbly submitted that when a criminal act is committed by multiple people, various
criminal acts may be committed. The specific result requires the simultaneous agreement of the
minds of those involved in the criminal action.

Participation in a criminal act is a prerequisite for establishing joint liability. There must be some
other act indicative of a common intention to commit an offence in order to sustain a conviction
for the act. It was held that the accused must have shared with others a common intention to
commit a crime and participated in its commission.

Under Section 306 of the FPC occurs when someone commits suicide after being prompted or
aided to do so by someone else. The applicability of this provision is limited to only three main
categories the commission of suicide, instigation or abetment of such suicide and direct
connection between the incitement and the committal of suicide.

19
(1992)

17
 III. WHETHER THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE OF NEERPUR

SANCTIONING A BAN OF MEDIA COVERAGE OF THE TRAIL IS AN ENCROACHMENT OF

THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION OR NOT?

It is humbly submits before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the District Magistrate of
Neerpur sanctioning a ban of Media coverage of the trial is not an encroachment of the
fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression. The decision to ban media coverage
of the trial is based on the principle of fair trial and the right to a fair trial guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court of India has held in several cases
that media trials and pre-trial publicity can interfere with the right to a fair trial and can
prejudice the impartiality of the judiciary. For example, in the case of State of Maharashtra v.
Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi20, the Supreme Court observed that media reports that tend to
create an atmosphere of prejudice can be detrimental to the accused and the right to a fair
trial.

Furthermore, the order can also be seen as a reasonable restriction on the fundamental right
of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has held in various cases that the freedom of the press is not absolute and
can be restricted in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State,
public order, decency, morality, and the right to a fair trial. For example, in the case of
Sahara India Real EstateCorporation Ltd. and Ors. v. Securities and Exchange Board of India
and Anr.21, the Supreme Court observed that the right to freedom of speech and expression is
subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of the administration of justice. The Court
further held that the freedom of the press is not absolute and can be restricted in the interest
of the sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, public order, decency,
morality, and the right to a fair trial.

20
(1997) 8 SCC 386 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 76,
21
(2012) 10 SCC 603.

18
 Similarly, in the case of R.K. Anand v. Delhi High Court22, the Supreme Court held that
media trials can interfere with the right to a fair trial and can prejudice the impartiality of the
judiciary. The Court further observed that media reports that tend to create an atmosphere of
prejudice can be detrimental to the accused and the right to a fair trial.

That the Pre-trial publicity can influence the public's perception of the accused and the case.
This can lead to a presumption of guilt, even before the trial begins. The Supreme Court of
India has held in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan 23 that "pre-trial
publicity has the potential to create a hostile atmosphere and tilt the balance against the
accused." Media trials can also lead to interference in the investigation process. Journalists
may try to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence to get a scoop. This can have serious
consequences for the administration of justice.

The order is also consistent with the principle of sub judice. The media is not supposed to
report on ongoing cases as it can lead to speculation and sensationalism. This can be
detrimental to the accused and can lead to a miscarriage of justice. The media can still report
on the case after the trial is over. The District Magistrate's order is not a permanent ban on
reporting. It is aimed at ensuring a fair trial for both the accused and the deceased.

Similarly, in the case of Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras 24, the Supreme Court held that
the freedom of speech and expression includes the right to disseminate information to the
public. However, the court also held that this right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable
restrictions in the interests of public order, morality, and the security of the State.

Furthermore, in the case of Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.25, the
Supreme Court held that the right to a fair trial is an essential part of the right to life and
personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court held that media trials can
interfere with the administration of justice and can lead to a miscarriage of justice.

22
(2009) 8 SCC 106
23
(2004) 7 SCC 528
24
(1950) SCR 594
25
(2006) 3 SCC 374

19
 In the case of Swapnil Tripathi v. Supreme Court of India 26, the Supreme Court held that the
right to free speech and expression is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interests of the
administration of justice. The court held that reporting on ongoing cases can interfere with
the administration of justice and can lead to a miscarriage of justice.

Hence, the District Magistrate of Neerpur sanctioning a ban of Media coverage of the trial is
not an encroachment of the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression and it is a
reasonable restriction on the freedom of the press. It is aimed at protecting the right to a fair
trial, privacy, and dignity of the deceased and her family, and maintaining law and order.

26
(2018) 10 SCC 639

20
 PRAYER

In the light of issues raised, authorities cited and arguments advanced, the Counsel on behalf of
the Respondent humbly requests that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare
that:

1. The petitions filed before the hon’ble Supreme Court of Folklore under article 32 of the Constitution
of Folklore are not maintainable.

2. The charges framed by the session’s judge of Neerpur against the petitioner are maintainable.

3. The order passed by the District Magistrate of Neerpur sanctioning a ban of media coverage of
the trail is not an encroachment of the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression.

And/ Or

Pass any such order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the light of equity, justice and good
conscience, for this act of kindness, the Counsel on behalf of Respondent shall be duty bound
forever.

PLACE: SUPREME COURT OF FOLKLORE (Counsels for the Respondent)

21