P12

TEAM CODE- P12

MOOT COURT AND CLINICAL EDUCATION I PROBLEM MOOT

BEFORE
THE

HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA

Citizens Union for Democratic Rights.Petitioner

VS
Union of Indiana.Respondent

Under Article 32 of Constitution of Indiana

ALONG WITH

Indiana Broadcasting CorporationPetitioner

VS
Union of Indiana..Respondent

Under Article 32 of Constitution of Indiana

(Memorial filed on behalf of the Petitioners)

P12

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREAVTIONS .......................................................................................3

INDEX OF OTHER AUTHORITIES..........................................................................4-5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTIONS...........................................................................6
STATEMENT OF FACTS............................................................................................7-8
ARGUMENTS PRESENTED......................................................................................9
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS....................................................................................10-11
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED......................................................................................12-21
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER..................................................................................22

P12

LISTS OF ABBREVATIONS

1. Art - Article
2. AIR All India Reporter
3. Honble Honourable
4. FRs Fundamental Rights
5. IBC Indiana Broadcasting Corporation
6. Ltd - Limited
7. Ors - Others
8. PIL Public Intreset Litigation
9. UOI Union Of India
10. SC Supreme Court
11. SCC Supreme Court Cases
12. SCR Supreme Court Reporter
13. & - And

INDEX OF OTHER AUTHORITIES

Constitution Used

The Constitution of Indiana, 1950

3

P12

List of Books

M.P. Jain Indian Constitutional Law.

V.N. Shukla Constitution of India.
Dr. D.D. Basu Introduction to the Constitution of India, 21st Edition, Lexis Nexi.
ILI, Public Interest Litigation, Universal Law, New Delhi, 2012

List of Cases

Anand Patwardhan vs UOI

Andra Industrial works vs Chief Controller of Imports & ors.
Aveek Sarkar vs State of West Bengal
Brij Bhushan vs Delhi
Director of film festival vs Gauray Ashwini Jain
Director Genral, Directorate General of Doordarshan vs Anand Patwardhan
Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya vs State of Bihar & ors.
Francis Coralie vs Union Teritory of Delhi
Kwaja Ahmed Abbas vs UOI
Maneka Gandhi vs UOI
MRF Ltd vs Inspector Kerala Government
Odyssey Communication Pvt Ltd vs Lok Vidhayan Sangathan
R. Rajagopal v State of Tamil Nadu
Romesh Thappar vs State of Madras
Shreya Singhal vs UOI
S.P. Gupta vs UOI
State of Maharashtra vs Madukar Narayan Mardikar
State of Madras vs V.G. Row
Usha Uthup vs State of West Bengal
Unni Krishna, J.P. vs State of Andra Pradesh
Virendra vs State of Punjab

P12

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Petitioner humbly submits to the jurisdiction of the Honble Supreme Court under Art 32 of
the Constitution of Indiana. The petitioner has approached this court for the violations of Rights
which inevitably occur due to the policy of the government of banning of the documentary.
Therefore the petitioner maintains that jurisdiction of Art 32 of the Constitution which Guarantee
citizens of Indiana from any violation of their Fundamental Rights and is applicable in the
present case.

The present memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions and argument in the present case.
5

P12

STATEMENT OF FACTS
Indiana is a successful developing economy and is a highly populated country which earlier was
a colony and gained its independence on 15 th July 1948. Before the independence the citizens of
Indiana were denied of basic human rights such as freedom of speech and expression, personal
liberty, protection against illegal arrest and freedom of press etc., this was largely used to
suppress the voice of freedom fighters of the country.
After Indiana gained independence the constitution makers gave emphasis on these rights and a
separate chapter was made in the constitution relating to the fundamental rights of the citizens
and the amendment procedure for this chapter was made very rigid.

