TC: 20

4th Gurjeet Singh Memorial National Moot Court Competition

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF HELIOPOLIS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

W.P (Civil) No: 47 of 2023 and SLP (Civil) No: 3478 of 2023

In the matter of:

Athena Inc. ………………………………………...……..… Petitioner

v.
Television Watchdog……………………………………..… Respondent

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

1|Page
 4th Gurjeet Singh Memorial National Moot Court
Competition
TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ................................................................................................

PRAYER ...........................................................................................................................

2|Page
 4th Gurjeet Singh Memorial National Moot Court
Competition
List of Abbreviations

Serial No. ABBREVIATIONS FULL FORMS

1. AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

2. & AND

3. Hon’ble HONOURABLE

4. Ors. OTHERS.

5. SC SUPREME COURT

6. SCC SUPREME COURT CASES

7. Sec. SECTION

8. u/s UNDER SECTION

9. v. VERSUS

3|Page
 4th Gurjeet Singh Memorial National Moot Court
Competition
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

TABLE OF CASES

Star India Private Limited vs Department Of Industrial Policy………….……(2019) 2 SCC 104

Avishek Goenka v. Union of India and another…………………………….…..(2012) 5 SCC 321
S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram……………………………………………..…..AIR. 1942 FC 22
Baragur Ramachandrappa v State of Karnataka………………………………...(2007) 5 SCC 11
A.K Gopalan v. State of Madras………………………………………….…………..AIR 1950 SC 27
Om Prakash V. Emperor…………………………………………………,,……...AIR 1948 Nag, 199
Union Of India v. R. Thiyagarajan…………………………………….………….(2020) 5 SCC 201
Kusum Ingots and Alloys ltd. V. Union Of India………………………..……….(2004) 6 SCC 254
State of Kerala v. Parameswaram Pillai………………………………………………..1971 SC 530
Municipal Committee, Amritsar v. Hazara Singh……………………………...…...1975 AIR 1083
Ambika Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise…………………..……..2007 (6) SCC 769
Durgesh Sharma v. Jayshree……………………………………………..………..(2008) 9 SCC 648
Steel Town Cable TV Operators’ association v. The Union Of India
……..… W.P. No. 2047 (W) of 2016.
Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Govt. of India v. Cricket Assn. of Bengal
................................ (1995) 2 SCC 161
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd. v. Union of India
………... 1986 AIR 515
Sakal Papers (P) Ltd., And Others vs The Union Of India ………………...……….1962 AIR 305
Bennett Coleman & Co. & Ors vs Union Of India ………………………………… 1973 AIR 106
M/S. Hatisingh Mfg. Co. Ltd.And ... vs Union Of India And Others……..……….1960 AIR 923

4|Page
 4th Gurjeet Singh Memorial National Moot Court
Competition

STATUTES REFERRED

1. The Constitution of India , 1949.

2. The Cable Television Networks Rules 1994.
3. The Audiovisual Media Services Directive,EU.
4. The TRAI(Telecom Regulatory Authority of India) Act ,1997

5|Page
 4th Gurjeet Singh Memorial National Moot Court
Competition
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court under Art 32 of the Constitution of Heliopolis.

The respondents have appeared to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Heliopolis in response to the
Petition filed by the petitioners.

The respondents too have approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Heliopolis preferring an SLP
under Art. 136(1) upon the judgment of the High Court of Memphis.

6|Page
 4th Gurjeet Singh Memorial National Moot Court
Competition

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Background
The country of Heliopolis is a sovereign Republic and one of the largest democracies in the world. It
adopted its Constitution in 1990, guaranteeing Fundamental Rights to each and every person
including its citizens.
Heliopolis is a Union of States with the Federal Government having power to legislate on broadcast
and airways. The Constitution provides for High Courts in every State and a Supreme Court at the
national Capital at Luxor, both having powers to enforce rights.

