Memorial For Respondent Proposition 'B'

TEAM CODE: J
IN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT

OF HIND
UDHAAR
.......PETITIONER No. 1
Mr. SWARMY
.......PETITIONER No. 2
V/s
UNION OF HIND
.......RESPONDENT
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
22nd M.C. CHAGLA MEMORIAL GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015
P a g e | 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ..
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.......
STATEMENT OF FACTS ..
STATEMENT OF ISSUES ..
10
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS....
11
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
16
The Yoga Day Notification issued by the Ministry of Indigenous Medicine

is constitutionally valid..
The information sought under Right to Information Act should not be

disclosed
16
23
The notification issued by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting

is good in law
PRAYERS...
30
35
P a g e | 2

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Sr. No.
Abbreviation
Full Form
1.
Honble
Honorable
2.
U.O.I
Union of India
3.
SC
Supreme Court
4.
U. P.
Uttar Pradesh
5.
St.
Saint
6.
RTI
Right To Information
7.
PIO
Public Information Officer
8.
s.
Section
9.
Vs.
Versus
10.
MSG
Mahant Sadyoga Guru
11.
AIR
All India Reporter
12.
SCC
Supreme Court Cases
13.
Art.
Article
14.
SCR
Supreme Court Reports
15.
CTR
Current Tax Reporter
16.
BOM
Bombay
17.
ITR
Income Tax Reports
18.
All LJ
Allahabad Law Journal
19.
BCR(CRI)
Bombay Cases Reporter (Criminal)
20.
Bom C.R.
Bombay Cases Reporter
21.
Guj
Gujarat
22.
Cal
Calcutta
23.
DLT
Delhi Law Times
24.
RD
Revenue Decisions
25.
MIM
Ministry of Indigenous Medicine.
P a g e | 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
TABLE OF CASES
Sr.
No.
NAME OF THE CASE
CITATION
PAGE
No.
1.
Divya Yog Mandir Trust V/s JCIT
2013 (37) Taxmann 227
17
2.
Commissioner of Income Tax V/s

Rajneesh Foundation
CTR (2005) 199 Bom

490
18
3.
Indian Academy of Naturopathy Vs State

of U.P.
All LJ 2014 (6) 738
18
4.
Stephen Sedlock et al., V/s Timothy Baird

et al
Super. Ct. No. 37-201300035910-CU-MC-CTL
18
Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Red

Rose School
Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College Society
v. State of Gujarat
T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors. v. State of
Karnataka & Ors
CTR (2007) 212 All

394
19
AIR 1974 (SC) 1389
20
(2002) 8 SCC 481
20
8.
All Saints College v. Govt. of Andhra

Pradesh
AIR 1980 (SC) 1042,
20
9.
C M St. John Inter College vs. Girdhari

Singh
AIR 2001 ( SC) 1891
20
10.
Secretary, Malankara Syrian Catholic

College v.T.Jose
(2007) 1 SCC 386, 399
20
RD 2013 (119) 419
21
AIR 1960 (SC) 444
22
(2010) 4 Bom C.R. 736
24
(2010) 5 Bom. C.R. 227
24
W.P. No. 14821 (W) of

2010
25
5.
6.
7.
11. Ram Pratap v. Deputy Director

12.
Rani Drig Raj Kuer v/ Raja Sri Amar

Krishna Narain Singh
13.
Bhaskarrao Shankarrao Kulkarni vs. State

Information Commissioner
Nagar Yuvak Shikshan Sanstha vs.

14. Maharashtra State Information
Commission
15.
Mritunjay Ganguly Vs. The State of West

Bengal
P a g e | 4

16. Sanjay Vs. The State of Maharashtra
BCR(CRI)-2010-3-61
25
AIR 1983 SC 603
25
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3221

OF 2010
26
17.
Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd vs State Of

Orissa
18.
Rajkumar Shiv Hare v. Assistant Director,

Directorate ofEnforcement & Another
19.
Gokalbhai Nanbhai Patel v. Chief

Information Commissioner & Others
AIR 2008 (Guj) 2
26
20.
High Court of Gujarat v. State Chief

Information Commissioner
AIR 2008 (Guj) 37
26
AIR 1950 (Cal) 207
27
21. Dominion of India v. Nath & Co.

22.
Girish Ramchandra Deshpande V/s

Central Information Commissioner
(2013) 1 SCC 212
28
23.
Central Board of Secondary Education V/s

Aditya Bandhopadhyay
(2011) 8 SCC 497
28
AIR 1986 (SC) 872
30
(2014) DLT (207) 221
32
24. Express News Papers v. Union of India