P12
Indiana is a union of states with a democratic setup of government with New Delegio as its
capital. On 24th January 2012 a girl aged 22 was brutally gang raped in a city bus by five people
at around 9:00 P.M. in New Delegio. She succumbed to death due to vital injuries.
This triggered the fury among the citizens of Indiana and the criminal jurisprudence of the
country was widely amended and stringent provisions were added to the scope of Rape in
Indiana Penal Code and thus the code was expanded, to try the accused a fast track court was
setup and they were all sentenced to death. The conviction was upheld by the High Court and
appeal against the decision of the High court is pending before the Honble Supreme Court.
Indiana Broadcasting Corporation (IBC) is a very prominent news channel of Indiana. It also
works for the rehabilitation of criminals and it usually goes to jails to check whether jail manuals
are being compiled with or not. On 14 th October 2014 they seek permission from the jail
superintendent to interview one of the convicts of the brutal gang rape and after completion of
the interview they made a documentary and they were to reveal it publically on news channel on
11th February 2015 by the name Indianas Daughter, but, the contents got leaked before the
publication and it was declared against the dignity of people by some activists of the country.
Interview of the parents was of the victim was conducted and they said that the truth must come
before the public. A social tinderbox ignited throughout and thus due to these circumstances the
documentary was banned before its release.
Citizens Union for Democratic Rights is an NGO which makes people aware of Fundamental
Rights (FRs) and files Public Interest Litigation (PIL) for the enforcement of FRs. A PIL was
filed against the government on the ban of the documentary of IBC news channel on 4 th February
2015. Their main contention in the PIL was that it is the right of general public to know the
mindset of such criminals and by banning the documentary the union is violating the FR of
Speech and Expression of the citizens of Indiana.
The news channel IBC also filed a PIL contending that government by banning the documentary
is violating their FR of Freedom of Press which is guaranteed under Article 19 of the
Constitution of Indiana, 1951.
The Supreme Court has clubbed these two PILs and served a notice to the Union of Indiana
(UOI) to respond. UOI made the contention that this restriction was a reasonable restriction; and
7

P12
therefore no FR has been violated. It is against the morality of society and the ban is in the
interest of general public. It will be against the dignity of women and will interfere into the Right
to Privacy of the victim. UOI further contends that the petitioner do not have Locus Standi in the
present matter.

ARGUMENTS PRESENTED
The following questions have been presented before the Honble Supreme Court for its
determination:

I.
II.

Whether the PILs filed have Locus Standi?

Whether the act of banning documentary violates the Fundamental Right of Speech and

III.
IV.
V.

Expression?
Whether banning documentary violates the Freedom of Press?
Whether the restrictions Morality of society and interest of general public are reasonable?
Whether the documentary violates the Right to Privacy of the victim?

P12

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

1. Whether the PILs filed have Locus Standi.

The petitioner most humbly submits that the petition filed under Art 32 of the
Constitution is maintainable as Public Interest Litigation, which has been filed after
violation after the violation of Fundamental Rights enshrined in the Part III of the
Constitution. The action of banning documentary, by the government is violating FRs.
Thus petition is maintainable.
2.

Whether act of banning documentary violates Fundamental Rights.

P12
The petitioner contends that there is violation of FRs. The major rights which are talked
about in the petition are the Right of Speech and Expression and the Freedom of the Press
which are FR under the Constitution of Indiana. The action of banning the documentary
violates these rights as, the documentary in this case was the means by which the IBC
was trying to reach out the masses and educate them about the crimes and the mindset of
such criminals. The making of film or documentary is a form of expression and banning
it on unreasonable grounds is violation of Right of Speech and Expression.
3. Whether act of banning documentary violates Freedom of Press.
The action of government in banning of documentary also violates the right of press as it
is well settled principle that pre release of the specified work cannot be banned, but the
government shows utter negligence and bans the documentary and thus violates this right
too. Thus it is evident that the government has violates the FRs.

4.

Whether the restrictions of morality of general public and interest of general

public are reasonable.

The petitioner contends that the restrictions on the basis of which the documentary has
been banned are unreasonable. The documentary in its true sense was an attempt to cause
a social awareness about such kind of crimes and the mentality of the criminals who
commit these offences and thus benefit people at a large scale. The restriction on the
ground of interest of general public is unreasonable as the subject that the documentary
aimed, in itself is an issue that involves great public interest and thus cannot be claimed
to be against the interest of general public. Thus the restrictions are unreasonable and
banning of documentary on these grounds is wrong per se.
5.

Whether the documentary violates the Right to Privacy of the victim.