Television Industry
Upon the introduction of economic Reforms by the Government dated 2001, a rapid development
took place in the Television Industry and private broadcasting companies. For these private
broadcasting companies, advertisements remain one of the major sources of revenue given the nature
of cable TV subscriptions, especially the news channels having very nominal subscription fee and
even free subscription to millions of viewers.

Legislations.
To regulate the expanding presence of the private broadcasters, the federal government enacted the
Television Broadcasting regulations Act. Section 19(1) of the same Act provided for the
establishment of the Television Watchdog, the Regulator under the Act is empowered to make
regulations to carry out provisions of the Act.

Regulation
The aforementioned provisions empowers the Regulator, i.e. Television Watchdog , to publish
Television Broadcasting Regulations 2008 , setting out several conditions to regulate TV Broadcast in
the country.Of such Regulations , regulation 9 seeked to place restrictions on the duration of
Advertisements. It read as follows –
No programme shall carry advertisements exceeding 10 minutes per hour, which
may include up to 8 minutes per hour of commercial advertisements, and up to 2
minutes per hour of a channel’s self-promotional programmes.
In 2022, Television Watchdog issued directions to broadcasters to strictly comply with Regulation 9.

7|Page
 4th Gurjeet Singh Memorial National Moot Court
Athena Inc. Competition
Athena Inc is a news broadcasting company, which started its broadcasting operation in the year
2003 and has its registered office in New Memphis, the capital of State of Memphis.

Relief by High Court.

Aggrieved by such implementation of Regulation 9, Athena Inc approached the Hon’ble High
Court of Memphis seeking a writ of declaration to declare Regulation 9 as unconstitutional. The High
Court, in a detailed judgment, ruled in favour of Athena Inc and declared Regulation 9 as
unconstitutional. Also parallelly, there a similar petition has been filed by news broadcaster TV
Hox, which was filed in the High Court of State of Thinis. This was pending adjudication when the
High Court of Memphis pronounced its judgment.

Issue
Upon such Judgement pronounced by the High Court of Memphis, News Broadcasters including
Athena Inc. increased their duration of advertisements. As such , Television Watchdog has issued
directions (Directive No: 1 of 2023) to Athena Inc and other broadcasters to strictly adhere to
Regulation 9 in other jurisdictions except State of Memphis wherein the High Court had declared
Regulation 9 as unconstitutional.

Status Quo
Owing to the such aforementioned developments, Athena Inc. has approached the Supreme Court of
Heliopolis challenging the validity of Directive No. 1 of 2023 .Similarly, Television Watchdog too
has approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Heliopolis preferring a Special Leave Petition against
the judgment of the High Court of Memphis .
As such the matters are clubbed together and are now SUB JUDICE before this Hon’ble Court.

8|Page
 4th Gurjeet Singh Memorial National Moot Court
Competition

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. 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?

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

advertisements in public interest?

9|Page
 4th Gurjeet Singh Memorial National Moot Court
Competition

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

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

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

:: It is humbly submitted to Hon’ble Bench that the Regulation 9 of the Television

Broadcasting Regulations, 2008 is not violative of the provision of the Constitution and is thus
not unconstitutional. The Respondent humbly submits that In India, TRAI has adequate
provisions empowering it with enough powers to regulate the telecommunications and
broadcasting. The freedoms of speech and expression, assembly, formation of unions, free
movement and residence across India as outlined in Article 19(1)(a) are subject to restrictions
set by the Government under Article 19(2). ‘Reasonable restrictions’ as outlined in Article
19(2) of the Constitution allows for restrictions. As such, since the Constitution of Heliopolis
is pari materia with the constitution of India , and all the statutes and laws of Heliopolis being
pari materia with the laws and statutes of India , it is submitted that like TRAI , the
Television Watchdog has the powers to regulate the telecommunications sector and
provisions for such regulations are not violative of the Constitution of Heliopolis.Thus,
Regulation 9 of the Television Broadcasting Regulations, 2008 , not being violative of the
provisions of the Constitution and is thus not unconstitutional.