25. Swatanter Kumar vs. Indian Express
P a g e | 5

BOOKS REFEREED
1.
C.K. Jain, Constitution of India, 7thEdition.
2.
Dr. Vijay Chitnis, Indian Constitutional Law New Challenge.
3.
Durga Das Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India, 9thEdition, 2012.
4.
G.S. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India, 7thEdition, 2008.
5.
H.K. Saharay, The Constitution of India, 2ndEdition, 2006.
6.
H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India, 9thEdition, Vol. 1, 2 & 3, 2013.
7.
M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 8th Edition, 2012.
8.
P.M. Bakshi & Jaswant Singh, The Constitution of India, 2007Edition.
9.
V.N. Shukla, Constitution of India, 9thEdition, 2006.
10. C.C.V. Subba Rao, Indian Constitutional Law, 1st Edition, 2006.
11. D. J. De, The Constitution of India, 3rdEdition, 2002, Vol. 1 & 2.
12. D. D. Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India, 8thEdition, 2008, Vol. 4&5.
13. M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 6thEdition, 2010, Vol. 1 & 2
14. Law Relating To Right To Information by S.C.Mitra and R.P.Kataria
15. The Right to Information Act, 2005 by Shruti Desai.
16. The Constitution Of India, Gopal Sankarnarayanan, 8thEdition, 2015
STATUTES REFERRED
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005
CABLE TELEVISION NETWORKS REGISTRATION ACT,1995
CLINICAL ESTABLISHMENT [REGISTRATION AND REGULATION ] ACT,2010
COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957
WEBSITES REFERRED
http://india.gov.in/my-government/constitution-india
http://www.righttoinformation.gov.in/
http://presscouncil.nic.in/
P a g e | 6

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The petitioners have filed the present Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Hind, for
invoking its original jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, which is
reproduced herein below.
Art 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 the 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
(3)
Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 )

and ( 2 ), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the
local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme
Court under clause ( 2 )
(4)
The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise
provided for by this Constitution.
This memorandum sets out the substantial questions of law which need to be settled in
the Honble Supreme Court and the submissions there under.
P a g e | 7

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1.
Republic of Hind is a vibrant economy with a majority Hindu population. In 2014

Progress at All points rose to power by receiving a landslide majority and replaced the
Panda Party. OM- Chai Singh was appointed as the Prime Minister of Hind and he is a
visionary leader who focuses on rapid economic development and transformation. He
was also a 5 time chief minister of Seceededa which is a large state in Hind.
2.
As soon as OM Chai came to power, he took up several government initiatives to

stimulate industrial and economic development. He undertook a world tour inviting
global investors to invest in hind to re- stimulate Hinds growth. On May 31st 2015 Om
Chai announced that 12 June, 2015 would be celebrated as World Yoga Day with the
carrying out of several yoga programs and events throughout the country.
3.
The Ministry of Indigenous Medicine (MIM) under the charge of OM Chai issued a
Yoga Day Notification announcing the programs for World Yoga Day Celebrations
which included compulsory practice of yoga on June 12, 2015 for all the persons and that
Yoga would now be mandatory in school and college curriculums as a compulsory
subject. Further MIM appointed Mahant Sadyoga Guru (MSG) who is a world renowned
and globally popular yoga guru as the regulating authority for the purposes of carrying
out all the functions related to Yoga Day celebrations. MSG was also a trustee of various
trusts that engaged in maintaining yoga institutions and sale of yoga and ayurvedic
products. Also, he information of MSG was disclosed under Section 4 of the Right to
Information Act, 2005. Recognising the benefits of Yoga, Government employees were
asked to learn and practice yoga for 1 hour every day from the certified practitioners
appointed by Regulating Authority.
P a g e | 8

4.
However, several Minority groups had made its reservations and protested against
compulsory yoga training. The Minister of State for MIM clarified in a public speech
also stated that compulsory yoga was aimed at strengthening the mind, body and soul of
the youth and was in supreme interest of public health and should not be viewed as
symbolic of any specific religion.
5.
The Ex-Vice Chancellor of the University of Clash, Mr. Wyingoff Wrighte said that the
yoga day notification was not applicable upon the university however the new vice
chancellor Mr. Trik Shule announced that the University would follow the notification.
6.
Suddenly Media came up with several reports regarding large- scale kickbacks and
corruption in the appointments of certified yoga practitioners of the Regulating Authority
and embezzlement of public funds. Tomorrow News, a TV News channel launched a
media campaign to investigate into the same and criticised the appointment of MSG as
the regulating authority. Further Mr. Swarmy the leading anchor for the Tomorrow
News, asked aggressive questions in intimidating way to Mahant Sadyoga Guru.
7.
An RTI application was filed with the MIM requesting information on financial holdings
of multiple trusts related to MSG. However PIO rejected the request on the grounds of
non availability of such information with MIM and third party information.
8.
Tomorrow News repeatedly broadcasted the interview and the share prices of the owner
company Networx Ltd. of Tomorrow News, increased by 377%. The revenues and
profits of the company posted increase of 420%. The CEO of Tomorrow News even
quadrupled the bonus payment of Mr. Swarmy
9.
Thereafter a report was issued by the state owned news channel News Om, which stated
that one of the directors of Networx Ltd. who was considered to be close friends with
Mr. Samadhi, the leader of the opposition, had specifically directed Mr. Swarmy to
P a g e | 9

engage in aggressive presentation and spread propaganda on the promise of enhanced

monetary compensation.
10. The Republic of Hind, issued the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2015 to amend the
Copyright Act, 1957 whereby Section 2(qq) was amended to now include a television
show anchor under the definition of a Performer.
11. The news reported by Tomorrow News was not discredited by News Om yet the
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting ordered a probe into the true motives behind
the interview with MSG and issued a notification prohibiting repeated telecast of the
interview with MSG and derecognised TV news presenter as members of the Press
owing to the recent amendment to the Copy Right Act.
12. Udhaar, an NGO has filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court of Hind challenging
the Yoga Day Notification as Unconstitutional and further has also sought the
information pertaining to the trusts related to MSG and prayed that the information was
liable to be disclosed under the Right to Information Act 2005. Mr. Swarmy also filed a
writ petition against his de recognition as a member of the press and the ban on the
telecast of the interview with MSG. The matters have been clubbed and scheduled for its
final hearing.
P a g e | 10

STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1. Whether the Yoga Day Notification issued by the Ministry of Indigenous Medicine
(MIM) is constitutionally valid?
2. Whether the Petitioner No. 1 is entitled to get the information that it has sought under
the Right to Information Act 2005?
3. Whether the Notification issued by the Ministry of Broadcasting and Information
prohibiting repeated telecast of the interview of Mr. Swarmy with MSG valid and
should it be declared good in law?
P a g e | 11

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1.
The Yoga Day Notification issued by the Ministry of Indigenous Medicine is

constitutionally valid.
The Respondent humbly submits that the yoga day celebration issued by the Ministry of
Indigenous medicine is constitutionally valid and should be declared as good in law.
1.1 Yoga is a science.
Yoga being a recognised system of medicine enables a person to acquire physical fitness
with control of senses, good thought and zeal to lead a balanced life in the field a person
possesses.The Honble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi held in its judgement that
yoga can be safely accepted as a system that fits into the definition of medical relief and
yoga as a science is a well recognised system of medicine, which has therapeutic
effects.Therefore, it is submitted that yoga is a science and a recognised system of
medicine which provides various medicinal benefits to all.
1.2 The Impugned Notification is not violative of Articles 25-28 of the Constitution.
It has been laid down in case of dispute regarding the secularity of Yoga, by the court of
California that the practice of yoga is secular and its practice doesnt infringe any
religious rights of the practitioner.
P a g e | 12

1.3 The Notification is in consonance with Art. 30(1) of the Constitution of India.
The Honble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, Malankara Syrian Catholic
College v. T.Jose held that the State can make regulations prescribing syllabus and
curriculum of study and the same would not interfere with Art.30(1).Thus, the
notification prescribing yoga to be made a compulsory subject in the school and college
curriculum with the sole object of improving the physical and mental health of the
students which would help them achieve greater academic excellence is in consonance
with the rights of the minorities and deserves to be declared as good in law.
1.4The compulsory practice of yoga is merely directory provision.
The notification merely asks all persons to do yoga and does not prescribe any
consequence for its violation, thereby making it a directory provision. The Honble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Drigraj Keur V/s A.K. Narain Singh held that a
directory provision is intended to be obeyed but a failure to obey it does not render a
thing duly done in disobedience of it, a nullity. Thus, the clause must be construed as
being directory and not punitive and should be declared as good in law.
2.
The information sought under Right to Information Act should not be disclosed.
It is humbly submitted that the information sought under the RTI Act is outside the
purview of the act and should not be disclosed.
2.1 Trusts related to MSG are not public authorities
P a g e | 13

The Preamble of the RTI Act states that it is an act to regulate and improve the working
of a public authority. Section 2(h) of the said act states the definition of the public
authority wherein the trusts of MSG find no space. Hence, the trusts under MSG does
not come under the ambit of a public authority making its disclosure outside the
purview of the RTI Act.
2.2Violation of Statutory Procedure established under the RTI Act.
The RTI Act provides a certain procedure under Section 6 to be followed in lieu of an
information. Section 6 of the Act provides that the information seeker has to submit a
written request to the Public Information officer of the concerned public authority and
as per Section 7 of the Act, the PIO may grant or refuse the information requested. In
the present case, the Petitioner No.1 is directly seeking the information of the multiple
trusts without following the procedure laid down under the Act and thus they must be
denied the same and should be directed to utilize the remedy available under the Act.
2.3Absence of the inclusion of Trusts as the Party Respondent
It is in the interest of natural justice, fair play and equity that the third party shall be
made party respondent to every proceeding in which information relating to him is
sought. In the present case, the Petitioner No.1 has sought the information of multiple
trusts. Thus, it is submitted that the same cannot be granted without hearing them and
making them a party respondent as it would be a sheer violation of natural justice.
2.4 No Cause of Action of the Petitioner
Cause of Action has been defined as bundle of facts which give right to a party to
enforce in court for redress of the legal injury. In the present case, the Petitioners have
P a g e | 14

not submitted any request and thus they have not been denied any request. No legal
injury has been suffered by the Petitioners. Thus, there is no cause of action.
2.5 Disclosure of Information exempted by Section 8 of the RTI Act.

Section 8 of the RTI Act states the exemptions from the disclosure of the information.
The Petitioner No.1 has sought information related to holdings of financial information
and it is submitted that such information are treated confidential by the trusts and thus
its exempt from disclosure under section 8(j) of the said act. Also, as MSG is in a
fiduciary relationship with the other trustees of the trust, the information is exempted
from disclosure under section 8(e) of the RTI Act.
3.
The notification issued by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting is good in

law.
It is humbly submitted that the notification issued by the Ministry of Information and
Broadcasting is good in law.
3.1 No violation of Article 19(1)(a)
The freedom of press which is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of Constitution of India
is not absolute and is subject to restrictions laid down under Article 19(2). As affirmed
by the Honble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Express Newspapers Vs. Union of
India Art 19(2) gives State the authority to impose reasonable restrictions in the interests
of public order, morality, and defamation amongst others. Hence, the ruthless allegations
of corruption and the aggressive and intimidating style of questioning goes against
P a g e | 15

morality and could lead to defamation of a public authority, thereby posing a reasonable
restriction on the freedom of press.
3.2 Commercial gain and malicious intent of Tomorrow News