It is contended by the petitioner that the documentary does not violates the right to
privacy of the victim of the offence. The right of the privacy emanates from Art 21 that is
10

P12
the right to life and personal liberty and is available to the citizens of the country. The
victim in this case is dead and thus there is no right to privacy. Moreover as per the
previous case laws this is well settled fact that the information in public records cannot be
claimed to be protected under the right to privacy and Court records for that matter are
public records, thus the contention of government of violation of privacy is based on
baseless grounds. Thus the contention of right to privacy does not stand.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
WHETHER THE PIL WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ART 32 OF THE
CONSTITUTION IS MAINTAINABLE

1. Whether the Public Interest Litigations filed have Locus Standi and
Whether the Writ Petition filed under Art 32 of the Constitution is
maintainable.
The present petition is maintainable under Article 32 of the Constitution 1, since the act of the
Government to ban the documentary (Indianas Daughter) prima facie takes away the Right of
public to know, in this case the mindset of such criminals, which emanates from the Article 21 of
1 The Constitution of Indiana, (herein after reffered as Constitution).
11

P12
the Constitution. The Fundamental Right of Speech and Expression and the Freedom of Press
insured in the Art 19 are violated.
Thus, in this present case since there is violation of Fundamental Rights it invokes the
jurisdiction of Art 32.
1.1 The writ is filed as PIL and therefore maintainable as PIL?
A PIL can be filed against the State for the violation of Fundamental rights as guaranteed under
Part III of the Constitution2 under Article 32 of the Constitution.
Right from the decision in the case of S.P. Gupta v. Union of India3 which was reaffirmed in
State of Uttranchal Vs Balwant Singh Chaufal4, the Supreme Court has held that
where a legal wrong or a legal injury is caused to a person or to a determinate class of
persons by reason of violation of any constitutional or legal right or any burden is imposed
in contravention of any constitutional or legal provision or without authority of law or any
such legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or
determinate class of persons is by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or
economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the Court for relief, any member
of the public can maintain an application for an appropriate direction, order or writ, in the
High Court under Article 226, and in case of breach of any fundamental right, in this Court
under Article 32.
The basic test for admissibility of PIL is that it should affect the public at large. In the present set
of facts of this case, the banning of documentary which was created with the purpose of
educating the general masses with the mentality of such offenders essentially violates the FRs as
it violates the Freedom of Speech and Expression, Freedom of Press and right of general public
to know the mindset of such offenders. Moreover the restrictions put forward by the government
are totally unreasonable. The news channel IBC is entitled to file a Public Interest Litigation

2Andhra Industrial Works v.. Chief Controller of Imports and Ors, AIR 1974 SC 1539.
3S.P. Gupta v. Union of India ,AIR 1982 SC 149.
4CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1134-1135 OF 2002
12

P12
since even though the defendants contend that there exist a personal motive 5 because of which
they are barred but since there doesnt there is no personal motive and was in public interest
since the expression 'public interest'6 means act beneficial to general public and that has been
established. Since the documentary was one which primary focuses on the mind set of criminals
behind heinous acts such as that of rape, wherein in the present case it tries to highlight and bring
to the public the truth and the fact that as to what is the opinion of their family regarding such an
incident, so the ban should stand annulled. Thereby it falls under this very exception so thereby
both the petitions which are clubbed stand.

2. Whether the banning of documentary is violating the Fundamental Right of

Freedom of speech and expression of the citizens of Indiana?
Freedom of speech is the bulwark of democratic process it is the mother of all liberties. In
Maneka Gandhi v UOI7, Bhagwati J. saidDemocracy is essentially based on free debate and open discussion, for that it is the only
corrective of government action in a democratic setup. Every citizen is entitled to
participate in the democratic process and in order to enable him to intelligently exercise
his right of making a choice, free and general discussions of public matters is absolutely
essential.
2.1 Article 19(1)(a) of the constitution of Indiana says that- All citizens shall have the
right to freedom of speech and expression :
The freedom of speech under Art.19(1)(a) includes
a) The right to express ones views and opinions at any issue through any medium, e.g. by
words of mouth, writing, printing, picture, film, movie, etc.
5Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi, , (1981) 1 SCC 688
6 Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh ,(1993) 1 SCC 645.
7Maneka Gandhi v UOI (1978) 1 SCC 248.
13

P12
b) It also includes the right to communicate and propagate or publish any opinion. But this
right is subject to reasonable restriction being imposed under Art. 19(2).8
In the case of Director of film festival v. GauravAshwinJain9Allahabad HC said thatThe producer of a film can claim protection of Art. 19(1)(a). A right of a film maker to
make and exhibit his film is a part of his fundamental right of freedom of speech and
expression.
In the present case also, the right of the IBC(Indiana Broadcasting Corporation) to make and
exhibit the documentary is a part of its fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression
and banning the documentary will amount to the violation of this right. The phrase speech and
expression used in Art.19(1)(a) has broad connotation. The right to paint, or sing or to dance or
to write poetry or literature is also covered by Art. 19(1)(a) because the common basic
characteristics of all these activities is freedom of speech and expression. 10
By the above interpretation of freedom of speech and expression SC has expanded the scope of
Freedom of speech and expression.
2.2 Government banning the documentary is arbitrary, unjust and unfair
The petitioner contends that Govt. of Indiana being a State as envisaged under Article 12 of the
Constitution, it must act within the structure of the Indiana Constitution and its actions must be
informed with fairness, justice, non-arbitrariness and the principles of natural justice. The
petitioner contends that govt. has deprived the petitioner of his freedom of expression guaranteed
by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The act of government by banning the
petitioners film also denies to the Indian citizens their right to be informed about important

8 MP Jain, Indian constitutional law 7thed 2014 p. 1020.

9Director of film festival v GauravAshwinjain (2007) 4 SCC 737.
10Maneka Gandhi v UOI (1978) 1 SCC 248; Usha Uthup v State of West Bengal, AIR 1984 Cal
268.
14

P12
developments relating to the case which has affected the public and democratic character of the
Indian State. The documentary is the medium to understand the mind set of criminals.
Freedom of speech and expression also includes right of general public to know by banning the
documentary the government is depriving the citizens to understand the mindset of criminals.
Freedom to air ones views is the life line of any democratic institution and any attempt to stifle,
suffocate or gag this right would sound death-knel to democracy and would help usher in
autocracy or dictatorship. Therefore, in any set up, more so in a democratic set up like ours,
dissemination of news and views by popular consumption is a must and any attempt to deny the
same unless it falls within the mischief of Article 19(2).

3. Whether the banning of documentary amounts to violation of

Fundamental Right of Freedom of Press, recognized under Article 19 of the
Constitution of Indiana, 1951?
3.1 Pre-censorship of press or prohibiting it from publishing is violation of Freedom
of Press.
Press is the means by which people receive free flow of information and ideas, which is essential
to intelligent self-governance, that is, democracy. For a proper functioning of democracy it is
essential that citizens are kept informed about news from various parts of the country and even
abroad, because only then can they form rational opinions. Media plays an important role in a
democracy and serves as an agency of the people to gather news for them. The Freedom of Press
is not so much for the benefit of the Press as for the benefit of the general community because
the community has a right to be supplied with information and the government owes a duty to
educate the people within the limits of its resources.
Through number of cases it has been seen that the banning of documentary Indianas Daughter
is in violation of Freedom of Press. Imposition of Pre-censorship on a newspaper, 11 or prohibiting
it from publishing its own views or those of its correspondents on a burning topic of the day, 12

11BrijBhushan v. Delhi, AIR 1950 SC 129 : 1950 SCR 605

15

P12
constitute an encroachment on the Freedom of speech and expression, which includes freedom to
propagate ideas which is ensured by the Freedom of circulation of a publication.13
3.2 The state cannot prevent an open discussion and open expression of views
however, hateful to its policies.
In case of Director General of Doordarshan v. AnandPatwardhan 14, the respondent made a
documentary Father Son and Holy War.The film is shot in two parts, with the first (Trial by
Fire) examining the link between the violence of the Hindu nationalist movement, such as
the demolition of the Babri Masjid, and sexual violence against women. The second part (Hero
Pharmacy) looks at the nature of masculinity in contemporary urban India, and its role in
encouraging sexual violence.The film received U/A Certificate from the Board of Film
Censors. The film also won several National and International awards. Doordarshan refused to
telecast the film on the grounds that the film was obscene in nature and had scenes of Sexual
violence and communal violence.
The Supreme Court ruled that,Doordarshan was unjustified in refusing to telecast of the
documentary and this amounted to violation of respondents rights under Article 19(1)(a). The
court rejected the petition and said that the documentary should be viewed in its entirety and not
into bits15. The state cannot prevent an open discussion and open expression of views however
hateful to its policies.

12Virendra v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 896 : 1958 SCR 308

13Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124 : 1950 SCR 594
14 (2006) 8 SCC 433 : Anand Patwardhan v. Union of India, AIR 1997 Bom 25 : Also see, C.
Gopal Krishnan v. Union of India , AIR 1996 Ker 333
15Khwaja Ahmad Abbas v. Union of India, (1970) 2 SCC 780 : Bobby Art International v. Om
Pal Singh Hoon, (1996) 4 SCC 1
16

P12
3.3 The documentary maker has a fundamental right to exhibit his film under
Article 19 (1) (a), subject to the terms and conditions imposed under Article 19 (2).
Similarly, in 1987 Doordarshan refused to telecast a documentary film on Bhopal Gas Tragedy,
Bhopal: Beyond Genocide, prepared by the petitioner. The film in question had won Golden
Lotus awards at 1987 National Film Awards and yet Doordarshan refused to telecast the film on
the grounds that the, contents were outdated and do not have relevance now for the telecast.
The SC ruled that the maker has a fundamental right to exhibit his film under Article
19(1)(a), subject to the terms and conditions imposed by the Doordarshan, is a part of the
Freedom of Speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) which can only be
curtailed under circumstances set out in Art. 19(2).16 The court ultimately rejected the
Doordarshans reasons for not showing the film on Television and further stated that: The print
media, the radio and the tiny screen play the role of public educators, so vital for the growth of
democracy.17
The documentary Indians Daughter by IBC was made in good faith so that people
come to know about the heinous offence and mind-set of criminals. The documentary was
approved by the victims parent and they said that the truth must come before the public.
Curtailing the publication of this documentary will be inappropriate as the citizens of the nation
have a right to be informed about the incident. Further the content of documentary was nothing
as such, which was violative of the restrictions laid down by the Article 19(2).
4. Banning the documentary does not fall under the purview of Reasonable

restriction.
Reasonability differs from case to case. It is difficult to give exact definition of word
reasonable. There is no definite test to adjudge reasonableness of a restriction. Each case has to
16 Odyssey Communications Pvt. Ltd. v. LokVidhayanSangathan, AIR 1988 SC 1642 : (1988) 3
SCC 410
17 MP Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, (7th Edition, Lexis Nexis 2015) 1039
17

P12
be judged on its own merits, and no abstract standard or general pattern of reasonableness is
applicable uniformly to all the cases. Supreme Court in the case of State of Madras v. V.G.
Row18said that- It is important in this context to bear in mind that the test of reasonableness,
wherever prescribed, should be applied to each individual statute impugned, and no abstract
standard or general pattern, of reasonableness can be laid down and applicable to all the cases.
In the case of Director General, Directorate General of Doordarshan v. AnandPatwardhan
19

Supreme Court, on the decision of government of not showing the documentary related to babri

masjid demolition on doordarshan, said that- film maker has right to convey his perception on
the oppression of women, flawed understanding of manhood and evils of communal violence
throughout the film.
The limitation imposed on the freedom should not be arbitrary or excessive, or beyond what is
required in the situation in the interest of the public.

20

Doctrine of proportionality:
This doctrine means that Court would consider whether the restriction imposed on fundamental
rights are disproportionate to the situation and are not the least restrictive of the choices. There
should be proper balance between the restriction imposed and fundamental rights.
In the present case government has imposed restriction on the freedom of speech and expression
by banning the documentary. Respondent has contended that the restrictions imposed are
reasonable and are covered under Art. 19(2). Respondent contended that restriction comes underPublic order and Decency or morality
Only by analysing both we can say that whether they are reasonable or not.

18State of Madras v V G Row AIR 1952 SC 196.

19Director General, Directorate General of Doordarshan v. AnandPatwardhan(2006) 8 SCC
433.
20M R F ltd v. Inspector Kerala government AIR 1999 SC 188.
18

P12
4.2 Banning documentary on ground of Public order:
This ground was added by the First Amendment in 1951 and was to overcome the Supreme
Courts ruling in Romesh Thapars21case which had held that restrictions could not be imposed
on grounds of public order.
In Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar &Ors 22., public order was said to have more bearing
to community than law and order.. Disturbance of public order cannot encompass acts directed
against individual or certain class of individuals, which do not affect public tranquillity. The
degree of disturbance and its impact upon community life is the test to distinguish a breach of
law and order from disturbance of public order. Public order is jeopardized when the act
embraces large sections of the community and incites them to make further breaches of the law
and order thereby subverting public order.
The documentary in question has no requirement of such tendency to disrupt public order.
The Court in Shreya Singhal v UOI23 case also took resort to the clear and present danger test
according to which a State cannot forbid or proscribe advocacy of use of force or of law
violation in presence of constitutional guarantees of free speech and expression, except where
such advocacy is directed to incite or produce imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or
produce such action. This ban on the documentary does not stand good as per this test too
because it allows the State to restrict free speech even when there is no such tendency in the
information to incite or produce imminent lawless action.
4.3 Banning documentary under the ground of Decency or morality:
In Director General, Directorate General of Doordarshan v. Anand Patwardhan24, the Supreme
Court took note of the law in the United States and said that a material may be regarded as
obscene if the average person applying contemporary community standards would find that the
21Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 124.
22Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar &Ors(1966) 1 SCR 709.
23Shreya Singhal v UOI (2015) 5 SCC 1.
19

P12
subject matter taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest and that taken as a whole it
otherwise lacks serious literary artistic, political, educational or scientific value. The community
standards test was approved and applied by the Apex Court in a recent judgement given in the
case of Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal25. This documentary is not affecting decency or
morality in any way. Showing truth to the people of the country may not be obscene at all.
People have full right to know. Further making a documentary on the event that has shocked the
conscious of the nation is not against morality.

5. Whether the documentary violates the right to privacy of the victim?

The petitioner contends that the release of the documentary Indianas Daughter does not
violate the Right to Privacy of the victim, which emanates from Art 21 of Constitution of India,
1950.
In case of State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Narayan Mardikar,26the SC held that whether the
right to privacy can be claimed or has been infringed in a given situation would depend on the
facts of the said case, and the view the Court takes on the matter.
As a concept it may be too broad and moralistic to define it judicially. Whether right to
privacy can be claimed or has been infringed in a given cases would depend upon the facts
of the said case.
Thus in this case we see that there is no hard and fast rule by which the violation of the privacy
of a person can be determined, and the different set of facts in different cases will determine the
violation or infringement of the same.
V.1 Who can avail or enjoy the right to privacy?

24Director General, Directorate General of Doordarshan v. AnandPatwardhan(2006) 8 SCC

433.
25Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal 2014 (4) SCC 257.
26State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Narayan Mardikar , AIR 1999 SC 495.
20

P12
In case of Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh27the SC accepted that Fundamental Right of
Privacy emanates from Art 19(1)(a), (d) and Art 21, court also observed that this right is not
absolute and reasonable restrictions can be placed thereon in public interest under Art 19(5).
Assuming that the Fundamental Rights explicitly guaranteed to a citizen have penumbral
zones and that the right of privacy is itself a Fundamental Right that Fundamental Right
must be subject to restriction on the basis of compelling public interest.
It is though important to note that this right is conferred to the citizens and can be let alone in
cases of compelling public interest.
Further In case of R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu 28the SC laid down certain propositions
defining right to privacy and tried to reconcile the Right to Privacy and Right of Freedom of
Speech and Expression. The court observed that,
The right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and liberty guaranteed to the citizens of
this country by Article 21. It is a right to be let alone. A citizen has right to safeguard the
privacy of his own, his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child bearing and
education among other things.
The rule aforesaid is subject to the exception, that any publication concerning the aforesaid said
aspects becomes unobjectionable is such publication is based on public records including Court
records. This is for the reason that once a matter becomes a matter of public record the right to
privacy no longer subsists and it becomes a legitimate subject for comment by press and media
among others.
This case also confirms that this right is guaranteed to the citizens and that if a matter in
Public record seems to lose the right to privacy.
The council humbly put forth the contention on the basis of above stated authorities that the
release of the documentary will not hamper the right to privacy of the victim. The right to
27Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR1975SC 1378.
28R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 SCC 632.
21

P12
privacy is primarily provided to the citizens of the country and as per the facts and
circumstances in this case, the matter of right to privacy does not arise as it is provided to the
citizen of Indiana, and the victim who is no longer alive cannot be deemed to be a citizen of the
country and thus have no right. The determination of privacy varies from case to case and in this
case there is no Right to Privacy per se.
V.2 When the Right ceases to enforce?
As per Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh cited in issue 5.1, the right can be taken back in case
of compelling public interest.
In R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, it was held that the right to privacy cannot be contended
in case where the information is in public records. Since the Court records also fall under this
category, therefore the right to privacy cannot be contended. The petitioner wants to put forth
that in this case the knowledge of the general public in relation to such grievous crimes and the
mindset of such criminals is of paramount importance to the society and public at large so that
the citizens can be aware of situations and mindset prevailing around them.
The counsel contends that this matter is indeed a matter of compelling public interest as such
crimes are increasing and only the knowledge can help in prevention of such crimes, moreover,
the people of such mindset as of criminals will also come to know by this means that how wrong
and abhorrent their thinking is.

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER

In the light of the arguments advanced and authorities cited, the Petitioner humbly submits that
the Honble Court be pleased to adjudge and declare that:
1
2

The PIL should be held maintainable.

The ban on the documentary is unconstitutional show it should be removed.

Counsel for Petitioners

22

P12
Sd/ -

23