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?
:: The Respondent hereby humbly submits that in India, the Rule 7(11) of the Cable Television
Networks Rules 1994 is published by the Central Government and it appoints TRAI (Telecom
Regulatory Authority of India) as the Authority, established by the TRAI Act 1997, which is done by
the Union Government as Broadcasting and other wireless communications fall under the Union List.
Furthermore, it is humbly submitted that High Courts may interpret Central laws from time to time,
but such interpretation and relief is applicable merely within its territorial Jurisdiction. It would be
logically untenable to argue that the fear of inconsistency shall compel the other states to follow the
Dictum of one HC. As such , the judgment of High Court of Memphis holding Regulation 9 as
10 | P a g e
 4th Gurjeet Singh Memorial National Moot Court
Competition
unconstitutional is only confined to the territorial limits of State of Memphis by the virtue of the bare
reading of Article 226 and the established precedents and thus need not be binding all over the
country.

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

public interest.

:: The Respondent hereby humbly submits that in India, the Rule 7(11) of the Cable Television
Networks Rules 1994 is published by the Central Government and it appoints TRAI (Telecom
Regulatory Authority of India) as the Authority, established by the TRAI Act 1997, which is done by
the Union Government as Broadcasting and other wireless communications fall under the Union List.
Furthermore, The Respondents hereby humbly submit that In India, TRAI has adequate provisions
empowering it with enough powers to regulate the telecommunications and broadcasting Industry. It
is further Submitted that the ceiling of twelve minutes is reasonable and conforms to international
standards.
The Audiovisual Media Services Directive (‘AVMSD’), which all audiovisual media across the
European Union, caps the duration of advertising and teleshopping spots at twenty per cent per clock
hour. It is also further submitted that the Constitution of India in Article 19(2) provides for reasonable
restrictions. As such, it is submitted that like TRAI, the Television Watchdog too has the powers to
regulate the telecommunications sector and provisions for such regulations are not violative of the
Constitution of Heliopolis. Thus, Telecom Watchdog has the power to regulate duration of
advertisements in public interest.

11 | P a g e
 4th Gurjeet Singh Memorial National Moot Court
Competition
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

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

provision of the Constitution and is thus , unconstitutional .

1. It is humbly submitted to Hon’ble Bench that the Regulation 9 of the Television Broadcasting
Regulations, 2008 is not violative of the provision of the Constitution and is thus not
unconstitutional . The Respondent humbly submits that In India, TRAI has adequate provisions
empowering it with enough powers to regulate the telecommunications and broadcasting
Industry. The Cable Television Network Rules 1994 , provide in Section 2 (a) about the
existence of the Authority , whereby it reads as follows –
(a) “Authority” means the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India established
under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of
India Act;

2. As per Rule 7(11) of the Cable Television Networks Rules 1994, Section 6 of The Cable
Networks Regulation Act 1995, Section 11 (b) (v) of The Telecom Regulatory Authority Of
India Act 1999, empowers the TRAI to regulate anything and everything falling under the
ambit of the telecom sector. As such Regulation of Advertisements too is under the
jurisdiction of TRAI.
3. TRAI is a regulatory Authority , It does not concern itself with what the channel shows i.e. the
contents of a channel , but it concerns itself with the carriage , i.e. , how it carries its
programmes , as was held and allowed in Star India Private Limited vs Department Of
Industrial Policy1 by the Madras High Court.
In Avishek Goenka v. Union of India and another2 , the Petitioner in this case filed a petition
under Article 32 of Constitution of India before Hon'ble Supreme Court, contending that
norms of issuing calling cards was violated by service providers and as there is no
verification method for the same, Supreme Court partly allowed the petition and constituted a
committee to look into the same. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Government of India
and TRAI have to attain a delicate balance of interest between relevant instruction and
guidelines. The purpose of TRAI is to develop, facilitate competition and promote efficiency