The media campaign launched against MSG, the sudden allegations of corruption, and
then the aggressive and intimidating style of questioning, all point towards a certain
loophole. Immediately, the share prices of the channel increased immensely and the
profits quadrupled. This aggressive behavior was further reported by the State official
news channel as purely a behavior against monetary compensation by the leader of
opposition. Had there been a bonafide intention to educate people, the telecast wouldnt
have been repeatedly telecasted. The news channel, abusing their freedom of press, was
earning high revenues at the cost of MSGs dignity.
3.3 Violation of Programme Code
According to Rule 6 of the Cable Television Networks Rules, the Programme Code
states that no programme should be carried out in the cable service which criticises,
maligns or slanders any individual in person or certain groups, segments of social,
political, public and moral life of the country. Further Section 19 and Section 20
provide that if a programme violates the prescribed programme code, the Central
Government or its authorised officer has the right to put a prohibition upon its
transmission. Hence, as the channel criticised the appointment of MSG as the
P a g e | 16

regulating authority, carried on a negative propaganda and slandered his reputation in

the interview, the Government has a right to prohibit its repeated telecasts.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1.
The Yoga Day Notification issued by the Ministry of Indigenous Medicine is

constitutionally valid and should be declared as good in law.
1.1 Yoga is a Science.

It is humbly submitted that the Yoga Day notification is constitutionally valid and thus should
be declared as good in law. The notification which is issued by the Ministry of Indigenous
Medicine in light of the celebration of World Yoga Day has two important clauses namely:
Yoga would now be mandatory in schools and college curriculum as a compulsory

subject.
Compulsory practice of yoga for all persons on June 12, 2015.
In the present case, Petitioner has challenged this notification on the ground that it is against
various provisions of the Constitution and the same is most respectfully denied by the
Respondent.
P a g e | 17

Yoga is introduced into school and college curriculums taking into consideration extensive
benefits that it provides and thus it would be conducive to the physical and mental
development of the youth.
It is pertinent to understand the meaning of the term yoga. Yoga originates from the term
yuj samadhu which means to concentrate. Yoga enables a person to acquire physical fitness
with control of senses, good thought and zeal to lead a balanced life in the field a person
possesses.
Also Section 2(h) of The Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010
defines the term recognized system of medicine as follows:
2(h) recognised system of medicine means Allopathy, Yoga, Naturopathy, Ayurveda,
Homoeopathy, Siddha, and Unani System of medicines or any other system of medicine as
may be recognised by the Central Government.
In the case of Divya Yog Mandir Trust V/s JCIT, Hardwar Range1the Honble Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal, Delhi approved the aforesaid definition and held that yoga can be
safely accepted as a system that fits into the definition of medical relief and yoga as a
science is a well-recognised system of medicine, which has therapeutic effects.
Therefore, it is submitted that yoga is a science and a recognized system of medicine which
provides various medicinal benefits to all.
Yoga was included into the curriculum keeping in mind the innumerable benefits that it
provides and thereby supplementing the physical and mental development of children.
2013 (37) Taxmann 227

P a g e | 18

Yoga helps in improving concentration, provides peace and steadiness to the brain, reduces
mental stress, fosters development of muscles and such other benefits and thus helps in
strengthening the mind, body and soul of the youth. Thus, the issuance of notification is in
the interest of the health of the public at large and therefore in public interest and thus should
be declared as good in law.
The Honble High Court of Bombay in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s
Rajneesh2 Foundation recognized the benefits of yoga and held yoga to be an activity for the
advancement of general public utility.
The Honble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Indian Academy of Naturopathy Vs
State of U.P.3recognized the benefits of Yoga as a science and its practice worldwide and
urged the Government to formulate rules and regulations for its practice and promotion.
1.2 The Impugned Notification is not violative of Articles 25-28 of the Constitution
Also, it is humbly submitted that incorporating yoga into the curriculum does not violate the
freedom of religion as enshrined under Art 25-28 of the Constitution. Yoga training is
completely secular and therefore does not propagate or endorse any particular religion. In the
case ofStephenSedlock et al., V/s Timothy Baird et al4.the Honble Court of Appeal at State
of California had examined a schools yoga training programme and held that the programme
is completely secular and does not advance or inhibit religion and thus held it to be in line
CTR (2005) 199 Bom 490

All LJ 2014 (6) 738
4
Super. Ct. No. 37-2013-00035910-CU-MC-CTL
3
P a g e | 19

with Californias State Constitution. Section 4 of Article I of the Constitution of California

states:
Section
4. Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference are
guaranteed.
The said Section is similar to Article 25 of the Constitution of India and thus even in
California Yoga was held to be in consonance with Article 25 of the Constitution of India.
1.3The Notification is in consonance with Art. 30(1) of the Constitution of India.

The State of Clashfaer has majority of the Muslim population. The ex-Vice chancellor of
University of Clash had communicated to the Ministry of Indigenous Medicine that the Yoga
Day notification was not binding upon the University for several reasons.
Negating the same, it is humbly submitted that the yoga day notification would be applicable
to all institutions including the minorities.
Entry 25 of List III (Concurrent List) of the Constitution deals with education. Therefore both
the Central Government as well as the State Government have the right to regulate matters
pertaining to education. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Red Rose school5,
Honble Allahabad High Court construed education as a term of widest amplitude and the
activities that foster physical and mental development of a child form part of education.
Therefore the Ministry of Indigenous Medicine has the right to make regulations in this
regard and has thus made yoga a compulsory subject in the school and college curriculums.
Yoga, as above stated, has innumerable benefits and will supplement the mental and
(2007) 212 CTR All 39

P a g e | 20

physical development of the youth and thus was made applicable to all the educational
institutions.
Art 30(1) provides, all minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right
to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.
However, the right provided by this Article is not absolute and it is subject to reasonable
restrictions that may be imposed for ensuring educational character and standards and
maintaining academic excellence. Further regulations made in true interests of instruction,
discipline, health, sanitation, public order and morality would be applicable to such
institutions.
The Honble Supreme Court of India in the case Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College Society v.
State of Gujarat6, T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors7and All Saints
College v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh8 has held that although Art.30 does not lay any
limitation upon the right of a minority to administer to its educational institution, but that
right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable regulations consistent with the national
interests.
The Honble Supreme Court in the case of C M St. John Inter College vs. Girdhari Singh9
held that the State could impose regulations even upon a minority institution which would be
in consonance with Art 30(1) and such regulations must be regulative of the educational
character and conducive in making the institution an effective vehicle for the minority
community. Further the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, Malankara Syrian
AIR1974 (SC) 1389

(2002) 8 SCC 481
8
AIR1980 (SC) 1042
9
AIR 2001 (SC) 1891
7
P a g e | 21

Catholic College v. T.Jose10held that the State can make regulations prescribing syllabus and
curriculum of study and the same would not interfere with Art.30(1).
Thus, the notification prescribing yoga to be made a compulsory subject in the school and
college curriculum with the sole object of improving the physical and mental health of the
students which would help them achieve greater academic excellence is in consonance with
the rights of the minorities and deserves to be declared as good in law.
Further it is submitted that even the General Assembly at United Nations recognized the
benefits of yoga and adopted 21st June as the World Yoga Day by passing the Resolution
69/131 and bearing 175 countries as its co-sponsors, the highest ever in any General
Assembly Resolution. The resolution stated, Recognizing that yoga provides a holistic
approach to health and well-being, Recognizing also that wider dissemination of information
about the benefits of practising yoga would be beneficial for the health of the world
population,
1. Decides to proclaim 21st June the International Day of Yoga;
2. Invites all Member and observer States, the organizations of the United Nations system
and other international and regional organizations, as well as civil society, including nongovernmental organizations and individuals, to observe the International Day of Yoga, in an
appropriate manner and in accordance with national priorities, in order to raise awareness of
the benefits of practising yoga.
Thus United Nations urged nations to follow and observe World Yoga Day and thus as a
mark of respect, the notification was issued by the Ministry of Indigenous Medicine
directing that all persons shall practice yoga on 21st June.

10
(2007) 1 SCC 386, 399

P a g e | 22

1.4 The said notification being merely directive in nature doesnt violate any
Fundamental Rights.
It is humbly submitted that the said clause is merely a directory provision and should not be
looked upon as something that is punitive. The Honble High Court of Allahabad in the case
of Ram Pratap v. Deputy Director11differentiating between the term directory and mandatory
held if anything has not been done in the manner provided for under a statute and the
statute has provided a consequence of non-performance of such act as provided for, then
those provisions are mandatory and not directory.
In the present case, the aforesaid clause of the notification merely asks all persons to do yoga
and does not prescribe any consequence for its violation, therefore it must be construed as a
directory provision.
The Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rani Drig Raj Kuer v/ Raja Sri Amar
Krishna Narain Singh12 held that a directory provision is intended to be obeyed but a failure
to obey it does not render a thing duly done in disobedience of it, a nullity.
Thus, the clause must be construed as being directory and not punitive and should be declared
as good in law.

11
RD 2013 (119) 419

AIR 1960 (SC) 444
12
P a g e | 23

2.The information regarding the Multiple Trusts of MSG are not liable to
be disclosed under RTI.
In the present case, Petitioner No.1 has sought the information of multiple trusts related to
Mahant Sadyoga Guru under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and it is submitted that they
are not entitled to receive so. The Statement of Objects and Reasons lays down that it is An
Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure
access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency
and accountability in the working of every public authority. Thus it is an act to regulate and
improve the working of a public authority. Section 2(h) of the Act defines the term public
authority as, Section 2(h) "public authority" means any authority or body or institution of
self-government established or constituted
(a) by or under the Constitution;
(b) by any other law made by Parliament;
P a g e | 24

(c) by any other law made by State Legislature;

(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any
(i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed;
(ii) Non-Government Organisation substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds
provided by the appropriate Government.
2.1 Trusts related to MSG are not public authorities.
In the present case they have sought information pertaining to various private trusts and it is
submitted that the trusts do not fall under the definition of public authority. It is neither
created by/under the constitution nor under any law made by the parliament or state
legislature. The trusts are maintained by the trustees and thus the information pertaining to
trusts is not subject to disclosure to the public at large. The Honble High Court of Bombay in
the case of Bhaskarrao Shankarrao Kulkarni vs. State Information Commissioner13held that
as the public trust is not created by Government or Parliament and not substantively financed
by Government, therefore, it is not covered by definition of public authority and it would not
be bound by provisions of RTI Act.
Even in the case of Nagar Yuvak Shikshan Sanstha vs. Maharashtra State Information
Commission14, Honble High Court of Bombay held that there is nothing on record to show
that either of the two institutions, namely petitioners are being run insofar as its management
and affairs are concerned either directly or indirectly by the Government. For all the above
reasons, I am of the opinion that none of the petitioners are covered by the definition of
public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act.

13
(2010) 4 Bom C.R. 736

(2010) 5 Bom. C. R. 227
14
P a g e | 25

2.2 Violation of Statutory Procedure established under the RTI Act.

Further it is submitted that the Petitioners have violated the procedure established under the
Right to Information Act, 2005. Section 6 of the Act provides that the information seeker has
to submit a written request to the Public Information officer of the concerned public authority
and as per Section 7 of the Act, the PIO may grant or refuse the information requested. In the
present case, the Petitioner No.1 is directly seeking the information of the multiple trusts
without following the procedure laid down under the Act and thus they must be denied the
same and should be directed to avail of the remedy available under the Act.
The Honble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Mritunjay Ganguly Vs. The State of West
Bengal
15
held The official dealing with the application under Section 6 of the Right
to Information Act, 2005 has given his decision. Whether the decision is a decision is to be
examined by the appellate authority under s. 19(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
When the special statute provides for special remedy of appeal, I do not find any reason to
interfere with the decision in exercise of power underart.226. It is not the case that the
decision completely without jurisdiction. In my opinion, the petitioner's remedy, if any, is
before the appellate authority under s.19.
Further Honble High Court of Bombay in the case of Sanjay Vs. The State of
Maharashtra16held It appears that, subject matter is within the purview of Right To
Information Act, 2005 and statutory remedy is available to the petitioner thereunder upon
refusal of the information sought as of right and petitioner may avail such remedy, if he
desires so, and therefore, no interference is called for in the aforesaid impugned orders dated
4.7.2009 and 16.2.2010, and accordingly, present petition deserves to be dismissed.

15
W.P. No. 14821 (W) of 2010

BCR(CRI)-2010-3-61
16
P a g e | 26

Similarly, the Honble Supreme Court of India in the case ofTitaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd vs
State Of Orissa17held, We are constrained to dismiss these petitions on the short ground that
the petitioners have an equally efficacious alternative remedy by way of an appeal to the
prescribed authority under sub-s. (1) of s. 23 of the Act, then a second appeal to the Tribunal
under sub s. (3) (a) thereof, and thereafter in the event the petitioners get no relief, to have
the case stated to the High Court under s. 23 of the Act. And the same was also affirmed by
the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Rajkumar Shiv Hare v. Assistant Director,
Directorate ofEnforcement & Another18.
Also it is in the interest of natural justice, fair play and equity that the third party shall be
made party respondent to every proceeding in which information relating to him is sought.
In the present case, the Petitioner No.1 has sought the information of various trusts and thus it
is submitted that the same cannot be granted without hearing them.
In the case of Gokalbhai Nanbhai Patel v. Chief Information Commissioner &
Others19,Honble High Court of Gujarat held, Whenever any applicant is applying for
getting any information about third party, such information shall be given by Public
Information Officer under Section 7 of the Act, 2005, only after following procedure
prescribed under Section 11(1) of the Act. 2005 and also keeping in mind Section 7(7) of the
Act. 2005. Here no such opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner by Chief
Information Commissioner. (V) The concerned authorities have not properly appreciated
that the present petitioner was never a party in the First Appeal as well as in the Second
Appeal and the order has been passed against the petitioner. No notice was ever issued to the

17
AIR 1983 SC 603

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3221 OF 2010
18
19
AIR 2008 (Guj) 2

P a g e | 27

present petitioner and, therefore also, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set
aside. Chief Information Commissioner appears to be ignorant about aforesaid simple
judicial process. Bare minimum requirement is, to follow principles of natural justice. The
same view was also held by The High Court of Gujarat in the case of High Court of Gujarat
v. State Chief Information Commissioner.20
2.3 No Cause of Action of the Petitioners.

Further it is also contended that at present there is no cause of action on the part of Petitioner
which may justify their petition and thus the Petition is premature. Cause of action has been
defined as bundle of facts which give right to a party to enforce in court for redress of the
legal injury. In the present case, the Petitioners have not submitted any request and thus they
have not been denied any request. Therefore, no legal injury has by the Petitioners and thus
there is no cause of action.
The Honble Calcutta High Court in the case of Dominion of India v. Nath & Co. held that
the cause of action must be antecedent to the suit which in the present case is absent and thus
the Petition is permute and deserves to be dismissed.21
2.4 Disclosure of Information exempted by Section 8 of the RTI Act.
Further it is submitted that the information should not be disclosed as it is exempt from
disclosure as provided under Section 8 of the Act. Section 8 states
8. Exemption from disclosure of information.

20
AIR 2008 (Guj) 37

AIR 1950 (Cal) 207
21
P a g e | 28

Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any
citizen,
(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no
relationship to any public
activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the
individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information
Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest
justifies the disclosure of such information
The Petitioner No.1 has sought information related to holdings of financial information and it
is submitted that such information are treated confidential by the trusts and thus it is exempt
from disclosure.
The Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande V/s
Central Information Commissioner22held that information like income tax returns are
personal information and thus are outside the scope of Section 8.
Further it is submitted that the information of various trusts which the Petitioner No.1 has
sought is provided to Mr. Mahant Sadyoga Guru by virtue of the fiduciary relationship that he
has with the trusts and thus it is given to him in confidence and the disclosure is exempted as
provide by Section 8(e).
Section 8(e) states

Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any
citizen,

22
(2013) 1 SCC 212

P a g e | 29

(e) information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent
authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such
information.
Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education V/s
Aditya Bandhopadhyay23defined the term fiduciary relationship as
The term `fiduciary' refers to a person having a duty to act for the benefit of another,
showing good faith and condour, where such other person reposes trust and special
confidence in the person owing or discharging the duty. The term `fiduciary
relationship' is used to describe a situation or transaction where one person
(beneficiary) places complete confidence in another person (fiduciary) in regard to his
affairs, business or transaction/s. The term also refers to a person who holds a thing in
trust for another (beneficiary). The fiduciary is expected to act in confidence and for the
benefit and advantage of the beneficiary, and use good faith and fairness in dealing
with the beneficiary or the things belonging to the beneficiary. If the beneficiary has
entrusted anything to the fiduciary, to hold the thing in trust or to execute certain acts in
regard to or with reference to the entrusted thing, the fiduciary has to act in confidence
and expected not to disclose the thing or information to any third party.
Thus the information sought cannot be provided considering the fiduciary relationship and
exemption from disclosure.

23
(2011) 8 SCC 497

P a g e | 30

3. The notification issued by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting

should be declared as good in law
3.1 No violation of Article 19(1)(a).
It is humbly submitted that the notification issued by the Ministry of Broadcasting and
information is valid and should be declared as good in law. There are two important clauses
in this notification namely:
Prohibition on repeated telecast of the interview of Mahant Sadyoga Guru.
De-recognition of television news anchors/presenters as members of press.
At the outset, it is pertinent to understand that freedom of the press is guaranteed under
Article 19(1)(a) of Constitution of India and is not absolute and is subject to restrictions laid
down under Article 19(2).
The Honble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Express News Papers v. Union of
India24AIR 1986 (SC) 872 explaining the true nature of freedom of press held that
Howsoever precious and cherished the
freedom of speech is under Art.19(1)(a), this

24
AIR 1986 (SC) 872

P a g e | 31

freedom is not absolute and unlimited at all times and under all circumstances but is subject
to the restrictions contained in Art.19(2) That must be so because unrestricted freedom of the
press and is wholly free from restraints, amounts to uncontrolled license which would lead to
disorder and anarchy and it would be hazardous to ignore the vital importance of our social
and national interest in public order and security of the State
Art 19(2) gives State the authority to impose reasonable restrictions in the interests of public
order, morality, and defamation amongst others. In the present case, Tomorrow News
launched its own investigation campaign regarding the alleged corruption in appointments of
Certified Yoga practitioners and severely criticised the appointment of Mahant Sadyoga Guru
as the regulating authority. Also when Mahant Sadyoga Guru went to clarify his stand on the
alleged reports, Petitioner No.2 asked him intimidating questions in aggressive style.
3.2 Commercial gains and malicious intent of Tomorrow News.
The interview received the highest ratings that the channel ever received and the share prices
of the Networx Ltd. went up by 377% and the profits rose by 420%. This interview was
repeatedly broadcasted by Tomorrow News which clearly shows their malafide intentions.
Tomorrow News continuously broadcasted this interview so as to earn revenue and
viewership at the cost of Mahant Sadyoga Gurus reputation and dignity. They have severely
abused their freedom of press as their only objective in conducting the interview and
repeatedly broadcasting the same is to generate TRPs. Therefore the act of the state cannot be
challenged as curtailing the freedom of press as the state has not prohibited the broadcasting
of this interview but is placing a ban only on its repeated broadcast which is done by
Tomorrow News with ulterior motives and for commercial gain at the cost of the reputation
of the world renowned Yoga Guru MSG.
P a g e | 32

Also the authenticity and the genuineness of the media campaign given by the Tomorrow
News is under suspicion as a report submitted by the States official news channel News Om,
stated that the Leader of Opposition, Mr. Samadhi specifically directed Mr. Swarmy to be
aggressive while conducting interview and spread the propaganda on the promise of
enhanced compensation. The facts also show that Mr. Swarmy received a quadrupled bonus
immediately after the interview.
The Honble Delhi High Court in the case of Swatanter Kumar vs. Indian Express25granted
an injunction and restrained the media from carrying on negative propaganda against the
petitioner as the same was being conducted merely on the basis of some allegations without
being any inquiry conducted or completed. The Honble Court held that if ultimately the
allegations prove to be false, irreparable harm already done to the petitioner could not be
compensated and thus held that the restraint was necessary to protect the right to reputation
and the right to free trial of the petitioner.
3.3 Violation of Programme Code.

Further it is humbly submitted that the programmes broadcasted on the television are
regulated by Cable Television Networks Regulation Act, 1995 and the rules made there
under. Section 5 of the Act states that all the programmes broadcasted shall adhere to the
programme code as laid down under Rule 6 of the Cable Television Networks Rules,1994.
Further Section 19 and Section 20 provide that if a programme violates the prescribed
programme code, the Central Government or its authorised officer has the right to put a
prohibition upon its transmission.

25
(2014) DLT (207) 221

P a g e | 33

Rule 6 of the Cable Television Networks states:

Programme Code.
(1) No programme should be carried in the cable service which:(d) Contains anything obscene, defamatory, deliberate, false and suggestive innuendos
and half-truths.
(i) Criticises, maligns or slanders any individual in person or certain groups, segments of
social, public and moral life of the country;
In the present case, Tomorrow News severely criticised the appointment of MSG as the
regulating authority and carried on a negative propaganda and this violated the programme
code. Thus the Central Government had the right to put a prohibition on the repeated
broadcasts of the interview in light of the breach of the programme code.
Further the Guidelines and the Code of Ethics prescribed by News Broadcasting Standards
authority which stipulates that every news channel must main Neutrality and Objectivity in
news reporting and must carry out its business ethically and morally stands to be
compromised over in the present case as the whole campaign and the interview was
conducted with a malafide motive.
Further it is submitted that the definition of term performer as defined in Section 2(qq) of the
Copyright Act, 1957 was amended and the new definition read as under.
performer includes an actor, singer, musician, dancer, acrobat, juggler, conjurer,snake
charmer, a person delivering a lecture, television show anchor or any other person who makes
a performance.
P a g e | 34

Thus, subsequent to the amendment, television show anchors were included in the definition
of performer. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting issued a notification and thereby
derecognized Television News Anchor as members of press and the Petitioner No.2 has
challenged the same. It is submitted that the notification deserves to be declared as good in
law. A television show anchor is asked to host a show and his role to perform in such a
manner that may attract the viewers. In the present case too, Petitioner No.2 hosts an
interview show and asks intimidating questions in aggressive style which gains his show
popularity and viewership. It is thus contended that the act of Petitioner No.2 is a
performance as it does not involve independent transmission of news and facts.
Further petitioner No.2 never followed and repeatedly breached the guidelines prescribed for
investigative journalism by the Press Council of India.
The guidelines provide that
(f) The reporter must not approach the matter or the issue under investigation,
in a manner as though he were the prosecutor or counsel for the prosecution.
The reporter's approach should be fair, accurate and balanced. All facts
properly checked up, both for and against the core issues, should be distinctly
and separately stated, free from any one-sided inferences or unfair comments.
The tone and tenor of the report and its language should be sober, decent and
dignified, and not needlessly offensive, barbed, derisive or castigatory,
particularly while commenting on the version of the person whose alleged
activity or misconduct is being investigated. Nor should the investigative
reporter conduct the proceedings and pronounce his verdict of guilt or
innocence against the person whose alleged criminal acts and conduct were
investigated, in a manner as if he were a court trying the accused.
P a g e | 35

The Petitioner No. 2 did not adhere to the norms laid down in the guidelines and carried out
the interview in contravention to the same. Thus it is submitted that the act of Petitioner No.2
would be rightly termed as performance and not as that of a news presenter.
Further it is submitted that the Press Council of India Act recognizes only those persons as
members who are associated with the print media and not electronic media and thus
Petitioner no.2 has rightly been derecognized as a member of press.
PRAYERS
In light of the questions presented, arguments advanced and the authorities cited, counsel for
the Republic of Hind , most humbly pray that: 1. The petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India be dismissed with costs.
2. Any other reliefs as this Honble Court may deem fit.
Respectfully submitted,
P a g e | 36

Sd/-
(Counsel for the Respondent)

Memorial For Respondent Proposition 'B'

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Memorial For Respondent Proposition 'B'

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

TEAM CODE: J

IN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

The Yoga Day Notification issued by the Ministry of Indigenous Medicine

The information sought under Right to Information Act should not be

The notification issued by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting

Public Information Officer

Mahant Sadyoga Guru

All India Reporter

Supreme Court Cases

Supreme Court Reports

Current Tax Reporter

Income Tax Reports

Allahabad Law Journal

Bombay Cases Reporter (Criminal)

Bombay Cases Reporter

Delhi Law Times

Ministry of Indigenous Medicine.

NAME OF THE CASE

Divya Yog Mandir Trust V/s JCIT

2013 (37) Taxmann 227

Commissioner of Income Tax V/s

CTR (2005) 199 Bom

Indian Academy of Naturopathy Vs State

All LJ 2014 (6) 738

Stephen Sedlock et al., V/s Timothy Baird

Super. Ct. No. 37-201300035910-CU-MC-CTL

Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Red

CTR (2007) 212 All

AIR 1974 (SC) 1389

(2002) 8 SCC 481

All Saints College v. Govt. of Andhra

AIR 1980 (SC) 1042,

C M St. John Inter College vs. Girdhari

AIR 2001 ( SC) 1891

Secretary, Malankara Syrian Catholic

(2007) 1 SCC 386, 399

RD 2013 (119) 419

AIR 1960 (SC) 444

(2010) 4 Bom C.R. 736

(2010) 5 Bom. C.R. 227

W.P. No. 14821 (W) of

11. Ram Pratap v. Deputy Director

Rani Drig Raj Kuer v/ Raja Sri Amar

Bhaskarrao Shankarrao Kulkarni vs. State

Nagar Yuvak Shikshan Sanstha vs.

Mritunjay Ganguly Vs. The State of West

16. Sanjay Vs. The State of Maharashtra

AIR 1983 SC 603

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3221

Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd vs State Of

Rajkumar Shiv Hare v. Assistant Director,

Gokalbhai Nanbhai Patel v. Chief

AIR 2008 (Guj) 2

High Court of Gujarat v. State Chief

AIR 2008 (Guj) 37

AIR 1950 (Cal) 207

21. Dominion of India v. Nath & Co.

Girish Ramchandra Deshpande V/s

(2013) 1 SCC 212

Central Board of Secondary Education V/s

(2011) 8 SCC 497

AIR 1986 (SC) 872