2ndLucknow University Inter Collegiate Moot Court Competition

BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT

OF INDIANA

APPEAL CONCERNING THE LEGALITY OF

IN THE MATTER OF

CITIZENS UNION FOR DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS . (PETITIONER .1)

INDIANA BROADCASTING CORPORATION (PETITIONER .2)

UNION OF INDIANA (RESPONDENT)

 2nd Lucknow University Inter Collegiate Moot Court Competition

TABLE OF CONTENT

S. No TOPIC PAGE NO

1 LIST OF CASES 3

2 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 4

3 STATEMENT OF FACTS 5-6

4 ISSUES INVOLVED 8

5 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 9

6 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 11-14

7 PRAYER 15

LIST OF CASES IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER

1. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v/s Union of India AIR 1984 SCC 161
2. Bodhisattva Gautam v/s Subhra Chakraborty AIR 1996 SC 922
3. Gautam Kandu v/s State of West Bengal AIR 1993
4. Govind v/s State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1975 SC 1378
5. Janta Dal v/s H.S Chowdhary AIR 1993 SC 892
6. M. C Mehta v/s Union of India AIR 1987 SC 1086
7. Maharaj Singh v/s State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1976 SC 2602
8. Prabha Dutta v/s Union of India AIR 1982 SC 6
9. Prasar Bharti Boardcasting Corp. of India v/s Debyajoti Bose AIR 2000 Cal. 43
10. S.P Gupta v/s President of India AIR 1982 SC 149
11. Sheela Barse v/s State of Maharashtra AIR 1988 SC 378,
12. State of Karantaka v/s Puttaraja AIR 2004 SC 47

Memorial for the Petitioner Page 2

 2nd Lucknow University Inter Collegiate Moot Court Competition

Memorial for the Petitioner Page 3

 2nd Lucknow University Inter Collegiate Moot Court Competition

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Memorial for the Petitioner Page 4

 2nd Lucknow University Inter Collegiate Moot Court Competition

STATEMENTS OF FACTS

1. The state of Indiana after the independence is having a healthy environment of liberal

democracy and gave more emphasis on basic fundamental rights.

2. In New Deligo its capital a girl was brutally ganged raped by 5 people and she

succumbed to death due to vital injuries.

3. The case was transferred to a fast track court which sentenced them with death

penalty.
4. The conviction was upheld by the High Court of New Deligo and appeal against the

decision of the High Court is pending before the Supreme Court.

5. By seeking the permission of the superintendent of jail an interview of the convicts

was conducted and a documentary was made by Indiana broad Casting Corporation.
6. Before the publication of Indiana daughters the contents were leaked out and it was

declared to be against the dignity of the country.

7. No authoritative decision had been made, a social tinderbox ignited throughout the

country by analyzing all circumstances, government banned the release of

documentary.
8. Citizen union for democratic rights, an NGO making people aware about the

fundamental rights, filled a PIL against the union of Indiana.

9. Their main contention in the PIL was that it is the right of general public to know the

mind set of criminals and banning of the documentary is violating the fundamental

right of freedom of expression.

10. Another PIL was filed by the news channel IBC stating that by banning the

documentary they are violating their Fundamental Right to Freedom of Press.

11. Supreme Court clubbed these two PILs and served a notice to Union of Indiana to

respond.
12. Union of Indiana contented that restriction on the ban of documentary was reasonable;

henceforth, no Fundamental Right was violated.

13. The union of Indiana also said that it is against the morality of society, affecting the

dignity of women and will interfere into the right of privacy of the victim.

Memorial for the Petitioner Page 5

 2nd Lucknow University Inter Collegiate Moot Court Competition

14. Union of Indiana further contends that petitioner do not have Locus Standi in the

present matter.

Memorial for the Petitioner Page 6

 2nd Lucknow University Inter Collegiate Moot Court Competition

ISSUES INVOLVED

1. Whether broadcast of the documentary by IBC (Indiana Broadcasting Corporation)

based on the case pending before the judiciary is justified?

2. Whether ban on the documentary Indianas daughters is justified as per the freedom
of speech and expression guaranteed by article.19 (1) (a) of the constitution of Indiana ?

3. Whether locus standi of the petitioners to file a PIL (Public Interest Litigation) against
the Union of Indiana in the present case justified?

4. Whether one has a right to seek Constitutional remedy for violation of Freedom of
Press?

5. Whether right to information of the citizens of Indiana get infringed by banning the
documentary Indianas daughter ?

Memorial for the Petitioner Page 7

 2nd Lucknow University Inter Collegiate Moot Court Competition

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Broadcast of the documentary by IBC based on pending on the case in judiciary

justified.

1.1 the rapist is convict not accused.

.2 media can discuss a public issue if the matter is sub judice

1. Ban on the documentary Indianas daughter in purview of reasonable

restriction of constitution is not justified.

2. Locus standi of the petitioner to file a PIL against the union of Indiana in this case
is justified.

Memorial for the Petitioner Page 8

 2nd Lucknow University Inter Collegiate Moot Court Competition

ARGUMENTS ADVANCE

3. Broadcast of the documentary by IBC based on pending on the case in judiciary

justified.
1.1 the rapist is convict not accused.

The accused involved in the new deligo gang rape. The case has been held liable by the fast
track court and the high court of new deligo. Hence, they are convicts. As submitted before
this honble court the gang rape accused had been sentenced to death by the fast track court
and the same had been up held by the high court. Therefore the defense of the pendency
cannot be taken through an appeal against the court. There are no such provisions that the
reporting cannot be done. The people of Indiana have a right to know all the proceedings,
facts and evidence present in the case which gained sensation among them. The people have
right to know the psychology of the criminals involved in such heinous crime.

1.2 media can discuss a public issue if the matter is sub judice.

In several judgments of the high court and the supreme court have held that the media can
discuss public issues even if they are sub judice, what is barred is the specific facts of the
case or the conduct of the judges. As per the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court of
Indiana; the petitioner no. 1 has specifically followed them. The Supreme Court asked for
reporting of a case only when the accused is proved guilty and consequently convicted. As
submitted earlier before this Honble court the interviewed rape convicts were sentenced
firstly by the fast track court and then the High Court of New Deligo. Hence the interviewed
have already been convicted though their appeal is still pending before the Honble court.
Mere pendency of an appeal cannot restrict the media from reporting a crime. We have a legal
environment where justice cannot be dispensed immediately. It takes years for the judiciary to
decide a case. In such a situation if media will have to wait for the as long as hundred years to
report a single case, then the presence of media will become obsolete.

4. Ban on the documentary Indianas daughter in purview of reasonable

restriction of constitution is not justified.

5. Locus standi of the petitioner to file a PIL against the union of Indiana in this case
is justified.
Public Interest Litigation can be filed by any member of public having
sufficient interest for public injury arising from violation of legal rights so as to get
judicial redress. In accordance with the same, applicants keeping the public interest
and social welfare in mind have filed the PIL. This is absolutely necessary for
Memorial for the Petitioner Page 9
 2nd Lucknow University Inter Collegiate Moot Court Competition

maintaining Rule of law and accelerating the balance between law and justice. It is a
settled law that when a person approaches the court of equity in exercise of
extraordinary jurisdiction, he should approach the court not only with clean hands but
with clean mind, heart and with clean objectives.

3.1. Public Interest Litigation can be filed by any member of the public
A new era of the PIL movement was heralded by Justice P.N. Bhagawati in the
case of S.P. Gupta v. Union of India1. In this case it was held that any member of the
public or social action group acting bonafide can invoke the Writ Jurisdiction of the
High Courts or the Supreme Court seeking redressed against violation of legal or
constitutional rights of persons who due to social or economic or any other disability
cannot approach the Court. By this judgment PIL became a potent weapon for the
enforcement of public duties were executed in action or misdeed resulted in public
injury. And as a result any citizen of India or any consumer groups or social action
groups can now approach the apex court of the country seeking legal remedies in all
cases where the interests of general public or a section of society is at stake.

3.2. Public interest litigation is social litigation that provided remedies for all
PIL concept of locus standi that whole society not standing before court but
some social workers or jurists file before court on behalf of public or society, so locus
standi is the concept evolved from public interest litigation, which is changing their
dimensions and concepts. There is no special person required to file the case having
locus standi in these cases. The court can get matter into consideration as Public
Interest Litigation. In the case of Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of
India2, it was held that Public Interest Litigation which is a strategic arm of the legal
aid movement and which is intended to bring justice within the reach of the poor
masses, who constitute the low visibility area of humanity, is a totally different kind
of litigation from the ordinary traditional litigation which is essentially of an
adversary character where there is a dispute between two parties, one making a claim
or seeking relief against the other and the other opposing such claim or relief. Public
interest litigation is brought before the court not for the purpose of enforcing the right
of one individual against another as happens in the case of ordinary litigation, but it is

1 AIR 1982 SC 149

2 AIR 1951 SC 81

Memorial for the Petitioner Page 10

 2nd Lucknow University Inter Collegiate Moot Court Competition

intended to promote and vindicate public interest which demands that violations of
constitutional or legal rights of large numbers of people who are poor, ignorant or in a
socially or economically disadvantaged position should not go unnoticed and un-
redressed.

6. Right to freedom of press can be .

Authorities have held that the Right to Freedom of Speech conferred the right to know to the public

Media is the fourth pillar of democracy and hence hand cuffing media will be a serious blow
to our structure of democratic well being. The main ingredient of the behind the concept is
that people of Indiana have a right to know about a case, its facts and circumstances, which
attained a sensational level in whole of the nation. People have a right to know about the
mentality and psychology of the people carrying out such a heinous crime. Media is mirror
which shows our citizens the curses they have impugned in the modern society. Legal
reporting is an attempt to show flaws in our system rather than hampering the discretion of
witnesses and victims. Legal reporting on the other hand prevents repetition of the offences
since people become aware of the consequences that they can face, following execution if a
particular offence. It safeguards the interest of the people rather being a breaker in
dispensation of justice.

d by Article 19(1) of the Constitution is adequate to protect the freedom of the Press.

7. By banning the documentary, right to information of the citizens of India gets

affected.
freedom of expression includes the right to receive information and ideas. This is a
critical component of the right. The effect of this is that when a state acts to silence or
curtail the operations of the media, whether print or broadcast media, not only is it
violating the expressive rights of the media and of the journalists, editors and publishers
thereof, but it is also violating the rights of its citizens to receive information and ideas
freely. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sharma v/s Delhi Transport Corporation(NCT)3 the RTI was
filed to inquire into the function of its Sr. Manager; Mr. Nigam and also about the
suspension and recruitment along with the places he has served before joining the DTC
in 2012. This was termed as misappropriation of the RTI by the presiding court on the
ground that

3 25th March 2015

Memorial for the Petitioner Page 11

 2nd Lucknow University Inter Collegiate Moot Court Competition

"The Commission found that appellant has, instead of attending the inquiry and
defending his case, perpetuating the mischief of using the RTI for advancing
his personal vegeance against officers or others involved in inquiry.

Furthermore in this case, the appellant is not even trying to protect his personal right, or right
to employment or right to fair trial. But he is unleashing his private vengeance against
colleagues or seniors who are either inquiring or informing or complaining or giving
evidence against him. Such information would squarely fall under exempted category as
per Section 8(h) ('information which would impede process of investigation or
prosecution of offenders') of RTI Act, 2005 as this would not only impede the
investigation or inquiry against him, but also impede the inquiries against all such
erring employees who will be immorally encouraged or tempted to use RTI for this
private, illegal and vengeful purpose. The RTI is not a rendezvous for suspended
employees or those erring personnel facing inquiries to serve their personal interests in
protecting their misconduct or preventing the authorities from
proceeding with penal proceedings enquiring into misconduct. The RTI is not
for these disgruntled employees facing disciplinary proceedings or selfish persons but for
the people in general, only in public interest, and never for the private
vengeance at all.

PRAYER

Whereof, in the light of the facts of the petition, arguments advanced and authorities cited,
this court may be pleased to adjudge that:

1: The Petitioner no. 2 (Indiana Broadcasting Corporation) should be allowed to broadcast its
documentary Indianas Daughters.

2: The restrictions imposed on the media should be dismissed, in regard of Right of Freedom
of Speech and Expression.

Any other order of the Honble Supreme Court in the interest of justice as it may deem fit and
necessary.

Memorial for the Petitioner Page 12