1
(2019) 2 SCC 104
2
(2012) 5 SCC 321
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 4th Gurjeet Singh Memorial National Moot Court
Competition
in Telecom sector. Supreme Court further held that the regulatory regime is expected to fully
regulate and control all activities in this sphere. Finally, Supreme Court held that Courts
should not examine merits of the policy and that is best left to experts.
4. Reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and expression -
The freedoms of speech and expression , assembly, formation of unions, free movement and
residence across India as outlined in Article 19(1)(a) are subject to restrictions set by the
Government under Article 19(2). ‘Reasonable restrictions’ as outlined in Article 19(2) of the
Constitution allows for restrictions .
In S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram3, the Court noted while reiterating the proximity test stated
that “while there has to be a balance between free speech and restrictions for special interest,
the two cannot be balanced as though they were of equal weight”.
In Baragur Ramachandrappa v State of Karnataka4, the Court broadened the understanding of
‘public order’ by banning the publication of the novel Dharmakaarana citing observations in
the novel could hurt the sentiments of certain communities. More recently in 2017, the Supreme
Court sided with the legislature which banned the book Basava Vachana Deepthi for religious
outrage among communities, without providing a reasoned order. Thus the freedom of speech
and expression as guaranteed under the Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution of Heliopolis is not
absolute in nature.
5. The Constituent Assembly debated on freedom of speech and expression on 1 December and 2
December 1948 and finally on 17 October 1949, most of the members of the Constituent
Assembly welcomed the inclusion of right to freedom of speech and expression but conflict was
regarding the provisions in the article that placed restrictions . Those who were in the favour of
the restriction argued that ;
(a) Restrictions are fine as the Government is now not a colonial one.
(b) Nowhere in the world the freedom of speech and expression absolute.
(c) Law and security of the State cannot be compromised .

6. In the end the Constituent Assembly voted on the Article and included freedom of speech and
expression in the Constitution with restrictions mentioned with it. In A.K Gopalan v. State of
Madras5, the honourable Supreme Court observed , “Man as a rational being desires to do
many things but in a civil society his desires have to be controlled , regulated and reconciled
with the exercise of similar desires by other individuals”. Liberty has therefore to be limited in

3
AIR. 1942 FC 22
4
(2007) 5 SCC 11
5
AIR 1950 SC 27
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 4th Gurjeet Singh Memorial National Moot Court
Competition
order to be effectively possessed. Thus we can say that right to freedom of speech and
expression is not at all absolute but subject to certain restrictions as provided under Article
19(2).

7. . Various aspects of Freedom of speech & expression are subjected to reasonable restrictions-
Over the years, judicial creativity, judicial wisdom and judicial craftsmanship have widened the
scope of freedom of speech and expression by including in it the following aspects:
(a) Freedom of Press
(b) Freedom of Commercial Speech
(c) Right to Broadcast
(d) Right to Information
(e) Right to Criticize
(f) Right to Expression Beyond National Boundaries
(g) Right Not to Speak Or to Remain Silent
These aspects have widened the scope of this right but still the right has not become absolute and
is subject to reasonable restrictions on the following grounds under Article 19(2)11 of the
Constitution:
i. Security of the State
ii. friendly relations with foreign states
iii. public order
iv. decency and morality
v. contempt of court
vi. defamation
vii. incitement to an offence
viii. sovereignty and integrity of the State
8. In the case of Om Prakash V. Emperor6, the court held that the expression 'public order'
connotes the sense of public peace, safety and tranquillity. Anything that disturbs public peace
disturbs public order. Moreover, Supreme Court explained the differences between 3
concepts: law & order, public order and security of State and held that a law, punishing the
utterances delivered deliberately tending to hurt the religious feelings of any class, is valid as
it is a reasonable Restriction aimed at maintaining public order. Hence, the counsel on the
behalf of the respondents would humbly conclude that the judiciary itself, at times, has upheld

6
AIR 1948 Nag, 199
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 4th Gurjeet Singh Memorial National Moot Court
Competition
the restrictions on freedom of speech & expression, thus making this right subject to
restrictions and the application of the same does not violates the provisions of the Constitution
of Heliopolis and the Rule of Law ,and thus is not unconstitutional.
9. As such, since the Constitution of Heliopolis is pari materia with the constitution of India ,
and all the statutes and laws of Heliopolis being pari materia with the laws and statutes of
India , it is submitted that like TRAI , the Television Watchdog has the powers to regulate the
telecommunications sector and provisions for such regulations are not violative of the
Constitution of Heliopolis. Thus, Regulation 9 of the Television Broadcasting Regulations,
2008 is not violative of the provisions of the Constitution and is thus, not unconstitutional

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 4th Gurjeet Singh Memorial National Moot Court
Competition
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?

1. The Respondent hereby humbly submits that in India, the Rule 7(11) of the Cable Television
Networks Rules 1994 is published by the Central Government and it appoints TRAI (Telecom
Regulatory Authority of India) as the Authority7, established by the TRAI Act 19978, which is
done by the Union Government as Broadcasting and other wireless communications fall under
the Union List9. As such any law, ordinance, regulation, etc. passed on this subject is to be
deemed under the purview of the Centre.

2. The Article 22610 of the Constitution reads as Follows –

(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32, every High Court shall have power,
throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises 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, prohibition, 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-

7
Sec 2(a) of the Cable Television Networks Rules 1994
8
The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 , Act 24 of 1997
9
31. Posts and telegraphs; telephones, wireless, broadcasting and other like forms of communication. ( Schedule 7 of the
Indian Constitution).
10
Article 226 of the Constitution of India ,1949.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 4th Gurjeet Singh Memorial National Moot Court
a. furnishing to Competition
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 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 said 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.

3. Here, the Constitution explicitly mentions that the High Court shall have the power
throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises Jurisdiction.11 In the case of
Heliopolis, the Hon’ble High Court of the State of Memphis exceeded its jurisdiction by
declaring the pan India Regulation12 as Unconstitutional even while a same case was pending
adjudication in the High Court of the State of Thinnis.13 This kind of extra-territorial action
has been frowned upon by the Apex Court .

4. In Union Of India v. R. Thiyagarajan14, a constable in the Central Industrial Security Force

(CISF) who had been sent to the National Disaster Relief Force (NDRF), sought special
allowances for the deputation and was afforded the relief he sought by a Single Judge of the
Madras High Court. Upon the Union’s appeal, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court
extended the same relief to all personnel of the NDRF across the country. The Union
government appealed further to the Supreme Court of India, which partly allowed the appeal
and held that the Madras High Court has usurped the jurisdiction of the other High Courts. It
held that -

11
Clause (1) of Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, 1949.
12
Regulation 9 of the television broadcasting Rules, 2008( Facts Para 3)
13
Facts Para 5.
14
(2020) 5 SCC 201
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 4th Gurjeet Singh Memorial National Moot Court
Competition
“The High Court exercise its jurisdiction only over State(s) of which it is the High Court. has no
jurisdiction for the rest of the country. Matters like the present may be pending in various parts of the
country…The High Court of Madras could not have passed such order. It has virtually usurped the
jurisdiction of other High Courts in the country…

…The High Court may be justified in passing such an order when it only affects the employees of the
State falling within its jurisdiction but, in our opinion, it could not have passed such an order in the
case of employees where pan India repercussions would be involved.”

5. Also , In Kusum Ingots case15 the stipulation that a High Court can pass an order in regard to
the constitutionality of a Law of Parliament and it will have effect in the entire territory of
India was in fact an Obiter Dictum of the court and was not the main issue of the case.The
term Obiter Dictum means – “That which is said in passing”. It was an observation made by
the judge and therefore need not be legally binding on other courts.
6. In the case of State of Kerala v. Parameswaram Pillai16 , it was held by the Kearala High
court that every statement containing in a judgment need not be attracted by Article 141 of the
Constitution of India.The same was relied upon by the Supreme Court in Municipal
Committee, Amritsar v. Hazara Singh17.
7. Also Subsequently , In Ambika Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise18 , It was held
that a High Court exercises its power to issue writ of certiorari and its power of
superintendence only over subordinate courts located within the territorial jurisdiction of that
High Court or if any cause of action has arisen within such territorial Jurisdiction.
8. In Durgesh Sharma v. Jayshree19 , it was observed regarding the territorial Jurisdictional
Limitation of High Court that writs issued by the High Court cannot run beyond the territory
subject to its jurisdiction.
9. The Calcutta HC in Durgapur Steel Town Cable TV Operators’ association v. The Union Of
India20 held that 'It is trite that if the vires of a Central Act or any provision of a Central Act is
challenged and such challenge succeeds, the Act in question or any provision thereof which
was questioned and interdicted may not have applicability in the rest of the country.' Further ,
the Calcutta HC also struck a note of caution against other High Courts blindly applying the
Para 22 observation of Kusum Ingots. It was observed in this case that a status quo order
granted by Sikkim High Court taking into account the special circumstances portrayed in the
15
Kusum Ingots and Alloys ltd. V. Union Of India (2004) 6 SCC 254
16
1971 SC 530
17
1975 AIR 1083
18
2007 (6) SCC 769
19
(2008) 9 SCC 648
20
W.P. No. 2047 (W) of 2016.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 4th Gurjeet Singh Memorial National Moot Court
writ petition ought not to have been Competition
relied upon by other High Courts to hold that status quo
against the Central Government notification was automatically granted for the rest of the
country. The Calcutta HC accordingly dismissed the writ petition and refused the grant of
status quo prayed for.
10. Thus it is humbly submitted that High Courts may interpret Central laws from time to time,
but such interpretation and relief is applicable merely within its territorial Jurisdiction. It
would be logically untenable to argue that the fear of inconsistency shall compel the other
states to follow the Dictum of one HC .
11. As such, since the Constitution of Heliopolis is pari materia with the constitution of India ,
and all the statutes and laws of Heliopolis being pari materia with the laws and statutes of
India , the judgment of High Court of Memphis holding Regulation 9 as unconstitutional is
only confined to the territorial limits of State of Memphis by the virtue of the bare reading of
Article 226 and the established precedents and thus need not be binding all over the country.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

 4th Gurjeet Singh Memorial National Moot Court
Competition
3. Whether Telecom Watchdog has the power to regulate duration of advertisements in
public interest?

1. The Respondents hereby humbly submit that In India, TRAI has adequate provisions
empowering it with enough powers to regulate the telecommunications and
broadcasting Industry. The Cable Television Network Rules 1994 , provide in Section
2 (a) about the existence of the Authority , whereby it reads as follows –
(b) “Authority” means the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India established under sub-
section (1) of section 3 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act;

2. The Respondents humbly contend that In India, As per Rule 7(11) of the Cable
Television Networks Rules 1994, Section 6 of The Cable Networks Regulation Act
1995, Section 11 (b) (v) of The Telecom Regulatory Authority Of India Act 1999, all
The statutes adequately empower the TRAI to regulate anything and everything falling
under the ambit of the telecom sector. As such Regulation of Advertisements too is
under the jurisdiction of TRAI.
3. TRAI is a regulatory Authority , It does not concern itself with what the channel
shows i.e. the contents of a channel , but it concerns itself with the carriage , i.e. , how
it carries its programmes , as was held and allowed in Star India Private Limited vs
Department Of Industrial Policy21 by the Madras High Court.
4. In Avishek Goenka Vs. Union of India and another22 , the Petitioner in this case filed a
petition under Article 32 of Constitution of India before Hon'ble Supreme Court,
contending that norms of issuing calling cards was violated by service providers and as
there is no verification method for the same, Supreme Court partly allowed the petition
and constituted a committee to look into the same. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
the Government of India and TRAI have to attain a delicate balance of interest
between relevant instruction and guidelines. The purpose of TRAI is to develop,
facilitate competition and promote efficiency in Telecom sector. Supreme Court
further held that the regulatory regime is expected to fully regulate and control all
activities in this sphere. Finally, Supreme Court held that Courts should not examine
merits of the policy and that is best left to experts.

21
supra
22
supra
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 4th Gurjeet Singh Memorial National Moot Court
Competition

5. It is further humbly contended that the precedents put forward by the Learned
Counsels for the Petitioners like the Express newspapers Ltd Case23 , Sakal Papers
Case24 and Bennet Coleman case25 , etc , do not fully indulge with TRAI and The
Cable Networks Regulation Act due to the fact that these precedents concern itself
with print media , specifically Newspapers , and not the broadcasting media.
Broadcasting Media is to be under higher regulation and scrutiny than print media .
This is because , The Broadcasting Media , relies on the airwaves , which are Scarce in
Nature and absolutely owned by the State as was held in Ministry of Information &
Broadcasting, Govt. of India v. Cricket Assn. of Bengal26. Also , another factor cannot
be ignored that broadcasting media has the power and advantage of audio and video ,
and thus , is a more powerful medium of transmission , and thus arises the need to be
carefully regulated .
6. The abovementioned differences was reiterated by the Supreme Court in the
CAB(cricket assn. of Bengal) case27 whereby the apex Court In the CAB case, the
Supreme Court reiterated the difference between print and broadcasting media89 and
said that even though the broadcasting medium enjoys the protection of Article 19(1)
(a), it cannot be equated to other modes of communication. While print media in the
form of newspapers and magazines may be allowed to function in a free market
mechanism, the same cannot be allowed for broadcasting media.28
7. It is further Submitted that the ceiling of twelve minutes is reasonable and conforms to
international standards.The Audiovisual Media Services Directive29 (‘AVMSD’),
which all audiovisual media across the European Union, caps the duration of
advertising and teleshopping spots at twenty per cent per clock hour. Thus this ad cap
is not a provision out of the blue .
8. It contention to the argument of the right to trade under Article 19, etc put forth by the
petitioners , upon the mere fact that regulation of a given trade, business or industry

23
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd. v. Union of India , 1986 AIR 515
24
Sakal Papers (P) Ltd., And Others vs The Union Of India , 1962 AIR 305
25
Bennett Coleman & Co. & Ors vs Union Of India , 1973 AIR 106
26
(1995) 2 SCC 161
27
supra
28
Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Govt. of India v. Cricket Assn. of Bengal , (1995) 2 SCC 161
29
Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain
provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of
audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive)
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 4th Gurjeet Singh Memorial National Moot Court
might cause a loss or reduceCompetition
income to those engaged in it cannot render the effort
unreasonable as was held in M/S. Hatisingh Mfg. Co. Ltd.And ... vs Union Of India
And Others30.
9. It is also further submitted that the Constitution of India in Article 19(2) provides for
reasonable restrictions . Article 19(2) reads as follows –
(2) Nothing in sub clause (a) of clause ( 1 ) shall affect the operation of
any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as
such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right
conferred by the said sub clause in the interests of the sovereignty and
integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign
States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of
court, defamation or incitement to an offence.
As such , for public order and public interest , regulations can be imposed by the
Government .

10. As such, since the Constitution of Heliopolis is pari materia with the constitution of
India , and all the statutes and laws of Heliopolis being pari materia with the laws and
statutes of India , it is submitted that like TRAI , the Television Watchdog too has the
powers to regulate the telecommunications sector and provisions for such regulations
are not violative of the Constitution of Heliopolis.Thus, Telecom Watchdog has the
power to regulate duration of advertisements in public interest .

30
1960 AIR 923
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 4th Gurjeet Singh Memorial National Moot Court
Competition

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited,
may this Hon’ble Court be pleased to:

1. Dismiss the Writ Petition filed by the petitioners (W.P. No. 47 of 2023) with costs.

2. Overturn the Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Memphis declaring Regulation 9
as unconstitutional.

3. Declare and adjudge that the Television watchdog has power to regulate duration of
the advertisements.

And/or

Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.
And for this, the Respondents as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.

Sd/-

COUNSELS FOR THE RESPONDENT.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT