You are on page 1of 54

NRMC-306

THIRD PROF. N.R. MADHAVA MENON SAARC MOOTING COMPETITION, 2017-18 (INDIA
ROUNDS)

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF EDEN

UNDER ARTICLE 136 r/w 145(3) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF EDEN

In the Matter of :

People’s Cause and Others ..................................................................Petitioner

v.

Union of Eden ........................................................................................ Respondent

And

Mrs. K.....................................................................................................Petitioner

v.

The Hon’ble Speaker, House of People & Ors. .................................. Respondent

And

Mr. X .....................................................................................................Petitioner

v.

Union of Eden and Another ................................................................. Respondent

WRIT PETITION NOS. ___/2017

CLUBBED WITH

WRIT PETITION NOS. ___/2017, ___/2017

MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER

ii
THIRD PROF. N.R. MADHAVA MENON SAARC MOOTING COMPETITION 2017-18: INDIA ROUNDS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................... iv-xix

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS .............................................................................................. xx-xxii

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

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ...................................................................................... xxiii-xxiv

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ........................................................................................... 1-30

1. THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE CASES ............................... 1-4

1.1 The Supreme Court is empowered by Article 145(3) r/w Article 136 of the Constitution of
Eden ........................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 The Writs filled by Mrs. K, Mr. X and Peoples Cause Forum are maintainable .
.................................................................................................................................... 1-3

1.3 The Court is Competent to Provide Relief ........................................................... 3-4

2. ARTICLE 102 IS CONSTITUTIONALLY INVALID AS IT RESTRICTS JUDICIAL REVIEW


................................................................................................................................... 4-6

2.1 The three main organs of the government have to work in tandem for a strong and healthy
democracy .................................................................................................................. 4-5

2.2 The independence and supremacy of judiciary has to be maintained .................. 5

2.3 Article 102 levies wide restrictions on judicial review ........................................ 5-6

3. FREEDOM OF SPEECH & PRESS AND PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE ARE TO BE


CONSTRUED HARMONIOUSLY .................................................................................. 6-13

3.1 Free speech is sine qua non for healthy debate in Parliament ............................. 7-8

3.2 Freedom of speech for debate in Parliament is protected within the House, not outside
.................................................................................................................................... 9

3.3. Freedom of press to be read harmoniously ......................................................... 10-13

4. RIGHT TO REPUTATION IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.......................................... 13-23

4.1 Reputation is sine qua non for dignified life ....................................................... 13-16
ii
THIRD PROF. N.R. MADHAVA MENON SAARC MOOTING COMPETITION 2017-18: INDIA ROUNDS

4.2 Right to reputation is a natural and personal right ............................................... 16-18

4.3 Right to Reputation is inherent in Article 21 ....................................................... 18-21

4.4 Enquiry by Committees and Sub-Committees cannot surpass this right ............. 21-23

5. ART. 21 H GUARANTEES RIGHT TO HEALTH BESIDES ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE


................................................................................................................................... 23-30

5.1 Right to Health is a human right .......................................................................... 23-26

5.2 Right to health is implicit in Constitution of Eden .............................................. 26-28

5.3 Interpretation of term ‘be provided by law’ in liberal sense ................................ 29-30

PRAYER ...................................................................................................................... 30

iii
THIRD PROF. N.R. MADHAVA MENON SAARC MOOTING COMPETITION 2017-18: INDIA ROUNDS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

1.A.K.Subbiah v. Karnataka Legislative Council A.I.R 1979 Kant.24 ................................... 8

2.A.P. Pollution Control Board (2) v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu, (2001) 2 S.C.C.. 62 .................... 27

3.Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan, A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 152 ….28

4.Almeida Leitão Bento Fernandes v. Portugal, App. No. 25790/11 .................................... 14

5.Anti-Fascist Refugee Com. v. Mograth, 341 U.S. 123 ........................................................ 20

6.Ärztekammer Für Wien and Dorner v. Austria, App. No. 8895/10 .................................... 15

7.Ashok Kumar Alias Golu vs Union Of India And Ors, (1991) 3 S.C.C. 498 .................... 19

8.Attorney General v. Moagi, 1981 BLR 1 ............................................................................ 19

9.Australian Consolidated Press Ltd v. Ettingshausen, CA40079/93, CA(NSW) ................. 19

10.Axel Springer AG v. Germany (no.2), App. No. 48311/10 .............................................. 15

11.Axel Springer AG v. Germany, App. No. 39954/08 .......................................................... 15

12.Balfour v. Attorney General, [1991] 1 NZLR 519 ............................................................ 16

13.Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India & Ors, (1997) 10 SCC 549 ............................. 2

14.Barada Kanta v. State of West Bengal, A.I.R. 1963 Cal. 161 ............................................. 3

15.Barella v. Exchange Bank, 101 Cal Rptr 2d 167, 169 (2001) ........................................... 19

16.Bédat v.; Switzerland, App. No. 56925/08......................................................................... 15

17.Bell-Booth Group Ltd v. Attorney-General, [1989] 3 NZLR 148 ..................................... 16

18.Bennett Coleman &Co.v. Union Of India, A.I.R 1973 S.C.106 .......................................... 11

19.Bernson v. Browning-Ferris Industries of California Inc, 873 P 2d 613 ............................. 18


iv
THIRD PROF. N.R. MADHAVA MENON SAARC MOOTING COMPETITION 2017-18: INDIA ROUNDS

20.Bihar EGF Co-operative Society v. Sipahi Singh, A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 2149. ......................... 23

21.Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni &

Ors, (1983) 1 S.C.C. 124 ................................................................................................... 17,18

22.Braun v. Poland, App. No. 30162/10 ................................................................................... 15

23.Brunet Lecomte and Lyon Mag’ v. France, App. No. 17265/05.......................................... 15

24.Bryce v. Rusden, (1886) 2 TLR 435 .................................................................................... 14

25.Byrraju Ramalinga Raju v. The State CBI,Criminal Petition No. 5454 of 2009.17

26.CESC Ltd. vs. Subash Chandra Bose, A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 573 ............................................... 27

27.Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 1051 ............................................. 18,28

28.Chappell v. Mirror Newspapers, (1984) Aust Torts Reports ¶80-691 ................................. 16

29.Chauvy and Others v. France, App. No. 64915/01 .............................................................. 15

30.Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti v. State of U.P., (1990) 4 S.C.C. 449 ......... 28

31.Cicad v. Switzerland, App. No. 17676/09 ............................................................................ 14

32.Colaço Mestre and SIC - Sociedade Independente de Comunicação S.A. v. Portugal,

Apps. No. 11182/03 and 11319/03 ................................................................................... 15

33.Community Advocate v. Gallop and Attorney-General, [2002] ACTSC 45 ...................... 22

34.Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 922 .......... 26

35.Cooper v. Greeley, 1 Denio (N. Y.) 347 .............................................................................. 16

36.Cornwall v. Rowan, [2004] SASC 384 ............................................................................... 16

37.Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service, [1985] AC 374 ........... 22

38.Cumpănă and Mazăre v. Romania, App. No. 33348/96 ....................................................... 15

39.D.F. Marion v. Davis 217 Ala 16 : 114 So 357 ................................................................... 14,17,20

40.De Carolis and France Télévisions v. France, App. No. 29313/10 ...................................... 15

41.De Crespigny v. Wellesley, (1829) 5 Bing 392 ................................................................... 14,18

42.De Libellis Famosis, (1605) 5 Co Rep 125a; 77 E.R. 250 ................................................... 18


v
THIRD PROF. N.R. MADHAVA MENON SAARC MOOTING COMPETITION 2017-18: INDIA ROUNDS

43.Delaney v. News Media Ownership Ltd, [1976] 1 NZLR 322 ............................................ 14

44.Dixon v. Holden (1869) 7 L.R. Eq. 488. .............................................................................. 14

45.Dorota Kania v. Poland (no. 2), App. No. 44436/13 ............................................................ 15

46.Dorota Kania v. Poland, App. No. 49132/11 ....................................................................... 15

47.Dr. Aditya Shrikant Kelkar and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others, 1998 (4)

Bom.C.R. 16...................................................................................................................... 27

48.Dr. Jatish Chandra Ghosh v. Hari Sadhan Mukerjee A.I.R 1961 S.C. 613 .......................... 8

49.Employees' State Insurance Corporation and Ors. v. The Workmen of ITI Ltd. and Ors.,

I.L.R. 1997 Kar. 1433 ....................................................................................................... 27

50.Erla Hlynsdottir v. Iceland (no. 2), App. No. 54125/10 ....................................................... 15

51.Etukeno Oy v. Finland, App. No. 69939/04 ......................................................................... 14

52.Feldek v. Slovakia, 2001-VIII Eur. Ct. H.R. 91, 110 ........................................................... 21

53.Foaminol Laboratories Ltd v. British Artid Plastics Ltd [1941] 2 All ER 393 .................... 16

54.Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi & Ors., AIR

1981 SC 746 ...................................................................................................................... 18

55.Frankowicz v. Poland, App. No. 53025/99 ......................................................................... 15

56.Fulton v. Globe & Mail Ltd, (1997) 152 DLR (4th) 377; Butler 2000b .............................. 16

57.Gambotto v. John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd, (2001) 104 IR 303 ................................... 16

58.Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1996) 2 S.C.C. 648. ............................................................. 16

59.Gorman v. Barber, (2004) 61 NSWLR 543 ........................................................................ 14

60.Governing Body of Devi Kandal Nityanand College v. State of Orissa, A.I.R. 1989

Orissa 165 ......................................................................................................................... 3

61.Guildford Transportation Industries Inc v. Wilner, 760 A 2d 580, 595 (2000) ................... 19

62.Haldimann and Others v. Switzerland, App. No. 21830/09 ................................................. 15

63.Harendra Chandra Das v. Gauhati University, 1953 C.W.N. 54.......................................... 3


vi
THIRD PROF. N.R. MADHAVA MENON SAARC MOOTING COMPETITION 2017-18: INDIA ROUNDS

64.Haridas Das v. Usha Rani Banik and others, (2007) 14 S.C.C. 1 ........................................ 21

65.Harper v. Virginia Board Of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966) .............................................. 6

66.Haupt v. Austria , App. No. 55537/10 .................................................................................. 15

67.Heinisch v. Germany , App. No. 28274/08 ........................................................................ 15

68.Hemendra v. Gauhati University, (1953) C.W.N. 54 Assam ............................................... 3

69.Hill v. Church of Scientology (1995) 126 D.L.R. (4th) 129 ................................................ 13,18

70.Hlynsdottir v. Iceland (no. 3), App. No. 54145/10............................................................... 15

71.Hoon v. the United Kingdom , App. No. 14832/11 ............................................................. 15

72.Howlett v. Saggers, (unreported, SC(NSW), 20783/95 ....................................................... 19

73.Huzra Bee v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, W.P. No.9060/2017 .................... 17,22

74.I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1643 ................................................... 6

75.Ileana Constantinescu v. Romania, Ojala, App. No. 32563/04 ............................................ 14

76.Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (1996) 3 S.C.C. 212................ 28

77.J.P.Ravidas v. Navyuvak Uthapan Multiunit Industrial Co-op Society Ltd., A.I.R. 1996

S.C. 2151 ........................................................................................................................... 28

78.James v. Commonwealth of Australia (1936) AC. 578........................................................ 19

79.Jharkhand Party v. State of Jharkhand, 2005 (2) BLJR 1559 .............................................. 6

80.Jones v. Sutton, [2004] NSWCA 439................................................................................... 16

81.Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. UOI, W.P. (Civil) No. 494 0f 2012 ................................................. 14

82.Kabul Singh v. Niranjan Singh, A.I.R. 1958 Punj. 168 ....................................................... 3

83.Karakó v. Hungary , App. No. 39311/05 ............................................................................. 15

84.Karsai v. Hungary, App. No. 5380/07 .................................................................................. 15

85.Katamadze v. Georgia, App. No. 69857/01 ........................................................................ 15

86.Kausea v. Minister of Home Affairs, 1995 NR 175 (SC) .................................................... 19

87.Kehar Singh and Anr. v. State of Delhi Admn., A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1883 .............................. 22
vii
THIRD PROF. N.R. MADHAVA MENON SAARC MOOTING COMPETITION 2017-18: INDIA ROUNDS

88.Keller v. Hungary, App. No. 33352/02 ............................................................................... 15

89.Keshavananda Bharti v. State Of Kerala, (1973) 4 S.C.C. 225............................................ 6

90.King and Mergen Holdings Pty Ltd v. McKenzie (1991) 24 NSWLR 305 ......................... 16

91.Kiran Bedi & Jinder Singh v. Committee of Inquiry, A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 714........................ 17

92.Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. v. Employees' State Insurance Corpn., AIR1996SC3261 .............. 23

93.Kishore Samrite v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2013) 2 S.C.C. 398 ............................................ 17

94.Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F 3d 1068, 1079 (2005) ................................................................... 19

95.Koutsoliontos and Pantazis v. Greece, Apps. No. 54608/09 and 54590/09 ......................... 15

96.Kuliś and Różycki v. Poland, App. No. 27209/03 .............................................................. 15

97.Kumkum Khanna v. Principal, Jesus and Mary College, A.I.R. 1976 Del. 35 .................... 3

98.Kunitsyna v. Russia, App. No. 39954/08 ............................................................................. 15

99.Kurski v. Poland, App. No. 26115/10 .................................................................................. 15

100.Lahiff v. St. Joseph, etc., Soc., 76 Conn. 648, 57 A. 692.................................................... 3

101.Leempoel & S.A. ED. Ciné Revue v. Belgium, App. No. 64772/01 .................................. 15

102.Lesnik v. Slovakia, 2003-IV Eur. Ct. H.R. 169, 179........................................................... 21

103.Lewis v. McGraw-Hill Broadcasting Co Inc, 832 P 2d 1118, 1125 (1992) ....................... 18

104.Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France, App. No. 21279/02 ............................. 15

105.Lingens v. Austria , 103 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) 14, 25 (1986) ............................................ 21

106.M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Others, (1987) 4 S.C.C. 463 ........................................... 2

107.M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1996) 4 S.C.C. 750 ........................................................... 28

108.M.K. Balakrishnan (1) v. Union of India, (2009) 5 S.C.C. 507 .......................................... 27

109.M.K. Balakrishnan (2) v. Union of India, (2009) 5 S.C.C.. 511 ......................................... 27

110.M.S.M.Sharma v. Sri Krishna Sinha, A.I.R 1959 S.C.395 ................................................. 8

111.M/S. Meenakshi Pharma Distributors, Bangalore v. State of Karnataka and Others,

1999 (2) Kar.L.J. 164 ........................................................................................................ 27


viii
THIRD PROF. N.R. MADHAVA MENON SAARC MOOTING COMPETITION 2017-18: INDIA ROUNDS

112.Malik v. Bank of Credit & Commerce International SA (in liq), [1998] AC 20 ................ 16

113.Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 597 ................................................... 17,29

114.Maruti Shripati Dubal v. State of Maharashtra, 1987 (1) Bom CR 499 .............................. 14

115.Medipress-Sociedade; Jornalística, Lda v. Portugal, App. No. 55442/12 ........................... 15

116.Medžlis Islamske Zajednice Brčko and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, App. No.

17224/11 ........................................................................................................................... 14

117.Mehmood Naiyyar Azam v. State of Chattisgarh, A.I.R. 2012 S.C. 2573 .......................... 17,18

118.Melbourne v. R, (1999) 198 C.L.R. 1 ............................................................................... 14

119.Midland Metals Overseas Pty Ltd v. The Christchurch Press Co Ltd, [2002] 2 NZLR

289..................................................................................................................................... 16

120.Mihaiu v. Romania, App. No. 42512/02 ............................................................................ 15

121.Milisavljević v. Serbia, App. No. 50123/06 ........................................................................ 15

122.Milk Men Colony Vikas Samiti v. State Of Rajasthan, (2007) 2 S.C.C. 413. .................... 28

123.Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co, 497 U.S. 1; 110 S Ct 2695, 2702 (1990) ....................... 18

124.Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment v. Peko-Wallsend Ltd, (1987) 15 FCR

274.. ................................................................................................................................... 22

125.Mladina D.D. Ljubljana v. Slovenia, App. No. 20981/10 ................................................... 15

126.Mohammed Quadeer and others v. Commissioner of Police, 1999 (3) A.L.D. 60 ............. 17

127.Morar v. Romania, App. No. 25217/06 ............................................................................... 15

128.Morosi v. Mirror Newspapers, [1977] 2 NSWLR 749 ........................................................ 16

129.Motion Pictures v. UOI, 1995(35) DRJ 582........................................................................ 11

130.Mucci v. Dayton Newspapers Inc, 654 NE 2d 1068 ........................................................... 18,19

131.Mustafa Erdoğan and Others v. Turkey, Apps. No. 346/04 and 39779/04 ......................... 15

132.Myer Stores Ltd v. Soo, [1991] 2 VR 597 ......................................................................... 16

133.Nadtoka v. Russia, App. No. 38010/05 ............................................................................... 15


ix
THIRD PROF. N.R. MADHAVA MENON SAARC MOOTING COMPETITION 2017-18: INDIA ROUNDS

134.Nandini Sundar and Ors. v. State of Chattisgarh, AIR 2011 SC 2839 ............................... 14

135.Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, (2000) 10 S.C.C. 664 .................................. 27

136.Nassa v. Hook-Superx Inc, 790 A 2d 368, 372 .................................................................. 19

137.National Life Insurance Co v. Phillips Publishing Inc, 793 F Supp 627............................. 18

138.Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT and ors., 160 (2009) D.L.T. 277 ......................... 27

139.New Sun Education Society v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2008(2)AWC1186 ........................ 2

140.Newman v. Delahunty, 681 A 2d 671, 687 (1994) ............................................................ 18

141.O’Hagan v. Nationwide News Pty Ltd, (2001) 53 N.S.W.L.R. 89 .................................... 14

142.Olafsson v. Iceland, App. No. 58493/13 ............................................................................. 15

143.Om Prakash Chautala v. Kanwar Bhan, (2014) 5 S.C.C. 417. ............................................ 16,17

144.Onion v. Supreme Temple Pythian Sisters, 227 Mo.App. 557, 54 S.W.2d 468 ................. 3

145.P.V. Narsimha Rao v. State 1998(4) S.C.C. 626 ................................................................. 4, 8

146.Parmananda Katara v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 2039. .......................................... 28

147.Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity & ors v. State of West Bengal & ors, A.I.R.

1996 S.C. 2426 .................................................................................................................. 2

148.Pathooty v. State Of Kerala And Anr., 2000 Cri.L.J. 1189. ................................................ 19

149.Pathumma and Ors.v. State of Kerala and Ors., AIR 1978 SC 771. ................................... 17

150.People v. Nelson, 346 Ill. 247, 178 N.E. 485, 487. ............................................................. 3

151.Peter Thomas Mahon v. Air New Zealand Ltd & Ors., 1983 U.K.P.C. 29. ...................... 18

152.Petrenco v. the Republic of Moldova, App. No. 20928/05 ................................................ 15

153.Petrina v. Romania, App. No. 78060/01 ............................................................................ 15

154.Petrus and Another v. The State,1984 BLR 14; State of Punjab v. Devans Modern

Breweries Ltd ................................................................................................................... 19

155.Pinto Pinheiro Marques v. Portugal, App. No. 26671/09 .................................................... 15

156.Plato Films Ltd v. Speidel, [1961] A.C. 1090 .................................................................... 14


x
THIRD PROF. N.R. MADHAVA MENON SAARC MOOTING COMPETITION 2017-18: INDIA ROUNDS

157.Poonam v. State of UP and Others, (2016) 2 SCC 779 ....................................................... 3

158.Pradip Jain v. Union Of India, A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1420. ....................................................... 5

159.Praveen Rashtrapal, I.R.S. (Retd.) v. Chief Officer, Kadi Municipality and ors., (2006)

3 G.L.R. 1809; .................................................................................................................. 27

160.Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, U.P., A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 996 ........................... 2

161.Pressler v. Lethbridge, (1997) 153 DLR (4th) 537 ............................................................ 19

162.Professor G.K. Rai v. Chancellor, University of Allahabad and ors.,

(2004)2UPLBEC1691 ....................................................................................................... 2

163.Pullman v. Walter Hill & Co Ltd, [1891] 1 QB 524 .......................................................... 14

164.Pullum v. Johnson, 647 So 2d 254, 256 ............................................................................ 19

165.R v. Dunshett, (1950) All E.R. 741 ..................................................................................... 3

166.R v. Lucas, (1998) 157 D.L.R. (4th) 423 ........................................................................... 18,19

167.Radio France and Others v. France, App. No. 53984/00 .................................................... 15

168.Raj Krushna Bose v. Binod Khanungo & others. 9 E.L.R. 294. ......................................... 10

169.Raj Narain v. Atmaram Govind, A.I.R 1954 All 319.......................................................... 7

170.Raja Ram Pal v. Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha ( 2007) 3 S.C.C 184................................... 8

171.Rajeev Kumar and ors. v. The State of U.P. Through Principal Secretary, Ministry of

Sugarcane Development and ors., 2006(1)AWC34 .......................................................... 2

172.Ramsey v. Fox News Network LLC, 351 F Supp 2d 1145 ................................................. 19

173.Re T and Director of Youth & Community Services, [1980] 1 N.S.W.L.R. 392 ............... 14

174.Rogers v. Nationwide News Pty Ltd, (2003) 16 C.L.R. 327. .............................................. 14

175.Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, A.I.R 1950 S.C. 124................................................. 11

176.Rosenblatt v. Baer 383 US 75; 86 S Ct 669 (1966)............................................................. 13

177.Rubio Dosamantes v. Spain, App. No. 20996/10 ................................................................ 15

178.Ruokanen and Others v. Finland, App. No. 45130/06 ...................................................... 15


xi
THIRD PROF. N.R. MADHAVA MENON SAARC MOOTING COMPETITION 2017-18: INDIA ROUNDS

179.Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 2426 ............. 28

180.Ruusunen v. Finland, App. No. 73579/10 ........................................................................... 14

181.S.R. Chaudhuri v. State of Punjab and others (2001) 7 SCC 126 ....................................... 19

182.Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 1962 SC 171 ................................................. 11,19

183.Sales Tax Officer v. Kanhaiyalal, A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 135 ..................................................... 3

184.Sambhavana v University of Delhi, (2013) 14 SCC 781 ................................................... 3

185.Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 46........................ 3

186.Sattin v. Nationwide News Pty Ltd, (1996) 39 NSWLR 32 .............................................. 16

187.Seenath Beevi v. State of Kerala, 2003 (3) K.L.T. 788 ....................................................... 27

188.Sekkilar v. Krishna Moorty, A.I.R. 1952 Mad. 151 ............................................................ 3

189.Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame, A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 630 ........................... 28

190.Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandasjiswami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav

Smarak Trust and Ors. v. V .R. Rudani and Ors., A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 1607 ........................ 3

191.Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S. R. Tendolkar and others, A.I.R. 1958 S.C.

538..................................................................................................................................... 22

192.Shri Susant Kumar Chand v. Orissa Legislative Assembly A.I.R 1973 Ori. 111 ............... 8

193.Singleton v. John Fairfax & Sons Ltd [No 1], [1983] 2 NSWLR 722 ................................ 16

194.Sir Jonh Eliot, 3 State Trials, 924 ....................................................................................... 8

195.Slim v. Daily Telegraph Ltd, [1968] 2 QB 157 .................................................................. 14

196. Smith v. McQuiggan, (1863) 2 SCR(NSW) (L) 268 ......................................................... 14

197.Smolorz v. Poland, App. No. 17446/07............................................................................... 15

198.Smt. Kiran Bedi v. Committee of Inquiry , A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 714. ..................................... 20

199.Society for Cancer in Oral-cavity Prevention Through Education, Hyderabad v. Union

of India and ors., 2002 (3) A.L.T. 579. ............................................................................ 27

200.Spring v. Guardian Assurance plc, [1995] 2 AC 296 .......................................................... 16


xii
THIRD PROF. N.R. MADHAVA MENON SAARC MOOTING COMPETITION 2017-18: INDIA ROUNDS

201.Sri S. Santhanam, I.A.S. And Anr. v. State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep. By Chief Secretary

to Government and Ors, 1993 (3) A.L.T. 666 .................................................................. 17

202.Standard Verlags GmbH v. Austria (no. 2), App. No. 21277/05 ........................................ 15

203.Stankiewicz and Others v. Poland, App. No. 48723/07 ...................................................... 15

204.State of Bihar v. Lal Krishna Advani, A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 335 .............................................. 18,20

205.State of Karnataka v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 68 ................................................. 27

206.State of Madras v. V.G Row, A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 196 ............................................................ 2

207.State of Maharashtra v. Public Concern for Governance Trust , A.I.R. 2007 S.C. 777 ...... ….20

208.State of MP v. Mandawara, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 493 .............................................................. 3

209.State of Orissa v. Govt. of India, (2009) 5 S.C.C. 492 ........................................................ 27

210.State of Punjab v Ram Lubhaya Bagga, A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 1703 ......................................... 27

211.State of Punjab v. M.S. Chawla, A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 1225. .................................................... 26

212.State of Victoria v. Master Builders’ Association of Victoria, [1995] 2 VR 121 ............... 22

213.State Of West Bengal v. Union Of India, A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1241. ...................................... 5

214.Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 420 .................................................... 28

215.Subramaniam Swamy v. Union of India, A.I.R. 2016 S.C. 2728........................................ 14,21

216.Sullivan v. Moody, (2001) 207 CLR 562 ........................................................................... 16

217.Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 1675. ............................................. 26

218.Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 1388. ..................................................... 20

219.T. Damodar Rao v. Municipal Corpn., Hyderabad, A.I.R. 1987 AP 171 ........................... 28

220.Tame v. New South Wales, (2002) 211 CLR 317 .............................................................. 16

221.Tănăsoaica v. Romania, App. No. 3490/03 ......................................................................... 15

222.Tapendra Nath Roy v. University of Calcutta, A.I.R. 1954 Cal. 141.................................. 3

223.Tej Kiran Jain and others v. N. Sanjeeva Reddy and others A.I.R 1970 S.C.1573............. 8

xiii
THIRD PROF. N.R. MADHAVA MENON SAARC MOOTING COMPETITION 2017-18: INDIA ROUNDS

224.The State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. v. Bakshi Gulam Mohammad & Anr., 1966

Suppl., S.C.R. 401. ........................................................................................................... 23

225.The State v. T. Makwanyane and M. Mchunu, 1995(3) S.A. 391. ..................................... 13

226.Thiagraj Soobramoney v. Minister of Health, 1998 (1) SA 765 (CC) ................................ 2

227.Thomas v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, [1981] 4 W.W.R. 289 ............................ 18

228.Tønsbergs Blad AS and Haukom v. Norway, App. No. 510/04 ......................................... 15

229.Toogood v. Spyring, (1834) 1 CM & R 181 ...................................................................... 14

230.U.P. Avas Vikas Parishad v. Friends Coop. Housing Society Limited, A.I.R. 1996 S.C.

114.; ................................................................................................................................. 28

231.Uj v. Hungary, App. No. 23954/10 ..................................................................................... 15

232.Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, (2013) 10 S.C.C. 591. ............... 17

233.Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 2721 ....................... 28

234.Verlagsgruppe News GmbH v. Austria, App. No. 9406/05, .............................................. 15

235.Vincent v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 990. ............................................................... 26

236.Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana, (1995) 2 S.C.C. 577; .................................................. 28

237.Vishwanath Agrawal v. Saral Vishwanath Agrawal, (2012) 7 S.C.C. 288 ..................... 16.

238.W.J.L.A.-T.V. v. Levin, 264 Va 140; 564 SE 2d 383 ......................................................... 19

239.Wade v. State of Victoria, [1999] 1 VR 121; ..................................................................... 16

240.Walter v. Alltools Ltd, (1944) 171 LT 371; 61 TLR 39; [1944] WN 214 ......................... 16

241.Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433, 27 LEd. 515 ................................................... 23

242.Ziembiński v. Poland (no. 2), App. No. 1799/07 ............................................................... 15

STATUTES

1.Civil Law (Wrongs) Act, 2002 ........................................................................................... 16

2.Commissions of Enquiry, 1952............................................................................................ 22

xiv
THIRD PROF. N.R. MADHAVA MENON SAARC MOOTING COMPETITION 2017-18: INDIA ROUNDS

3.Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) ............................................................................................. 16

4.Defamation Act 2005 (Qld) ................................................................................................ 16

5.Defamation Act 2005 (SA) ................................................................................................. 16

6.Defamation Act 2005 (Tas) ................................................................................................ 16

7.Defamation Act 2005 (Vic) ................................................................................................ 16

8.Defamation Act 2005 (WA)................................................................................................. 16

9.Defamation Act 2006 (NT) .................................................................................................. 16

10.Foreign Relations Act, 1932 ............................................................................................. 11

11.Information Technology Act, 2000 ................................................................................... 11

12. Official Secrets Act, 1923 ................................................................................................. 11

13.Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988................................................................................... 4

14.The Human Rights Act,1998 ............................................................................................. 13,16

15.Tort Claims Act, 2016........................................................................................................ 14,16

CONSTITUTION

1.Constitution of Ecuador ......................................................................................................... 25

2.Constitution of Eden……………………………………………………1,5,6,9,13,19,23

3.Constitution of India…………………………………………………….2,27,29,30

4.Constitution of South Africa ................................................................................................. 25

5.Constitution of Turkey .......................................................................................................... 16

ARTICLES

1.Aharon Barak, A Judge On Judging; The Role Of The Supreme Court 116 HARVARD

LAW REVIEW 16 (2002)..................................................................................................... 5

2.Alan Gewirth, Are All Rights Positive?30 (3) PHILOSOPHY & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (2001)........ 14

xv
THIRD PROF. N.R. MADHAVA MENON SAARC MOOTING COMPETITION 2017-18: INDIA ROUNDS

3.Geetika Sood, Parliamentary Democracy In India: Legal Issues And Challenges, 15(1)

LAW AND POLITICS 95, 101 (2017). .................................................................................. 7

4.Jefferson B. Fordham & Theodore H. Husted, Jr., John Marshall and the Rule of Law,

104 U. PA. L. REV. (1955) ................................................................................................ 5

5.Johan Steyn, The Case For The Supreme Court, 118 LAW. Q. REV. (2002). ........................ 5

6.Ray Watterson, What is Defamatory Today? 67 ALJ (1994). .............................................. 14

7.Rodney Smolla, Chief Justice Harry L. Carrico And The Ideal Of Judicial Independence,

38 (3) THE UNIVERSITY OF RICHMOND LAW REVIEW (2004). ......................................... 5

8.Ronald Dworkin, Rights as Trumps, in THEORIES OF RIGHTS (Jeremy Waldron ed.,

1984). ................................................................................................................................ 21

TREATISES

1.Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights .............................................................................. 25

2.African Bill Of Rights .......................................................................................................... 16

3.African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights .................................................................. 25

4.American Declaration on Rights and Duties of Man ............................................................ 23

5.Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women ............... 24,25

6.Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination ............................... 23,24

7.Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities ........................................................ 23,24

8.Convention on the Rights of the Child ................................................................................. 23,24

9.Declaration of Alma-Ata ....................................................................................................... 24

10.European Convention on Human Rights ............................................................................. 21

11.European Convention for the Promotion of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ... …25

12.European Social Charter ...................................................................................................... 25

xvi
THIRD PROF. N.R. MADHAVA MENON SAARC MOOTING COMPETITION 2017-18: INDIA ROUNDS

13.International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and

Members of Their Families .............................................................................................. 24

14.Konstytucja Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej (Pol.) ..................................................................... 16

15.New Zealand Bill Of Rights ................................................................................................. 16

16.Preamble To Constitution Of The World Health Organization............................................ 23

17.The American Convention on Human Rights (1969); ........................................................ 25

18.The Canadian Bill of Rights ................................................................................................ 16

19.The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights……… 6,23,24,25

BOOKS

1.A.B. KAFALTIYA, INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES (2008) .................................................... 19

2.A.V. DICEY, AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF THE LAW OF THE CONSTITUTION

(1985) ................................................................................................................................ 7

3.BALKIN & DAVIS, LAW OF TORTS (3rd edn,2004). ................................................................ 13

4.CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM (Robert J. Owens et al., eds.). ................................................... 17

5.D.D. BASU, INTRODUCTION TO THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (21st edn., 2015). ................. 4,6

6.DAVID ROLPH, REPUTATION, CELEBRITY AND DEFAMATION LAWS (2016). ........................ 13

7.DE SMITH & J. M. EVANS, DE SMITH'S JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACT (4th

edn, 1980). ......................................................................................................................... 3

8.DURGA DAS BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (8th ed., 2008). ........... 17

9.ERSKINE MAY, A TREATISE UPON THE LAW, PRIVILEGES, PROCEEDINGS AND USAGE OF

PARLIAMENT (23d edn.,2004) ........................................................................................... 7

10.H.M. SEERVAI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA (2014)..................................................... 29

11.HAROLD LUNTZ & DAVID HAMBLY, TORTS: CASES AND COMMENTARY (5th edn, 2002). ... 13

12.HILAIRE BARNETT, CONSTITUTIONAL & ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (2014) .............................. 7

13.IRSHAD HIJAZI, MEDIA LAWS AND ETHICS (1st edn., 2015) ................................................. 11
xvii
THIRD PROF. N.R. MADHAVA MENON SAARC MOOTING COMPETITION 2017-18: INDIA ROUNDS

14.J.G. FLEMING, THE LAW OF TORTS (1998)............................................................................ 19

15.J.H. BAKER, AN INTRODUCTION TO ENGLISH LEGAL HISTORY (4th edn, 2002). ................. 19

16.JOSEPH ARNOULD, MEMOIRS OF THOMAS, FISTS LORD DENMAN (1873) ............................. 7

17.JUSTICE FAZIL KARIM, JUDICIAL REVIEW OF PUBLIC ACTION (2006). ................................. 18

18.JUSTICE G.P. SINGH, PRINCIPLES OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION (14th edn., 2016) ........ 19

19.K.D. GANGRADE, SOCIAL LEGISLATION IN INDIA (1978) ..................................................... 2

20.K.D. GAUR, CRIMINAL LAW AND CRIMINOLOGY (2002) ..................................................... 2

21.KUMAR AVANISH, HUMAN RIGHT TO HEALTH (2007). ....................................................... 23

22.M. R. BIJU, HUMAN RIGHTS IN A DEVELOPING SOCIETY (2005) .......................................... 2

23.M.P. JAIN, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA (14th edn.,2014) ............................................ 4,6,18

24.NITSAN CHOREV, THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION BETWEEN NORTH AND SOUTH

(2012) ................................................................................................................................ 24

25.NOLAN SHUTLER, IN DEFENCE OF JOURNALISTS (2011)........................................................ 7

26.RICHARD HOGGART, LIBERTY AND LEGISLATION (1989). .................................................... 7

27.RICHARD PIERRE CLAUDE & BURNS H. WESTON, HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE WORLD

COMMUNITY: ISSUES AND ACTION (2006). ...................................................................... 24

28.SHIMON SHETREET, JUDGES ON TRIAL: THE INDEPENDENCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY OF

THE ENGLISH JUDICIARY (2013). ..................................................................................... 5

29.SUDHANSHU RANJAN, JUSTICE, JUDOCRACY AND DEMOCRACY IN INDIA: BOUNDARIES

AND BREACHES (2014). .................................................................................................... 7

30.W. GELLHORN & C. BYSE, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, CASES AND COMMENTS (5th ed.,

1970). ................................................................................................................................ 3

31.WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARY OF THE LAWS OF ENGLAND (4th ed. 1899) ............. 17

32.WILLIAM H. TAFT, THE SELECTION AND TENURE OF JUDGES (1913). ................................. 5

xviii
THIRD PROF. N.R. MADHAVA MENON SAARC MOOTING COMPETITION 2017-18: INDIA ROUNDS

MISCELLANEOUS

1.Dean Spielmann & Leto Cariolou, The Right to Protection of Reputation Under The

European Convention on Human Rights, in TEISE BESIKEICIANCIOJE EUROPOJE: LIBER

AMICORUM PRANAS KURIS [LAW IN A CHANGING EUROPE: LIBER AMICORUM PRANAS

KURIS] (Saulius Katuoka ed., 2008). ................................................................................ 21

2.Letter by Lord Acton to Archbishop Mandell Creighton, dated Apr. 5, 1887 available at:

https://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/165acton.html. ........................................... 5

3.REPORT OF SECOND PRESS COMMISSION (1982) .................................................................... 11

4.Right to Health, OHCHR (Sept. 28, 2017),

http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/Factsheet31.pdf. .................................... 24

5.Rosemary Righter, Freedom and “Balance”: the Global Media Controversy ...................... 7

6.Rules of procedure and conducts of Business in Lok Sabha ................................................ 8

7.Sir Joseph Bhore, Report of the Health Survey and Development Committees (1946). ...... ..27

8.The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Committee on the

Elimination of Discrimination against Women. .............................................................. 24

xix
THIRD PROF. N.R. MADHAVA MENON SAARC MOOTING COMPETITION 2017-18: INDIA ROUNDS

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

This Court is competent to hear to the petition under Art. 136 r/w 145(3) of the Constitution

of Eden. As the matter involved is a substantial questions of interpretation of Constitution,

the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Eden constituted a constitution bench to hear the matter which

has all the jurisdiction to hear it.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

THE BACKGROUND

Eden formerly a British colony, gained independence in 1947 and is governed by the

Constitution establishes it as the Union of States. The basic feature of its Constitution is

federalism, fundamental rights and a liberal democratic government. Replete with human and

natural resources the country showed a stable growth rate. The newly elected government of

the Eden Heritage Party, came in power in January, 2016 advocated the principle of

‘Minimum Government’ and ‘Maximum Governance’ with particular emphasis on health and

education.

THE CONNECTION OF SHCG AND MRS. ‘K’

SHCG being a nodal agency, received assistance from government and International Funds.

Mrs. K, the chief executive of a voluntary organization named Social Health Care Group

(hereinafter, SHCG), works to provide for reproductive assistance to infertile couples and

individuals. Mr. X, husband of Mrs. K is leader of opposition in the House of People. It

happens to be, the leader of opposition shall be ex officio Chairman of Public Accounts

xx
THIRD PROF. N.R. MADHAVA MENON SAARC MOOTING COMPETITION 2017-18: INDIA ROUNDS

Committee (hereinafter, PAC), which examines the revenue and expenditure of Government.

Its function extended to its wisdom, faithfulness and economy in cases of financial

irregularities. There were reports of financial irregularities by voluntary organization

(hereinafter, VO) and newspapers reported such misuse of funds along with influence of

political patronage.

THE ALLEGED MISAPPROPRIATION OF FUNDS

With the news of irregularities in fund appropriation by the VO’s, a Public Interest Litigation

(hereinafter, PIL) was filed by ‘People’s Cause’ regarding substantial funding to VO’s and

Non-Governmental Organization (hereinafter, NGO). The order of Supreme Court called for

initiation of civil and criminal action against the VO’s/NGO. The Government issued a

tentative test of VO’s for its ban or restriction. Meanwhile the political nexus of Mrs. K and

her exorbitant salary and travel expenses also caused media unrest.

THE SUB-COMMITTEE

In the backdrop of the above factual situation, a Sub-Committee was formed under the PAC

headed by Dr. A, which Mrs. K was invited by Sub-Committee to depose off before it in July

2016.The Sub-Committee did not compel her and as per principles of Commission of Enquiry

Act, 2013 (hereinafter, Act of 2013). She was not under obligation to attend it. Although she

attended the proceedings, but complained of “unfair treatment” and “searching question”

without advance notice. She approached the Speaker of the House to declare the functioning

of Sub-Committee contrary to the law and in violation of the provisions of the Act of 2013.

THE DRUG TRIAL

Before all this in 2015, drugs manufacturing companies (hereinafter, the ‘Companies’)

approached SHCG for collaboration for experimentation of a drug/vaccine to cure infertility.


xxi
THIRD PROF. N.R. MADHAVA MENON SAARC MOOTING COMPETITION 2017-18: INDIA ROUNDS

To which the permission was granted by the government. The companies got the drugs

administered on females ranging between 15 and 32 years. No evidence of coercion or undue

influence was found however, serious adverse effects began to be communicated to the

Government. The terms of enquiry of sub-committee was enlarged. Mrs. K was re-invited by

the sub-committee to which she declined and reminded of the letter given to the Speaker.

However, the Sub-Committee sent a questionnaire to her along with a notice to companies

who visited the sub-committee.

THE REPORT

Dr. A submitted the report of Sub-Committee in Budget Session, but it was not tabled and a

press conference was called by Dr. A, was alleged to leak the findings of the report. After the

Session, Dr. A affirmed his on floor statements to media.

THE WRITS AND CONSOLIDATED HEARING

People’s Cause filled PIL for questioning the inaction of appropriate authority. The report

was the foundation of the petition and there was question of need for enactment of legislation.

Supreme Court issued limited notice and asked for expeditious completion of pleadings in

Monsoon Session. In the Session as questions were raised on Mr. X and his influence, so due

to his absence the session was adjourned sine die. The matter of Breach of Privilege was

raised. A writ petition was filled by Mr. X and made Hon’ble Speaker a party. Mr. ‘X’ filed

another petition for declaration to quash the report of the Sub-Committee. He soughs writ of

Mandamus to restrain any debate on report before the house. The petitions have been stated

for hearing by the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court.

xxii
THIRD PROF. N.R. MADHAVA MENON SAARC MOOTING COMPETITION 2017-18: INDIA ROUNDS

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

[1] THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE CASES

[2] ARTICLE 102 IS CONSTITUTIONALLY INVALID AS IT RESTRICTS JUDICIAL REVIEW

[3] FREEDOM OF SPEECH & PRESS AND PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE ARE TO BE

CONSTRUED HARMONIOUSLY

[4] RIGHT TO REPUTATION IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

[5] ART. 21 H GUARANTEES RIGHT TO HEALTH BESIDES ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

[1] THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE CASES

It is humbly submitted by the counsels before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that it is within the

jurisdiction of this court to entertain the issues involved as the subject matter involves

substantial questions as to interpretation of the Constitution of Eden. It is further submitted

that the present case involves determining the extent of Article 21, 21H, 21D and Article 102

of the Constitution of Eden.

[2] ARTICLE 102 IS CONSTITUTIONALY INVALID AS IT RESTRICTS JUDICIAL REVIEW

It is humbly submitted by the counsels before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that Article 102 of

the Constitution of Eden is invalid as it restricts the judicial review. It is further submitted

that such a restriction is arbitrary, unreasonable and would result in miscarriage of justice.

xxiii
THIRD PROF. N.R. MADHAVA MENON SAARC MOOTING COMPETITION 2017-18: INDIA ROUNDS

[3] FREEDOM OF SPEECH & PRESS AND PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES ARE TO BE

CONSTRUED HARMONIOUSLY

.It is humbly submitted by the Counsels before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that Freedom of

Speech & Expression and Parliamentary Privileges are to be construed with reference to the

other so as to make both consistent and not redundant. It is duty of the court to avoid head on

clash between Freedom of Speech & Expression and Parliamentary Privileges. It is further

submitted that Parliamentary Privileges necessitates Freedom of Speech & Expression.

[4] RIGHT TO REPUTATION IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

It is humbly submitted by the counsels before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that Right to

Reputation is a fundamental right. It is further submitted by the counsels that Right to

Reputation is sine qua non for dignified life as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution

of Eden.

[5] ARTICLE 21 H GUARANTEES RIGHT TO HEALTH BESIDES ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE

It is humbly submitted by the counsels before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that Right to

Access to Healthcare is a fundamental Right guaranteed by Article 21H of the constitution of

Eden. Article 21 H is to be treated a genus providing in totality Right to Health. It is further

submitted by the counsels that state or any other person in any manner cannot violate such a

right or even put restriction as to enjoyment of the right.

xxiv
THIRD PROF. N.R. MADHAVA MENON SAARC MOOTING COMPETITION 2017-18: INDIA ROUNDS

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

MOST HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT:-

[1] THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE CASES

[¶1] The Court has jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the present case as is mandated by

Article 145(3) of the Constitution of Eden [1.1], the Writs filled by Mrs. K, Mr. X and

Peoples Cause Forum are maintainable [1.2] and the Hon’ble Court is competent to provide

relief [1.3].

[1.1] The Supreme Court is empowered by Article 145(3) r/w 136 of the Constitution of
Eden
[¶2] In the present case, the reference has been made to the court under Article 145(3) of the

Constitution of Eden. Article 145 (3) r/w 136 of the Constitution of Eden empowers this

Court to entertain the matter as it involves substantial question of law as to the interpretation

of this Constitution the determination

[¶3] The Constitution of the Eden is a carefully-balanced document. It is designed to provide

for a national government sufficiently strong and flexible to meet the needs of the republic,

yet sufficiently limited and just to protect guaranteed rights of citizens; it permits a balance

between society's need for order and the individual's right to freedom. To assure these ends,

the Framers of the Constitution bestowed the power to interpret the constitutional provisions

with the courts.

[1.2] The Writs filed by Mrs. K, Mr. X and Peoples Cause Forum are maintainable

[¶4] The PIL along with the two writs are maintainable in the present case under Article 32 of

the Constitution of Eden writ petition for enforcement of fundamental rights can be

questioned only on the ground of laches, where disputed questions of facts are involved or

1
THIRD PROF. N.R. MADHAVA MENON SAARC MOOTING COMPETITION 2017-18: INDIA ROUNDS

enforcement of private or contractual rights is sought to be enforced. None of the exceptions

mentioned above exists in the present case. The writ petitions have been filed for Violation of

Fundamental Rights [1.2.1] and Public Concern [1.2.2].

[1.2.1] Violation of Fundamental Rights a ground for writ

[¶5] There is a right to move the Supreme Court, by appropriate proceedings, for the

enforcement of the Fundamental Rights enumerated in the Constitution.1 Right to access to

the Supreme Court is a fundamental right.2 The Courts are the protector and guarantor of the

Fundamental Rights and play the role of a ‘sentinel on the qui vive’ and they must always

regard it as their solemn duty to protect the said Fundamental Rights ‘zealously and

vigilantly’.3The Counsels humbly submit that there was a violation of fundamental rights4

and that there was a public interest involved. There is a Right of Access to Healthcare in the

Constitution of Eden.5 The right is also inherent in Indian Constitution.6

[1.2.2] Public Concern as ground for maintainability of PIL by People’s Cause

[¶6] The subject-matter involved i.e Right of Access to Health Care falls under the purview

of ‘public concern’. Petitions have been entertained by Indian Courts7 espousing the cause of

over down- trodden or “little Indians” and that they can be espoused by any person having no

interest in the matter. The Counsels humbly submit that the as the experimentation of new

1
INDIA CONST., art. 32 cl.1; see also, K.D. GAUR, CRIMINAL LAW AND CRIMINOLOGY 568 (2002); M. R. BIJU,
HUMAN RIGHTS IN A DEVELOPING SOCIETY 153 (2005); K.D. GANGRADE, SOCIAL LEGISLATION IN INDIA 23
(1978).
2
State of Madras v. V.G Row, A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 196.
3
Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, U.P., AIR 1963 SC 996
4
¶¶ 34-53, MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER, Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting
Competition 2017-18.
5
EDEN CONST., art. 21H
6
Thiagraj Soobramoney v. Minister of Health, 1998 (1) SA 765 (CC); Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity &
ors v. State of West Bengal & ors, A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 2426.
7
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India & Ors, (1997) 10 SCC 549; M.C. Mehta v. Union of India &
Others, (1987) 4 S.C.C. 463; Rajeev Kumar and ors. v. The State of U.P. Through Principal Secretary, Ministry
of Sugarcane Development and ors., 2006(1)AWC34; New Sun Education Society (Regd.) Through Its
Secretary Sri Haji Muqeet Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh Through Secretary, Department of Home and ors.,
2008(2)AWC1186; Professor G.K. Rai v. Chancellor, University of Allahabad and ors., (2004)2UPLBEC1691.
2
THIRD PROF. N.R. MADHAVA MENON SAARC MOOTING COMPETITION 2017-18: INDIA ROUNDS

drug was sponsored through the NGO ‘SHCG’ any claims for any wrongs or injuries and for

the compensation in cases of any mishap was to be routed through the NGO ‘SHCG’.

Grievance of the women who were subjected to drug trial by the two companies,8 the alleged

deaths of two women,9calls for an action which was taken by People’s cause.

[1.3] The Court is Competent to Provide Relief

[¶7] Mandamus is a command directed to the inferior court, tribunal, board, corporation or

any administrative authority or a person requiring the performance of a specific duty fixed by

law or associated with the office occupied by the person.10 It can be given by the Supreme

Court or the High Court of a state. Mandamus has been used by American courts to review

administrative action.11

[¶8] The Writ can be granted against a public authority if it acted against the law, exceeded its

limits of power, acted with mala fides, did not apply its mind, abused its discretionary

powers, did not take into account relevant consideration or has taken into account irrelevant

consideration.12 To be enforceable by mandamus a public duty does not necessarily have to

be one imposed by statute.13

8
¶ 17, Page 7, STATEMENT OF FACTS, Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition 2017-18.
9
¶ 35, Page 11, STATEMENT OF FACTS, Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition 2017-18.
10
Lahiff v. St. Joseph, etc., Soc., 76 Conn. 648, 57 A. 692, 65 L.R.A. 92, 100 Am.St.Rep. 1012; Onion v.
Supreme Temple Pythian Sisters, 227 Mo.App. 557, 54 S.W.2d 468, 469; People v. Nelson, 346 Ill. 247, 178
N.E. 485, 487.
11
W. GELLHORN & C. BYSE, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, CASES AND COMMENTS 119-20 (5th ed., 1970).
12
Poonam v. State of UP and Others, (2016) 2 SCC 779; Sambhavana v University of Delhi, (2013) 14 SCC
781; Kabul Singh v. Niranjan Singh, A.I.R. 1958 Punj. 168; R v. Dunshett, (1950) All E.R. 741; Sales Tax
Officer v. Kanhaiyalal, A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 135; Governing Body of Devi Kandal Nityanand College v. State of
Orissa, A.I.R. 1989 Orissa 165; Sekkilar v. Krishna Moorty, A.I.R. 1952 Mad. 151; Harendra Chandra Das v.
Gauhati University, 1953 C.W.N. 54; Hemendra v. Gauhati University, (1953) C.W.N. 54 Assam; Kumkum
Khanna v. Principal, Jesus and Mary College, A.I.R. 1976 Del. 35; Tapendra Nath Roy v. University of
Calcutta, A.I.R. 1954 Cal. 141; State of MP v. Mandawara, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 493; Barada Kanta v. State of West
Bengal, A.I.R. 1963 Cal. 161; Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 46; Bihar
EGF Co-operative Society v. Sipahi Singh, A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 2149.
13
Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandasjiswami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and Ors.
v. V .R. Rudani and Ors., A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 1607; DE SMITH & J. M. EVANS, DE SMITH'S JUDICIAL REVIEW OF
ADMINISTRATIVE ACT 540 (4th edn, 1980).
3
THIRD PROF. N.R. MADHAVA MENON SAARC MOOTING COMPETITION 2017-18: INDIA ROUNDS

[¶9] The Counsels humbly submit that Mr. ‘X’’s writ petition for Mandamus against the

debate and discussions on the Report of Sub-Committee is maintainable as Dr. ‘A’ has been

leaking the confidentiality of the Reports in Press Conference14 and that when several media

persons put various pin-pointed questions to him towards the role of Mr. ‘X’ and Mrs. ‘K’, he

affirmed the statements made by him on the floor of the House.15 These acts of Dr. ‘A’ go

against a public servant16 and call for a command from this Hon’ble Court to pass an order

regarding the debate and discussion of the Report.

[2] ARTICLE 102 IS CONSTITUTIONALLY INVALID AS IT RESTRICTS JUDICIAL REVIEW

17
[¶10] It is humbly submitted that in a liberal democracy like Eden , Judiciary and Legislature

cannot function separately in a water-tight compartment. As they both affect the various

aspects of life of the citizens, they cannot be seen as entirely independent of each other. The

Counsels humbly submit that the three main organs of the government have to work in

tandem for a strong and healthy democracy [2.1], the independence and superiority of the

judiciary has to be maintained [2.2], Article 102(ii) levies wide restrictions on judicial review

[2.3].

[2.1] The three main organs of the government have to work in tandem for a strong and
healthy democracy
[¶11] The constitutional system of Eden is basically federal 18 and is a fusion of several States

enjoying autonomy.19 The judiciary has a duty to check working of the wings of Government

14
¶ 28, Page 9, STATEMENT OF FACTS, Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition 2017-18.
15
¶ 34, Page 11, STATEMENT OF FACTS, Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition 2017-18.
16
§ 2(c), PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988; P.V. Narsimha Rao v. State, 1998(4) S.C.C. 626
17
¶ 1, Page 2, STATEMENT OF FACTS, Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition 2017-18.
18
¶ 1, Page 2, STATEMENT OF FACTS, Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition 2017-18.
19
D.D. BASU, INTRODUCTION TO THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 155 (21st edn., 2015).
4
THIRD PROF. N.R. MADHAVA MENON SAARC MOOTING COMPETITION 2017-18: INDIA ROUNDS

in limit.20 It is indeed very difficult to put the Eden Constitution in the category of a true

federation just like its Indian counterpart21 where exists a balance among the branches’

powers.22It is also submitted that Art 102(ii) needs reconsideration as it was added

haphazardly before formation of Sub-Committee.

[2.2] The independence and supremacy of judiciary has to be maintained


[¶12] The Greatest scourge an angry Heaven ever inflicted upon an ungrateful and sinning

people, was an ignorant, a corrupt, or a “dependent Judiciary.” 23 The judiciary can

effectively fulfil its role only if the public has confidence that the courts, even if sometimes

wrong, act wholly independently24and it would lead to impartial decisions and enable the

judiciary to check over-concentrations of power in the political branches hence. Federal

systems are marked by independence of judiciary25 which is an ideal fundamental to the idea

of justice.26 Independence of the judiciary and individual judges go hand in hand.27

[2.3] Article 102 levies wide restrictions on judicial review

[¶13] The Counsels humbly cite Lord Acton where he says, “Power tends to corrupt, and

absolute power corrupts absolutely.”28 Article 102 of the Constitution of Eden specifically

put restrictions on the judicial review. Non-interference from judiciary would cause the

Parliament to work arbitrarily while discharging its functions without a sense of

accountability. The Counsels submit that for the reasons submitted above, the Judiciary have

20
M.P. JAIN, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA 553 (14th edn.,2014)
21
State Of West Bengal v. Union Of India, A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1241.
22
Aharon Barak, A Judge On Judging; The Role Of The Supreme Court 116 HARVARD LAW REVIEW 16 (2002).
23
Jefferson B. Fordham & Theodore H. Husted, Jr., John Marshall and the Rule of Law, 104 U. PA. L. REV. 57,
61 (1955) (quoting PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE VIRGINIA STATE CONVENTION OF 1829-30, at 615-19
(1830)). See WILLIAM H. TAFT, THE SELECTION AND TENURE OF JUDGES 6 (1913).
24
JOHAN STEYN, THE CASE FOR THE SUPREME COURT, 118 LAW. Q. REV. 382, 388 (2002).
25
Pradip Jain v. Union Of India, A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1420.
26
Rodney Smolla, Chief Justice Harry L. Carrico And The Ideal Of Judicial Independence, 38 (3) THE
UNIVERSITY OF RICHMOND LAW REVIEW 571 (2004).
27
SHIMON SHETREET, JUDGES ON TRIAL: THE INDEPENDENCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY OF THE ENGLISH
JUDICIARY 78 (2013).
28
Letter by Lord Acton to Archbishop Mandell Creighton, dated Apr. 5, 1887,
https://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/165acton.html.
5
THIRD PROF. N.R. MADHAVA MENON SAARC MOOTING COMPETITION 2017-18: INDIA ROUNDS

a say in the matters of regulating the internal procedure of the House of Parliament and has

every right to interfere in the matters of public interest wherever it may deem fit to it.29

[¶14] Parliament can only add to the powers and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court but

cannot curtail them30 and cannot take away its powers31 or curtail the powers of the judiciary

and by doing that harms the basic structure doctrine.32It is humbly submitted by the Counsels

that Parliamentary Accountability and Judicial Independence have to work hand in hand to

ensure the real purpose of setting up of the institution of democracy.

[¶15] Hon'ble Supreme Court is considered as the custodian of the Constitution of Eden as
interprets the Constitution to pay regards to intent of the founding fathers by safeguarding the
fundamental rights of the people and protecting the Constitution from any unconstitutional
amendments by exercising the power of judicial review. There is independence, supremacy
and the guardianship of the constitution by the Supreme Court.33Hence, the judiciary has
every right to interfere in the matters of the legislature in order to protect the intention of
framers of the constitution.34 The Counsels humbly submit that the restriction on judicial
review is unconstitutional as it breaches the basic structure of federalism and shakes it to the
very root of it.

[3] FREEDOM OF SPEECH & PRESS AND PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE ARE TO BE


CONSTRUED HARMONIOUSLY

35
[¶16] Freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental human right36 for every person

around the world and is the bulwark of democratic government 37 or “the touchstone of all the

29
Harper v. Virginia Board Of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966).
30
I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1643.
31
D.D. BASU, supra note 19 at 43.
32
Keshavananda Bharti v. State Of Kerala, (1973) 4 S.C.C. 225.
33
(2016) 5 S.C.C. 1.
34
Jharkhand Party v. State of Jharkhand, 2005 (2) BLJR 1559.
35
INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS , art. 19; THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON
ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS, art 15, cl. 3; EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, art.10.
36
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, art.19.
37
M.P. JAIN, supra note 20 at 1019.
6
THIRD PROF. N.R. MADHAVA MENON SAARC MOOTING COMPETITION 2017-18: INDIA ROUNDS

38
freedoms to which the United Nations is consecrated.” Everyone has the right to freedom

of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference

and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of

frontiers.39 The Counsels, inter alia, submit that free speech is sine qua non for healthy

debate in Parliament [3.1], Freedom of speech for debate in Parliament is protected within the

House, not outside it [3.2], Freedom of press to be read harmoniously [3.3].

[3.1] Free speech is sine qua non for healthy debate in Parliament
[¶17] Freedom of speech is sine qua non for the proper functioning of the Parliament. It is

harder to define than the extent of the indefinite powers or rights possessed by either House

of Parliament under the head of privilege or law and custom of Parliament.40 It is apt to quote

Sir Erskin May whose words echo a need for freedom of speech in Parliamentary

proceedings. “Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights …without which they

could not discharge their functions…” 41 It is submitted humbly by the Counsels that Free

speech is inalienable for fearless discussions [3.1.1] and that immunity is imperative for

healthy discussions [3.1.2].

[3.1.1] Free speech inalienable for fearless discussions


[¶18] The essence of Parliamentary democracy is a free, frank and fearless discussion in

Parliament.42 For a deliberative body like a House of Parliament, freedom of speech within

the House is of utmost significance.43 In order to let the members speak up and express

38
Rosemary Righter, Freedom and “Balance”: the Global Media Controversy in RICHARD HOGGART, LIBERTY
AND LEGISLATION 161(1989).
39
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, art 19.
40
II JOSEPH ARNOULD, MEMOIRS OF THOMAS, FISTS LORD DENMAN 70 (1873); A.V. DICEY, AN INTRODUCTION
TO THE STUDY OF THE LAW OF THE CONSTITUTION 58 (1985); see also, Raj Narain v. Atmaram Govind, A.I.R
1954 All 319.
41
ERSKINE MAY, A TREATISE UPON THE LAW, PRIVILEGES, PROCEEDINGS AND USAGE OF PARLIAMENT 132-33
(23d edn.,2004); see also, HILAIRE BARNETT, CONSTITUTIONAL & ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 368 (2014);
SUDHANSHU RANJAN, JUSTICE, JUDOCRACY AND DEMOCRACY IN INDIA: BOUNDARIES AND BREACHES 268
(2014).
42
Geetika Sood, Parliamentary Democracy In India: Legal Issues And Challenges, 15(1) LAW AND POLITICS
95, 101 (2017).
43
NOLAN SHUTLER, IN DEFENCE OF JOURNALISTS 223 (2011).
7
THIRD PROF. N.R. MADHAVA MENON SAARC MOOTING COMPETITION 2017-18: INDIA ROUNDS

themselves freely during the proceedings of the House, it is essential to make them get rid of

fear of any kind; the fear that they may be penalized for anything said and expressed in the

House.

[¶19] The rule of freedom of speech and debate in Parliament became established in Britain in

the case of Sir Jonh Eliot.44 The Indian Judiciary has expounded the law on privilege of

freedom of speech of Parliament as provided in Article 105 of the Indian Constitution in

many cases.45

[¶20] It is submitted by the Counsels that as Parliament is the most sacrosanct space for the

discussion of national policies and laws, to have free and liberated discussion, it has to be

given certain privileges to ensure that the legislative process of debate and discussion goes

smoothly and fearlessly.

[3.1.2]Immunity is imperative for healthy debates


[¶21] The Supreme Court in the case of Tej Kiran Jain v. Sanjeeva Reddy46 held that “once it

is proved that parliament was sitting and its business was being transacted, anything said

during the course of that business was immune from proceeding in any court”. In India, the

Constitution says: there shall be freedom of speech in parliament.47 The Rules of

Procedure of the House of People, empower the Chair to expunge any part of the proceedings

of the house.48 There is, as submitted by the Counsels, a sense of immunity to be granted to

the Members of House of People because unless such immunity is granted, they would not

freely express their views and a healthy discussion or debate would not be realised.

44
3 State Trials, 924.
45
A.K.Subbiah v. Karnataka Legislative Council, A.I.R 1979 Kant.24, Dr. Jatish Chandra Ghosh v. Hari Sadhan
Mukerjee ,A.I.R 1961 S.C. 613, M.S.M.Sharma v. Sri Krishna Sinha, A.I.R 1959 S.C.395, P.V. Narsimha Rao
v. State, 1998(4) S.C.C. 626, Raja Ram Pal v. Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha, ( 2007) 3 S.C.C 184, Shri Susant
Kumar Chand v. Orissa Legislative Assembly, A.I.R 1973 Ori. 111, Tej Kiran Jain and others v. N. Sanjeeva
Reddy and others, A.I.R 1970 S.C.1573.
46
A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1873.
47
INDIA CONST., art. 105, cl. 1
48
RULES OF PROCEDURE AND CONDUCTS OF BUSINESS IN LOK SABHA, rr. 303(6),380,381; see also, Pandit
M.S.M Sharma v. Shri Krishna Sinha, A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 395
8
THIRD PROF. N.R. MADHAVA MENON SAARC MOOTING COMPETITION 2017-18: INDIA ROUNDS

[3.2] Freedom of speech for debate in Parliament is protected within the House, not
outside
[¶22] Reading Article 102(i) in the light of clause (ii), there would be clear cut analysis that

what the Constitution of Eden provides for is that no report of any committee or commission

set up by Federal Government or House of People which is to be laid before the House, shall

be discussed or called into question in any court. Hence, the judicial scrutiny of such reports

is not allowed. However, the report of the Sub-committee, which was confidential in nature,

was discussed by Dr. ‘A’ in a press conference.49

[¶23] Before the start of Monsoon Session of Parliament, Dr. ‘A’ called for a Press

Conference where he selectively highlighted the contents of the report, and selectively leaked

its findings as well.50The facts clearly mention the details that Dr. ‘A’ had not left any stone

unturned to attract the attention of media towards the connection of the scam of the NGOs

and funding by Mrs. ‘K’ and Mr. ‘X’.51He, in this manner breached the parliamentary

privilege while disclosing the details of the Report which had to be laid on the Table of the

House.

[¶24] It is clear from a close reading of the provisions of parliamentary privilege that the

privileges are only inside the House and limited to the proceedings of the House and not

outside it. That is why whatever Dr. ‘A’ announced before the media regarding the

Parliamentary subjects of the Sub-committee are not immune from liability as they are not

parliamentary discussions but only a related aspect thereto.

[¶25] Thus, the Counsels humbly submit that as the act of Dr. ‘A’ seriously hampered the

dignity, reputation and good will of Mrs. ‘K’ and Mr. ‘X’, the actions which are levied

against him be taken into consideration and the aspect of Parliamentary Privilege and its

scope be discussed by this Hon’ble Court.

49
¶ 29, Page 10, STATEMENT OF FACTS, Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition 2017-18.
50
¶ 28, Page 9, STATEMENT OF FACTS, Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition 2017-18.
51
¶ 29, Page 10, STATEMENT OF FACTS, Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition 2017-18.
9
THIRD PROF. N.R. MADHAVA MENON SAARC MOOTING COMPETITION 2017-18: INDIA ROUNDS

[3.3] Freedom of press to be read harmoniously


[¶26] Kelly has been quoted often as to say, “constitutional provisions should not be

construed in isolation from all other parts of the constitution, but should be construed as to

harmonize with those other parts.”52It is submitted by the Counsels that democracy calls for

harmonious resolution of conflict between free speech and parliamentary privileges [3.3.1],

Press has to exercise freedom of speech and expression subject to parliamentary privileges

[3.3.2] and that Chairman of Sub-Committee or Committee cannot breach privilege by calling

press meeting and disclosing confidential report before House proceedings [3.3.3].

[3.3.1] Democracy calls for harmonious resolution of conflict between free speech and
parliamentary privileges
[¶27] On a harmonious construction of the words of Art. 102 and the right to freedom of

speech and expression, one fact which is that if there is a conflict between the right to

freedom of speech and expression and the parliamentary privileges, weightage is given to

both harmoniously. It has to be seen that which of the rights has more impact on the social

interests. In the instant case, if a higher stance is given to the right of speech and expression,

it would be disastrous. That would clearly lead to such a State being formed where the

sanctity of confidentiality and sacredness of Parliamentary procedures would be over looked.

Any person could skip the procedures of Parliament, then, and call for a “media trial”. This

would be even more prejudicial to the sacrosanct principles of Democracy and Federalism. It

is submitted that in a democracy, there has to be a freedom of speech and expression.

However, those freedoms are subject to reasonable restrictions. In the guise of freedom of

speech and expression, a citizen cannot go on to the extent of defaming some third person

basing his claims on such a Report which is confidential in nature and disclosure of which

leads to breach of parliamentary privileges.

52
See, eg., Raj Krushna Bose v. Binod Khanungo & others. 9 E.L.R. 294.
10
THIRD PROF. N.R. MADHAVA MENON SAARC MOOTING COMPETITION 2017-18: INDIA ROUNDS

[3.3.2] Press to exercise freedom of speech and expression subject to parliamentary


privileges
[¶28] The freedom of speech is regarded as the “first condition of liberty” and is the “mother

of all liberties”53. Many a times items published on internet violate National Laws.54 From the

yardsticks of freedom of press discussed in leading cases55 where it was observed by Mathew

J in Bennett Coleman case56:“it is of no use having a right to express your idea unless you

have got a medium of expressing it.” Where we are trapped in a quagmire to decide as to

what a medium of expression could be to our rescue come Motion Pictures Association v.

Union of India 57which includes films and digital medium also in medium of speech.

[¶29] Press, no doubt is the most powerful medium of information and exercise of free speech

in a democracy. It is sometimes referred to as “fourth pillar of democracy.” However, in the

instant case, there has been a blatant over-exercise of freedom of press. The press conference

which was called by Dr. ‘A’58 attracted much public attention in the national as well as

international media as it involved human rights issues connected to the working of SHCG and

the style of functioning of Mrs. ‘K’ as well.59There were pin-pointed questions which were

put forward by the media persons during the Press Conference about the role and

involvement of Mr. ‘X’ in the ‘Clinical trial related issue vis- a -vis SHCG financing.’60All

these questions have enough potential to breach the sacredness of parliamentary privileges

and also have a defamatory tinge in themselves.

53
1 REPORT OF SECOND PRESS COMMISSION 34-35 (1982); see also, IRSHAD HIJAZI, MEDIA LAWS AND ETHICS
(1st edn., 2015)
54
See, for e.g., OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT, 1923; FOREIGN RELATIONS ACT, 1932; INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
ACT, 2000 etc.
55
Sakal Papers(P) Ltd v. Union of India, A.I.R 1962 S.C. 305; Bennett Coleman &Co. v. Union Of India, A.I.R
1973 S.C.106; Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, A.I.R 1950 S.C. 124
56
Bennett Coleman &Co.v. Union Of India, A.I.R 1973 S.C.106
57
Motion Pictures v. UOI, 1995(35) DRJ 582.
58
¶ 28, Page 9, STATEMENT OF FACTS, Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition 2017-18.
59
¶ 29, Page 10, STATEMENT OF FACTS, Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition 2017-18.
60
¶ 29, Page 10, STATEMENT OF FACTS, Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition 2017-18.
11
THIRD PROF. N.R. MADHAVA MENON SAARC MOOTING COMPETITION 2017-18: INDIA ROUNDS

[¶30] The questions regarding involvement of Mrs. ‘K’ and Mr. ‘X’, though not answered

directly by Dr. ‘A’61 have been discussed at length by him in the media by disclosure of

highlights of the confidential report.62 The Counsels humbly submit that the media and its

function should be restricted to an arena from where they could not breach the privileges

under Art. 102 and it is humbly submitted that the functioning and freedoms of press and

media should be subject to parliamentary privileges and this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to

address this issue.

[3.3.3]Arguendo, Chairman of Sub-Committee or Committee cannot breach privilege by


calling press meeting and disclosing confidential report before House proceedings
[¶31] There has been at length submission about the parliamentary privileges in ¶ 11 and

about the relation of press and its freedom of speech and expression being restricted to the

parliamentary privileges in ¶ 29. Arguendo, it is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court

that the post of Chairman of Committees and Sub-Committees appointed by the Federal

Government or the House of Parliaments is sacrosanct in nature. It is burdened by heavy

duties of maintenance of confidentiality of reports as well as the prevention of any

discussions, debates etc. over the issues of such reports before they are place in the House.

These duties can be inferred from the words of Art. 102 (i) and (ii).

[¶32] In the instant case, the Chairman of Sub-committee, Dr. ‘A’ has breached the

confidentiality of the Report of the Sub-committee by discussing it in Press conference.63 The

Counsels, humbly submit before this Hon’ble Court that the Chairman of Committees or Sub-

Committees being a responsible post-holder cannot act in such a haphazard and negligent

manner. The constitutional interpretation of Art. 102 is called for in the light of Section 299-

A of Federal Penal Code which talks of Corruption in Public Office.

61
¶ 29, Page 10, STATEMENT OF FACTS, Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition 2017-18.
62
¶ 28, Page 9, STATEMENT OF FACTS, Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition 2017-18.
63
¶ 28, Page 9, STATEMENT OF FACTS, Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition 2017-18.

12
THIRD PROF. N.R. MADHAVA MENON SAARC MOOTING COMPETITION 2017-18: INDIA ROUNDS

[¶33] As the ideal of ex visceribus actus calls not only for a concomitant reading of the

provisions of one Statute as a whole, it also calls for a reading of all such provisions in the

light of the law of the land from where they emanate. Reading such provision in the light of

Constitution of Eden, the Counsels humbly submit that this Hon’ble Court may take the issue

of powers and duties of Chairman of Committees and Sub-Committees into consideration.

[4] RIGHT TO REPUTATION IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

[¶34] Article 21 of the Constitution of Eden guarantees Right to life. 64 Life is a human right65

and most important of all rights.66 The Counsels argue that Art. 21 does not “give” a person

right to life. It “protects” and “guarantees” one’s right to life. One’s right to life is inherent to

one by virtue of our birth. The Counsels submit that reputation is sine qua non for dignified

life [4.1], Right to Reputation is a natural and personal right [4.2], Right to Reputation is

inherent in Art. 21 [4.3], Enquiry by Committees and Sub-Committees cannot surpass this

right [4.4].

[4.1]Reputation is sine qua non for dignified life


[¶35] A good reputation is part of the innate dignity of the individual,67 a social and a public

phenomenon.68 Every man is guaranteed ‘inherent dignity of the human person’, and it paves

path for right to reputation.69 Reputation has been described as “highly prized but

intangible”70, “nebulous yet much cherished”71 and one of the few safe harbours in the law of

64
¶ 1, Page 2, STATEMENT OF FACTS, Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition 2017-18.
65
See UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, 1948, art. 3; THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT,1998(U.K.), art. 2.
66
The State v. T. Makwanyane and M. Mchunu, 1995(3) S.A. 391.
67
Hill v. Church of Scientology (1995) 126 D.L.R. (4th) 129.
68
Rosenblatt v. Baer 383 US 75; 86 S Ct 669 (1966).
69
DAVID ROLPH, REPUTATION, CELEBRITY AND DEFAMATION LAWS 31 (2016).
70
BALKIN & DAVIS, LAW OF TORTS (3rd edn,2004).
71
HAROLD LUNTZ & DAVID HAMBLY, TORTS: CASES AND COMMENTARY (5th edn, 2002).
13
THIRD PROF. N.R. MADHAVA MENON SAARC MOOTING COMPETITION 2017-18: INDIA ROUNDS

defamation”.72 It is “not a commodity having market value”73, is man’s “property”74 and

“what other people think he is”.75 Though A.21 is couched in negative phraseology,76 it

enforces positive obligations77 on the state to take steps to ensure that the individual enjoys a

dignified life.78 Reputation relates to privacy of a person79 which is a fundamental right.80

[¶36] The Counsels humbly cite the case of Subramaniam Swamy v. Union of India,81 where

the Indian Supreme Court categorically held inter alia that right to reputation is a

“fundamental right”. A good reputation is an element of “personal security” and is protected

by the Constitution “equally with the right to the enjoyment of life, liberty and property”. 82

[¶37] The European Human Rights Court has settled the conflict between freedom of speech

and expression and reputation as hampered by acts of and of associations,83authors,84health

72
Ray Watterson, What is Defamatory Today? 67 ALJ 811, 812 (1994).
73
Rogers v. Nationwide News Pty Ltd, (2003) 16 C.L.R. 327.
74
Dixon v. Holden (1869) 7 L.R. Eq. 488.
75
Plato Films Ltd v. Speidel, [1961] A.C. 1090; See, e.g., Re T and Director of Youth & Community Services,
[1980] 1 N.S.W.L.R. 392 at 395 per Waddell J; Melbourne v. R, (1999) 198 C.L.R. 1 at 15–16; 164 ALR 465;
73 ALJR 1097 per McHugh J; O’Hagan v. Nationwide News Pty Ltd, (2001) 53 N.S.W.L.R. 89 at 91 per
Meagher JA; Levine 2002, 5; Veeder 1904, 33; Pound 1915, 447. For examples of older authorities, see, e.g., De
Crespigny v. Wellesley, (1829) 5 Bing 392 at 405–6; 130 ER 1112 at 117–18 per Best CJ; Toogood v. Spyring,
(1834) 1 CM & R 181 at 193; (1834) 149 ER 1044 at 1049 per Parke B; Smith v. McQuiggan, (1863) 2
SCR(NSW) (L) 268 at 270 per Stephen CJ; Bryce v. Rusden, (1886) 2 TLR 435 at 439 per Huddleston B;
Pullman v. Walter Hill & Co Ltd, [1891] 1 QB 524 at 527 per Lord Esher MR. For examples of more recent
authorities, see, e.g., Slim v. Daily Telegraph Ltd, [1968] 2 QB 157 at 171–2 per Diplock LJ; Delaney v. News
Media Ownership Ltd, [1976] 1 NZLR 322 at 326–8; Gorman v. Barber, (2004) 61 NSWLR 543 at 550 per
Mason P; see also, Explanation, § 2(c), TORT CLAIMS ACT, 2016.
76
Nandini Sundar and Ors. v. State of Chattisgarh, AIR 2011 SC 2839, ¶63.
77
Maruti Shripati Dubal v. State of Maharashtra, 1987 (1) Bom CR 499.
78
ALAN GEWIRTH, Are All Rights Positive?, 30 (3) PHILOSOPHY & PUBLIC AFFAIRS 321 (2001).
79
§§ 2(k), 3(1), TORT CLAIMS ACT, 2016.
80
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. UOI, W.P. (Civil) No. 494 0f 2012.
81
A.I.R. 2016 S.C. 2728.
82
D.F.Marion v. Minnie Davis, 55 American LR 171.
83
Cicad v. Switzerland, App. No. 17676/09,¶ 47(Eur. Ct. H.R. Jun. 7, 2016) (HUDOC Database) ; Medžlis
Islamske Zajednice Brčko and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, App. No. 17224/11 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Jun. 6,
2017) (HUDOC Database) .
84
Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France, App. No. 21279/02, ¶ 3 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Oct. 22, 2007)
(HUDOC Database); Ileana Constantinescu v. Romania, Ojala, App. No. 32563/04, ¶ 25 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Dec.
11, 2012) (HUDOC Database); Etukeno Oy v. Finland, App. No. 69939/04, ¶ 30 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Jan. 14, 2014)
(HUDOC Database); Ruusunen v. Finland, App. No. 73579/10, ¶ 34 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Jan. 14, 2014) (HUDOC
Database); Almeida Leitão Bento Fernandes v. Portugal, App. No. 25790/11 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Mar. 12, 2015)
(HUDOC Database).
14
THIRD PROF. N.R. MADHAVA MENON SAARC MOOTING COMPETITION 2017-18: INDIA ROUNDS

workers,85historians,86journalists87 and political figures.88 It is “the estimate in which he is

held by the public in the place where he is known.”89 The international instruments90, national

85
Frankowicz v. Poland, App. No. 53025/99 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Apr. 12, 2009) (HUDOC Database); Heinisch v.
Germany , App. No. 28274/08 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Jul. 21, 2011) (HUDOC Database); Ärztekammer Für Wien and
Dorner v. Austria, App. No. 8895/10, ¶ 65 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Feb. 16, 2016) (HUDOC Database).
86
Karsai v. Hungary, App. No. 5380/07, ¶ 28 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Jan. 12, 2009) (HUDOC Database); Braun v.
Poland, App. No. 30162/10, ¶ 44 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Nov. 4, 2014) (HUDOC Database); Pinto Pinheiro Marques v.
Portugal, App. No. 26671/09, ¶ 35 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Jan. 22, 2015) (HUDOC Database).
87
Radio France and Others v. France, App. No. 53984/00, ¶ 3 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Mar. 30, 2004) (HUDOC
Database); Chauvy and Others v. France, App. No. 64915/01, ¶ 3 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Jun. 26, 2004) (HUDOC
Database); Cumpănă and Mazăre v. Romania, App. No. 33348/96, ¶ 3 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Dec. 17, 2004) (HUDOC
Database); Katamadze v. Georgia, App. No. 69857/01 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Feb. 17, 2004) (HUDOC Database);
Leempoel & S.A. ED. Ciné Revue v. Belgium, App. No. 64772/01 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Nov. 9, 2006) (HUDOC
Database); Tønsbergs Blad AS and Haukom v. Norway, App. No. 510/04, ¶ 3 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Mar. 1, 2007)
(HUDOC Database); Colaço Mestre and SIC - Sociedade Independente de Comunicação S.A. v. Portugal, Apps.
No. 11182/03 and 11319/03, ¶ 3 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Apr. 26, 2007) (HUDOC Database); Lindon, Otchakovsky-
Laurens and July v. France, App. No. 21279/02, ¶ 3 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Oct. 22, 2007) (HUDOC Database); Mihaiu
v. Romania, App. No. 42512/02 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Nov. 4, 2008) (HUDOC Database); Standard Verlags GmbH v.
Austria (no. 2), App. No. 21277/05, ¶ 3 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Jun. 4, 2009) (HUDOC Database); Kuliś and Różycki v.
Poland, App. No. 27209/03 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Oct. 6, 2009) (HUDOC Database); Ruokanen and Others v. Finland,
App. No. 45130/06 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Apr. 6, 2010) (HUDOC Database); Brunet Lecomte and Lyon Mag’ v.
France, App. No. 17265/05 (Eur. Ct. H.R. May. 6, 2010) (HUDOC Database); Uj v. Hungary, App. No.
23954/10, ¶ 21 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Jul. 19, 2011) (HUDOC Database); Axel Springer AG v. Germany, App. No.
39954/08, ¶ 79 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Feb. 7, 2012) (HUDOC Database); Tănăsoaica v. Romania, App. No. 3490/03, ¶
52 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Jun. 19, 2012) (HUDOC Database); Smolorz v. Poland, App. No. 17446/07, ¶ 31 (Eur. Ct.
H.R. Jan. 6, 2013) (HUDOC Database); Mladina D.D. Ljubljana v. Slovenia, App. No. 20981/10, ¶ 39 (Eur. Ct.
H.R. Apr. 17, 2014) (HUDOC Database); Mustafa Erdoğan and Others v. Turkey, Apps. No. 346/04 and
39779/04, ¶ 46 (Eur. Ct. H.R. May. 27, 2014) (HUDOC Database); Axel Springer AG v. Germany (no.2), App.
No. 48311/10, ¶ 51 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Jul. 10, 2014) (HUDOC Database); Stankiewicz and Others v. Poland, App.
No. 48723/07, ¶ 60 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Oct. 14, 2014) (HUDOC Database); Erla Hlynsdottir v. Iceland (no. 2), App.
No. 54125/10, ¶ 56 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Oct. 21, 2014) (HUDOC Database); Haldimann and Others v. Switzerland,
App. No. 21830/09, ¶ 49 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Feb. 24, 2015) (HUDOC Database); Hlynsdottir v. Iceland (no. 3), App.
No. 54145/10, ¶ 60 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Jun. 2, 2015) (HUDOC Database); Morar v. Romania, App. No. 25217/06, ¶
46 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Jul. 7, 2015) (HUDOC Database); De Carolis and France Télévisions v. France, App. No.
29313/10, ¶ 45 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Jan. 21, 2016) (HUDOC Database); Bédat v.; Switzerland, App. No. 56925/08, ¶
50 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Mar. 29, 2016) (HUDOC Database);Nadtoka v. Russia, App. No. 38010/05, ¶ 46 (Eur. Ct.
H.R. May. 31, 2012) (HUDOC Database);Dorota Kania v. Poland, App. No. 49132/11, ¶ 25 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Jul.
19, 2016) (HUDOC Database);Dorota Kania v. Poland (no. 2), App. No. 44436/13, ¶ 62 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Oct. 4,
2016) (HUDOC Database);Olafsson v. Iceland, App. No. 58493/13, ¶ 48 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Mar. 16, 2017)
(HUDOC Database);Milisavljević v. Serbia, App. No. 50123/06, ¶ 37 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Apr. 4, 2017) (HUDOC
Database); Koutsoliontos and Pantazis v. Greece, Apps. No. 54608/09 and 54590/09, ¶ 37 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Sept.
22, 2015) (HUDOC Database); Ziembiński v. Poland (no. 2), App. No. 1799/07 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Jul. 5, 2016)
(HUDOC Database); Medipress-Sociedade; Jornalística, Lda v. Portugal, App. No. 55442/12, ¶ 37 (Eur. Ct.
H.R. Aug. 30, 2016) (HUDOC Database); Verlagsgruppe News GmbH v. Austria, App. No. 9406/05, ¶ 42 (Eur.
Ct. H.R. Dec. 13, 2016) (HUDOC Database); Kunitsyna v. Russia, App. No. 39954/08, ¶ 79 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Feb.
7, 2012) (HUDOC Database).
88
Keller v. Hungary, App. No. 33352/02 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Apr. 4, 2006) (HUDOC Database); Kurski v. Poland,
App. No. 26115/10, ¶ 48 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Jul. 5, 2016) (HUDOC Database); Petrina v. Romania, App. No.
78060/01 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Oct. 14, 2008) (HUDOC Database); Karakó v. Hungary , App. No. 39311/05, ¶ 1 (Eur.
Ct. H.R. Apr. 28, 2009) (HUDOC Database); Petrenco v. the Republic of Moldova, App. No. 20928/05 (Eur. Ct.
H.R. Mar. 30, 2010) (HUDOC Database); Hoon v. the United Kingdom , App. No. 14832/11, ¶ 39 (Eur. Ct.
H.R. Dec. 4, 2014) (HUDOC Database); Rubio Dosamantes v. Spain, App. No. 20996/10, ¶ 27 (Eur. Ct. H.R.
Feb. 21, 2017) (HUDOC Database); Haupt v. Austria , App. No. 55537/10, ¶ 31 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Jun. 1, 2017)
(HUDOC Database).
15
THIRD PROF. N.R. MADHAVA MENON SAARC MOOTING COMPETITION 2017-18: INDIA ROUNDS

laws91 and judgements92 affirm the importance of a good reputation to the dignity of the

individual. Basing their arguments on the above cited authorities and case laws, the Counsels

humbly submit before this Court that the Right to Reputation is intrinsically linked with the

dignity, self-esteem, honour, glory and eminence. More than that, it elevates a person from

the level of “human” to “human with repute, name and prestige” which make it necessary for

leading a dignified life.

[4.2] Right to reputation is a natural and personal right


[¶38] Reputation which a man “would never barter it with all the tea of China or for that

matter all the pearls of the sea”93, has been held to be the “salt of life”, “the purest treasure”,

“the most precious perfume of life” 94 and “a natural right”95 and is perceived as an “honour”

rather than “popularity”.96

89
Cooper v. Greeley, 1 Denio (N. Y.) 347
90
See, e.g., INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, arts. 10, 12; KONSTYTUCJA
RZECZYPOSPOLITEJ POLSKIEJ, Apr. 2, 1997, art. 47 (Pol.); UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, art.5,
12; THE CANADIAN BILL OF RIGHTS, §1 (a), AFRICAN BILL OF RIGHTS, § 12; TURKEY CONST., art. 13; NEW
ZEALAND BILL OF RIGHTS,§§8-11; HUMAN RIGHTS ACT (U.K.), art. 5.
91
See, e.g., § 139D, CIVIL LAW (WRONGS) ACT, 2002; § 30, DEFAMATION ACT 2006 (NT); § 33, DEFAMATION
ACT 2005 (NSW); § 33, DEFAMATION ACT 2005 (Qld); § 33, DEFAMATION ACT 2005 (SA); § 33, DEFAMATION
ACT 2005 (Tas); § 33, DEFAMATION ACT 2005 (Vic); § 33, DEFAMATION ACT 2005 (WA), § 2 (C), TORT CLAIMS
ACT, 2016 ; see, also, Morosi v. Mirror Newspapers, [1977] 2 NSWLR 749; Singleton v. John Fairfax & Sons
Ltd [No 1], [1983] 2 NSWLR 722; Chappell v. Mirror Newspapers, (1984) Aust Torts Reports ¶80-691; King
and Mergen Holdings Pty Ltd v. McKenzie (1991) 24 NSWLR 305; Jones v. Sutton, [2004] NSWCA 439.
92
See, e.g. , Walter v. Alltools Ltd, (1944) 171 LT 371; 61 TLR 39; [1944] WN 214 at 214 per Lawrence LJ;
Myer Stores Ltd v. Soo, [1991] 2 VR 597 at 603–4; (1991) Aust Torts Reports ¶81-077 at 68,624 per Murphy J;
Sattin v. Nationwide News Pty Ltd, (1996) 39 NSWLR 32 at 34ff per Levine J; Wade v. State of Victoria,
[1999] 1 VR 121; Sullivan v. Moody, (2001) 207 CLR 562 at 580–81; 183 ALR 404; 75 ALJR 1570; Aust Torts
Reports ¶81-622 per curiam; Tame v. New South Wales, (2002) 211 CLR 317 at 335 per Gleeson CJ, at 342 per
Gaudron J, at 361 per McHugh J, at 425 per Callinan J; 191 ALR 449; 76 ALJR 1348; Aust Torts Reports ¶81-
672; Cornwall v. Rowan, [2004] SASC 384 at [684]–[696]; Spring v. Guardian Assurance plc, [1995] 2 AC
296; [1994] 3 All ER 129; [1994] 3 WLR 354; Bell-Booth Group Ltd v. Attorney-General, [1989] 3 NZLR 148;
Balfour v. Attorney General, [1991] 1 NZLR 519; Midland Metals Overseas Pty Ltd v. The Christchurch Press
Co Ltd, [2002] 2 NZLR 289; Fulton v. Globe & Mail Ltd, (1997) 152 DLR (4th) 377; Butler 2000b; Foaminol
Laboratories Ltd v. British Artid Plastics Ltd [1941] 2 All ER 393 at 399 per Hallett J; Malik v. Bank of Credit
& Commerce International SA (in liq), [1998] AC 20; [1997] 3 All ER 1; [1997] 3 WLR 95; Gambotto v. John
Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd, (2001) 104 IR 303 at 312 per Peterson J; Enonchong 1996.
93
Om Prakash Chautala v. Kanwar Bhan, (2014) 5 S.C.C. 417.
94
Vishwanath Agrawal v. Saral Vishwanath Agrawal, (2012) 7 S.C.C. 288.
95
Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1996) 2 S.C.C. 648.
96
Om Prakash Chautala v. Kanwar Bhan, (2014) 5 S.C.C. 417.
16
THIRD PROF. N.R. MADHAVA MENON SAARC MOOTING COMPETITION 2017-18: INDIA ROUNDS

97
[¶39] Personal rights of a human being include the right of reputation. When a dent is

created in the reputation, humanism is paralyzed.98 A good reputation is an element of

personal security.99 The essence of dignity can never be treated as a momentary spark of light

or, for that matter, “a brief candle”, or “a hollow bubble”.100

[¶40] A man's reputation is a part of himself, as his body and limbs are.101 Post Maneka

Gandhi v. Union of India102, the Supreme Court expanded the phrase “personal liberty” in its

interpretation of A. 21 to the widest amplitude.103 Reputation is, the Counsels humbly submit,

a personal right, and the right to reputation is put among those absolute personal rights equal

in dignity and importance to security from violence.104 Detraction from a man's reputation is

an injury to his personality105, and thus an injury to reputation is a personal injury, that is, an

injury to an absolute personal right. Right of personal security consists in a person's legal and

uninterrupted enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his body, his health and his reputation.106

[¶41] The right to the enjoyment of a good reputation is a valuable privilege, of ancient

origin, and necessary to human society107 The Hon’ble Supreme Court has read Right to

Basic Necessities108 into the Right to Life and Liberty under A.21.109 This right inherently

97
Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, (2013) 10 S.C.C. 591.
98
Mehmood Nayyar Azam v. State of Chattisgarh, (2012) 8 S.C.C. 1.
99
D.F. Marion v. Davis 217 Ala 16 : 114 So 357 : 55 A.L.R. 171 (1927), In Board of Trustees of the Port of
Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni and Others, (1983) 1 S.C.C. 124, State of Maharashtra v.
Public Concern for Governance Trust and Others, (2007) 3 S.C.C. 587.
100
Mehmood Nayyar Azam v. State of Chhattisgarh and others, (2012) 8 S.C.C. 1.
101
Kiran Bedi & Jinder Singh v. Committee of Inquiry, A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 714.
102
A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 597.
103
Pathumma and Ors.v. State of Kerala and Ors., AIR 1978 SC 771.
104
Huzra Bee v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, W.P. No.9060/2017, per Hemant Gupta
C.J., Mohammed Quadeer and others v. Commissioner of Police, 1999 (3) A.L.D. 60, Sri S. Santhanam, I.A.S.
and Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by Chief Secretary to Government and Ors, 1993 (3) A.L.T. 666.
105
77 CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM 268 (Robert J. Owens et al., eds.).
106
I WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARY OF THE LAWS OF ENGLAND 101 (4th ed. 1899); see, also, Sri S.
Santhanam, I.A.S. And Anr. v. State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep. By Chief Secretary to Government and Ors, 1993
(3) A.L.T. 666; Om Prakash Chautala v. Kanwar Bhan, (2014) 5 S.C.C. 417.
107
Kishore Samrite v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2013) 2 S.C.C. 398.
108
Byrraju Ramalinga Raju v. The State CBI,Criminal Petition No. 5454 of 2009.
109
3 DURGA DAS BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 371 (8th ed., 2008).
17
THIRD PROF. N.R. MADHAVA MENON SAARC MOOTING COMPETITION 2017-18: INDIA ROUNDS

ensures a dignified life to citizens of India,110 which not only entails an assurance of fulfilling

their primary needs, but also guarantees all those conditions to the citizens which make life

worth living.111 A.21 of the Constitution has been given a qualitative concept to Life, 112 and it

safeguards the basic human rights required of every civilization.113

[¶42] A life without reputation is like a house without roof, a fish without water and a plant

without roots. The very basic root of a man’s life is his goodwill, his reputation in the society.

No one wants to be bullied and called names. The Counsels humbly submit that reputation is

an important part of one’s life and as its violation affects life and person of individual, it is a

personal right. So far as it affects the person, it is his natural right as it is granted by the virtue

of his birth.

[4.3] Right to Reputation is inherent in Article 21


[¶43] The Counsels humbly submit that interpretation of Arts. 21 and 21D ex visceribus actus

bring out a relation between reputation and liberty [4.3.1], reputation is guaranteed by

democracy [4.3.2], there is no conflict between Freedom of Speech and Right to Reputation

[4.3.3].

[4.3.1.] Interpretation of Art. 21 and 21D ex visceribus actus


114
[¶44] Right to reputation is a facet of the right to life of a citizen under Art. 21 which forms

an important part of one's life115 and is ought to be “more precious to him than his life”.116

110
Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi & Ors., AIR 1981 SC 746.
111
M.P. JAIN, supra note 20 at 1309.
112
Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 1051.
113
1 JUSTICE FAZIL KARIM, JUDICIAL REVIEW OF PUBLIC ACTION 588-589 (2006).
114
State of Bihar v. Lal Krishna Advani, A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 335; Mehmood Naiyyar Azam v. State of Chattisgarh,
A.I.R. 2012 S.C. 2573; Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni &
Ors, (1983) 1 S.C.C. 124; Peter Thomas Mahon v. Air New Zealand Ltd & Ors., 1983 U.K.P.C. 29.
115
State Of Bihar v. Lal Krishna Advani, A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 335.
116
De Libellis Famosis, (1605) 5 Co Rep 125a; 77 E.R. 250; De Crespigny v. Wellesley, (1829) 5 Bing 392;
130 E.R. 1112; Hill v. Church of Scientology, (1995) 126 D.L.R. (4th) 129; R v. Lucas, (1998) 157 D.L.R. (4th)
423 at 456 per Cory J.; Thomas v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, [1981] 4 W.W.R. 289 at 339 per
Disbery J; Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co, 497 U.S. 1; 110 S Ct 2695, 2702 (1990) (Rehnquist CJ); National
Life Insurance Co v. Phillips Publishing Inc, 793 F Supp 627, 642 n 28 (1992) (Northrop J); Lewis v. McGraw-
Hill Broadcasting Co Inc, 832 P 2d 1118, 1125 (1992) (Dubofsky J); Bernson v. Browning-Ferris Industries of
California Inc, 873 P 2d 613; 30 Cal Rptr 2d 440, 447 (1994) (Arabian J); Newman v. Delahunty, 681 A 2d 671,
687 (1994) (Piscal J); Mucci v. Dayton Newspapers Inc, 654 NE 2d 1068, 1074–1075 (1995) (Froelich J);
18
THIRD PROF. N.R. MADHAVA MENON SAARC MOOTING COMPETITION 2017-18: INDIA ROUNDS

The Constitutional provisions are required to be understood and interpreted with an object-

oriented approach and not in a narrow and pedantic sense.117 There should be a beneficial

construction along with the application of Golden rule of interpretation. On an application of

these rules, the Counsels humbly submit that, the Right under Article 21 read with Article

21D would bring out the fact that Right to Reputation is inherent in the Constitutional

mandates. The rights under the above articles guarantee right to life and liberty. As, life is

enjoyed with a sound and dignified reputation, it would be apt if the Counsels submit that the

Right to life includes Right to Reputation.

[¶45] Arguendo, right to liberty118, as read with the right to life applying the rule ex visceribus

actus, it could be deciphered that the liberty of an individual is linked with his life and a life

without liberty is 'lasting' but not living'119 because liberty is the life line of every human

being.120

[4.3.2] Reputation is guaranteed by Democracy

Pressler v. Lethbridge, (1997) 153 DLR (4th) 537 at 554 per Owen-Flood J; R v. Lucas, (1998) 157 DLR (4th)
423 at 456–7 per Cory J; Howlett v. Saggers, (unreported, SC(NSW), 20783/95, Donovan AJ, 24 April 1998) at
59– 60; Guildford Transportation Industries Inc v. Wilner, 760 A 2d 580, 595 (2000) (Schwelb AJ); Nassa v.
Hook-Superx Inc., 790 A 2d 368, 374 n 12 (2002) (Flanders J); W.J.L.A.-T.V. v. Levin, 264 Va 140; 564 SE 2d
383, 396 n 8 (2002) (Koontz J); Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F 3d 1068, 1079 (2005) (Bea J (dissenting)); Ramsey v.
Fox News Network LLC, 351 F Supp 2d 1145, 1153 (2005) (Figa J); Carter-Ruck and Starte 1997, 1; Linden
2001, 683; Levine 2002, 4; George 2006, 11; See, for e.g., Australian Consolidated Press Ltd v. Ettingshausen
(unreported, CA40079/93, CA(NSW), Gleeson CJ, Kirby P, Clarke JA, 13 October 1993) at 41 per Kirby P;
Barella v. Exchange Bank, 101 Cal Rptr 2d 167, 169 (2001) (Rivera J); Nassa v. Hook-Superx Inc, 790 A 2d
368, 372 (Flanders J); Kux 2004a; Post 1986, 701; Carter-Ruck and Starte 1997, 2; Levine 2002, 4; George
2006, 11–12; Pullum v. Johnson, 647 So 2d 254, 256 n 4 (1994) (Van Nortwick J); Mucci v. Dayton
Newspapers Inc, 654 NE 2d 1068, 1074 (1995) (Froelich J). J.G. FLEMING, THE LAW OF TORTS 580 (1998); J.H.
BAKER, AN INTRODUCTION TO ENGLISH LEGAL HISTORY 437 (4th edn, 2002).
117
A.B. KAFALTIYA, INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES 341 (2008); JUSTICE G.P. SINGH, PRINCIPLES OF STATUTORY
INTERPRETATION (14th edn., 2016); Kausea v. Minister of Home Affairs, 1995 NR 175 (SC); S.R. Chaudhuri v.
State of Punjab and others (2001) 7 SCC 126; Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 1962 SC 171; James
v. Commonwealth of Australia (1936) AC. 578, Attorney General v. Moagi, 1981 BLR 1, Petrus and Another v.
The State,1984 BLR 14; State of Punjab v. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd
118
EDEN CONST., art. 21 D.
119
Pathooty v. State Of Kerala And Anr., 2000 Cri.L.J. 1189.
120
Ashok Kumar Alias Golu vs Union Of India And Ors, (1991) 3 S.C.C. 498.
19
THIRD PROF. N.R. MADHAVA MENON SAARC MOOTING COMPETITION 2017-18: INDIA ROUNDS

[¶46] Democracy implies respect for the elementary rights of men, however suspect or

unworthy.121 Right to self-preservation has also been recognized under Article 21.122

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.123

[¶47] The Supreme Court referring to D.F. Marion v. Minnie Davis124 in Smt. Kiran Bedi v.

Committee of Inquiry125 held that “good reputation was an element of personal security and

was protective by the Constitution, equally with the right to the enjoyment of life, liberty and

property. In State of Maharashtra v. Public Concern for Governance Trust126, the Court held

that good reputation was an element of personal security and was “protected by the

constitution”, equally with the right to the enjoyment of life, liberty and property and that the

right equally covers the reputation of a person during and after his death. In State of Bihar v.

Lal Krishna Advani127 the Apex Court ruled that it was amply clear that one was entitled to

have and preserve one’s reputation and one also had the right to protect it.

[¶48] The Counsels humbly submit that Eden being a federal and democratic country,128

follows the principles of ‘minimum government, maximum governance’129, as introduced by

the ruling Government which came into power in January, 2016.130Under the basics of this

principle, there would be a safe inclusion of intrusion of government in the cases of violation

of fundamental rights. This would be realized by the scrutiny of the matter by the Judiciary

and the safeguards of fundamental rights, the Counsels submit, could assess the principle in a

manner better than any other source. The principle, as submitted, is not one nearing laissez

121
Anti-Fascist Refugee Com. v. Mograth, 341 U.S. 123
122
Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 1388.
123
See UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS.
124
SS American L.R. 171.
125
A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 714.
126
A.I.R. 2007 S.C. 777.
127
A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 3357.
128
¶ 1, Page 2, STATEMENT OF FACTS, Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition 2017-18.
129
¶ 3, Page 2, STATEMENT OF FACTS, Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition 2017-18.
130
¶ 1, Page 2 STATEMENT OF FACTS, Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition 2017-18; ¶ 23,
Page 8, STATEMENT OF FACTS, Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition 2017-18.
20
THIRD PROF. N.R. MADHAVA MENON SAARC MOOTING COMPETITION 2017-18: INDIA ROUNDS

faire, rather, it is one which lets loose the nation from the eyes of government constantly

fixed over it for better and easy growth with a watchful eye over it. Under such role, the

government has a dual role of safeguarding the rights of the citizens and at the same time

maintaining the steady growth.

[4.3.3] No conflict between Freedom of Speech and Right to Reputation


131
[¶49] It has been observed that a good name is better than good riches. Right to reputation

cannot be crucified for free speech.132Human rights are granted to every individual as trumps

over state interests.133 While Article 10 of the ECHR guarantees the right to freedom of

expression, its second paragraph expressly refers to “the protection of the reputation or the

rights of others” as one of the legitimate grounds for restricting that right. Lingens v.

Austria134 denied the existence of a conflict between freedom of expression and right to

reputation. In Karakó v. Hungary,135the Court denied the existence of a conflict between

freedom of expression and the right to reputation. Individual’s reputation as an element of her

private life protected under Article 8.136

[4.4] Enquiry by Committees and Sub-Committees cannot surpass this right


[¶50] It is humbly submitted that the function of the Commission appointed under the

Commissions of Enquiry Act, 1952 is merely to investigate and record its

findings/recommendations for information to the Government.137 It has no power to enforce

them.

[4.4.1] Inquiry by Committees and Sub-Committees does not bind the Court

131
Haridas Das v. Usha Rani Banik and others, (2007) 14 S.C.C. 1.
132
Subramaniam Swamy v. Union of India, A.I.R. 2016 S.C. 2728.
133
See Ronald Dworkin, Rights as Trumps, in THEORIES OF RIGHTS 152, 153- 67 (Jeremy Waldron ed., 1984).
134
103 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) 14, 25 (1986); Feldek v. Slovakia, 2001-VIII Eur. Ct. H.R. 91, 110; Lesnik v.
Slovakia, 2003-IV Eur. Ct. H.R. 169, 179; Radio France v. France, 2004-II Eur. Ct. H.R. 125, 148.
135
App. No. 39311/05.
136
See, Dean Spielmann & Leto Cariolou, The Right to Protection of Reputation Under The European
Convention on Human Rights, in TEISE BESIKEICIANCIOJE EUROPOJE: LIBER AMICORUM PRANAS KURIS [LAW IN
A CHANGING EUROPE: LIBER AMICORUM PRANAS KURIS] 401-424 (Saulius Katuoka ed., 2008).
137
Commissions of Enquiry Act, 1952, §4; Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S. R. Tendolkar and others,
A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 538; State of Karnataka v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 68;Kehar Singh and Anr. v. State
of Delhi Admn., A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1883.
21
THIRD PROF. N.R. MADHAVA MENON SAARC MOOTING COMPETITION 2017-18: INDIA ROUNDS

[¶51] Such inquiry or report cannot be looked upon as a judicial inquiry and Courts are not

bound by such report as they have to arrive at their own decision on basis of evidence on

record.138 All discussions held during tour by the Committee, with the representatives of the

establishment, Ministries/Departments, non-official organisations etc. are treated as

confidential and no one having access to the discussion, directly or indirectly is to

communicate to the Press or any unauthorised person, any information about matters taken up

during the discussions.139

[4.4.2] Denial of Procedural Fairness, a good ground for review of decisions by Committee
[¶52] Denial of procedural fairness is clearly an available ground in review of decisions made

by non-statutory investigations.140 To Mrs. K, questions like salary arrangement, mode of

receipt of foreign funds, appointment of employees and staff, use and disbursement of funds

and role of her husband in connection with funding were asked without notice141 to which she

had complained to the Hon’ble Speaker also, but that was of no use.142 Biasness due to her

husband being the head of the Committee under which the Sub-committee was constituted

also cannot be ruled out. Also, the chairman of the sub-committee was from the ruling party

while she was the wife of the leader of opposition. The above incidents call for a

constitutional interpretation of natural justice and powers of Committees and Sub-

Committees which the Counsels humbly put forth. The basic principles of natural justice call

for proper prior notice to such questions in any enquiry or investigation.

138
Huzra Bee v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, W.P. No.9060/2017, per Hemant Gupta C.J.
139
LARRDIS/No. 11/PPR/27/04, LOK SABHA SECRETARIAT NEW DELHI APRIL, 2004.
140
Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (GCHQ Case), [1985] AC 374; Minister
for Arts, Heritage and Environment v. Peko-Wallsend Ltd, (1987) 15 FCR 274; State of Victoria v. Master
Builders’ Association of Victoria, [1995] 2 VR 121; Community Advocate v. Gallop and Attorney-General,
[2002] ACTSC 45 (unreported, Supreme Court of the ACT, Crispin J, 30 May 2002).
141
¶ 15, Page 6, STATEMENT OF FACTS, Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition 2017-18.
142
¶ 16, Page 6, STATEMENT OF FACTS, Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition 2017-18.
22
THIRD PROF. N.R. MADHAVA MENON SAARC MOOTING COMPETITION 2017-18: INDIA ROUNDS

[¶53] An authority who takes a decision, which may have civil consequences and affects

right of a person, the principle of natural justice would at once come into play. 143 Where a

person's good name, reputation, honour or integrity is at stake because of what the

government is doing to him, notice and an opportunity to be heard are essential. 144

[5] ART. 21 H GUARANTEES RIGHT TO HEALTH BESIDES ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE

[¶54] “Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social wellbeing and not merely the

absence of disease.”145 It has been amplified to include the ability to lead a ‘socially and

economically productive life’. Health ventures beyond a limited, biomedical and pathology-

based perspective to the more positive domain of “well-being”. The scope of health, by

inclusion of the role and responsibility of health professionals and their relationship to the

larger society, has been expanded.146 The Counsels humbly submit that Right to Health is a

human right [5.1], Right to health is granted by Constitution of Eden [5.2] and Interpretation

of term ‘be provided by law’ has to be in liberal sense [5.3].

[5.1] Right to Health is a human right


[¶55] Right to health is a human right and is protected by many international covenants.147

The right to health includes the right to the highest attainable standard of health.148The right

to health is an inclusive right.149 The human right to health includes the right to be free from

non-consensual medical treatment, such as medical experiments and research or forced

143
The State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. v. Bakshi Gulam Mohammad & Anr., A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 122.
144
Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433, 27 LEd. 515.
145
Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. v. Employees' State Insurance Corpn., AIR1996SC3261.
146
KUMAR AVANISH, HUMAN RIGHT TO HEALTH 21 (2007).
147
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, art. 25; INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL
AND CULTURAL RIGHTS, art. 12; CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD, art. 24; CONVENTION ON THE
ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, art. 5; CONVENTION ON THE ELIMINATION OF ALL
FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN, arts. 12 and 14; AMERICAN DECLARATION ON RIGHTS AND
DUTIES OF MAN, art. XI (11); CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES, art. 25.
148
PREAMBLE TO CONSTITUTION OF THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION.
149
RICHARD PIERRE CLAUDE & BURNS H. WESTON, HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE WORLD COMMUNITY: ISSUES AND
ACTION 202 (2006).
23
THIRD PROF. N.R. MADHAVA MENON SAARC MOOTING COMPETITION 2017-18: INDIA ROUNDS

sterilization, and to be free from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or

punishment.150 The Counsels humbly submit on behalf of People’s Cause that Right to health

of women subjected to test hampered [5.1.1], Consent of minor women not enough [5.1.2].

[5.1.1] Right to health of women subjected to test hampered


[¶56] Declaration of Alma-Ata, 1978 and many other international and trans-national

covenants151 affirm the crucial role of primary health care, which addresses the main health

problems in the community, providing promotive, preventive, curative and rehabilitative

services accordingly.152 It stresses that access to primary health care is the key to attaining a

level of health that will permit all individuals to lead a socially and economically productive

life153 and to contributing to the realization of the highest attainable standard of health. It is

therefore submitted by the Counsels that women are guaranteed right to reproductive health

[5.1.1.1] and that right to health is recognized by national and regional instruments [5.1.1.2].

[5.1.1.1] Women are granted Right to Reproductive Health


[¶57] Women’s sexual and reproductive health is related to multiple human rights. 154 States

have obligations to respect, protect and fulfil rights related to women’s sexual and

reproductive health.155 Women are guaranteed equal rights in deciding “freely and

responsibly on the number and spacing of their children and to have access to the

information, education and means to enable them to exercise these rights”156 and women’s

150
Right to Health, OHCHR (Sept. 28, 2017), http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/Factsheet31.pdf.
151
See, e.g., CONVENTION ON ON THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, art. 5 (e) (iv);
INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS, art. 12; CONVENTION ON THE
ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN, arts. 11 (1) (f), 12 and 14 (2) (b);
CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD, art. 24; INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON THE PROTECTION OF THE
RIGHTS OF ALL MIGRANT WORKERS AND MEMBERS OF THEIR FAMILIES, arts. 28, 43 (e) and 45 (c);
CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES, art. 25; INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON
ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS, art. 12.
152
DECLARATION OF ALMA-ATA, art. VII.
153
DECLARATION OF ALMA-ATA, art. V; see also, NITSAN CHOREV, THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION
BETWEEN NORTH AND SOUTH 71 (2012).
154
DECLARATION OF ALMA-ATA, art. V
155
See, eg., THE COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS AND THE COMMITTEE ON THE
ELIMINATION OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN.
156
CONVENTION ON THE ELIMINATION OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN, art. 16.
24
THIRD PROF. N.R. MADHAVA MENON SAARC MOOTING COMPETITION 2017-18: INDIA ROUNDS

right to education includes “access to specific educational information to help to ensure the

health and well-being of families, including information and advice on family planning.”157

[5.1.1.2] Right to health is recognised by national and regional instruments


158
[¶58] The right to health is also recognized in several regional instruments which contain

provisions related to health, such as the right to life, the prohibition on torture and other cruel,

inhuman and degrading treatment, and the right to family and private life.

Females ranging from the age of ‘15 to 32’, who were subjected to the drugs for curing

infertility by manufacturing companies which approached the SHCG headed by Mrs. ‘K’159,

were deprived of their basic human right of reproductive health and were subjected to such an

experiment where the involvement of SHCG with the experimentation process was not

publically known. The Counsels humbly submit before this Hon’ble Court that as Right to

Health, which is a human right as submitted in ¶55 and a fundamental right as submitted in

¶61, makes the act of administration of experimental drugs to females with respect to ‘cure of

infertility’160 an action violative of such rights. The Counsels humbly submit that the Right to

health be interpreted as a basic human and fundamental right encompassing within its arena

women’s right to reproductive health.

[5.1.2] Consent of minor women not enough


[¶59] The right to health includes both freedoms and entitlements. Freedoms include the

right to control one’s health and body and to be free from interference free from torture

and from non-consensual medical treatment and experimentation as discussed in ¶54 . The

157
CONVENTION ON THE ELIMINATION OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN, art. 16.
158
See, eg., AFRICAN CHARTER ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES’ RIGHTS (1981); ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE
AMERICAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE AREA OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS,
(Protocol of San Salvador) (1988); EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER (1961, revised in 1996); THE AMERICAN
CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS (1969); EUROPEAN CONVENTION FOR THE PROMOTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND
FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS (1950); SOUTH AFRICA CONST., Chapt. II, § 27;INDIA CONST., art. 47, ECUADOR
CONST., art. 42; CONVENTION ON THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN, art.
12.1; INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS, art. 10 (2).
159
¶ 17, Page 6-7, STATEMENT OF FACTS, Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition 2017-18.
160
¶ 19, Page 17, STATEMENT OF FACTS, Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition 2017-18.
25
THIRD PROF. N.R. MADHAVA MENON SAARC MOOTING COMPETITION 2017-18: INDIA ROUNDS

consent of females who were aged between 15 and 32 years161 would not be enough. This

age group consists of a section of females who are still minor and incompetent to give

their consent for such administration of drugs. Furthermore, there have been no evidences

of either consent by their guardians or a supervision of medical practitioners and there

were complaints of serious side-effects.162 The direction to work under Eden Council of

Medical Research was also not found. This loophole in law would subject many other

females to such atrocity.

[¶60] The Counsels, thus, submit before this august Court that the Constitutional

mandates in this regard under Art. 21 H be ordered to be amended accordingly to include

within its ambit the criteria for consent of subjects of medical experiments.

[5.2] Right to health is implicit in Constitution of Eden


163
[¶61] Every citizen of Eden is guaranteed access to health care as may be provided by law.

The Supreme Court of India held that the right to life included the right to lead a healthy life

so as to enjoy all faculties of the human body in their prime conditions164 and that, the right to

life guaranteed under Article 21165 includes within its ambit the right to health and medical

care.166.A healthy body is the very foundation of all human activities and improvement of

public health and prohibition of drugs injurious to health as one of primary duties of the

state.167 The right to health includes right of workmen168 and right to clean drinking water. 169

[¶62] The Constitution of India imposed duty on state to ensure health and well-being.170

161
¶ 17, Page 7, STATEMENT OF FACTS, Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition 2017-18.
162
¶ 20, Page 7-8, STATEMENT OF FACTS, Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition 2017-18.
163
EDEN CONST., art. 21 H.
164
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 1675.
165
India Const., art. 21.
166
State of Punjab v. M.S. Chawla, A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 1225.
167
Vincent v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 990.
168
Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 922.
169
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, (2000) 10 S.C.C. 664; A.P. Pollution Control Board (2) v. Prof.
M.V. Nayudu, (2001) 2 S.C.C.. 62; State of Orissa v. Govt. of India, (2009) 5 S.C.C. 492; M.K. Balakrishnan
(1) v. Union of India, (2009) 5 S.C.C. 507; M.K. Balakrishnan (2) v. Union of India, (2009) 5 S.C.C.. 511.
170
INDIA CONST., art. 39 cl. E r/w arts. 41, 42 and 47.
26
THIRD PROF. N.R. MADHAVA MENON SAARC MOOTING COMPETITION 2017-18: INDIA ROUNDS

Even Panchayat and Municipalities are liable to improve and protect public health.171 There

are other mandates which indirectly are related to right to health.172

[¶63] Right to live with human dignity includes right to good health and that it was an integral

factor of a meaningful right to life.173 The State has a duty to further these rights.174 A

reliance on international instruments175 hint that right to health is a fundamental right.176 The

Counsels submit that medical facilities are part of social security.

[5.2.1] Art. 21 H (b) and (c) to be read harmoniously with clause (a); no capitalisation of
health care
[¶64] The rule of harmonious construction is the thumb rule to interpretation of any statute.

An interpretation which makes the enactment a consistent whole, should be the aim of the

courts and a construction which avoids inconsistency or repugnancy between the various

sections or parts of the statute should be adopted.

[¶65] A harmonious construction of clauses (b) and (c) under Art. 21 H would lead to a

conclusion that the actions of NGOs and VOs which indulge in activities which are adverse

to the health and security of people, for profit, would come under the scanner of the

Constitutional mandates. The nod given by the Government to the two drug manufacturing

companies177 would be rendered unconstitutional and against the spirit of the rights under

Art. 21 H. The State is under the obligation to provide for health care by itself or by

endeavours like partnership or that of citizens. However, on a reading of clause (b) with

171
INDIA CONST., art. 243G.
172
INDIA CONST., art. 23 cl. 1 r/w art. 24.
173
Consumer Education and Research Center v. UOI, A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 636.
174
State of Punjab v Ram Lubhaya Bagga, A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 1703.
175
Universal Declaration of Human Rights , art. 25 cl. 2; SIR JOSEPH BHORE, REPORT OF THE HEALTH SURVEY
AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEES (1946).
176
CESC Ltd. v. Subash Chandra Bose, A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 573; Dr. Aditya Shrikant Kelkar and Others v. State of
Maharashtra and Others, 1998 (4) Bom.C.R. 16; Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT and ors., 160 (2009)
D.L.T. 277; Employees' State Insurance Corporation and Ors. v. The Workmen of ITI Ltd. and Ors., I.L.R. 1997
Kar. 1433; Seenath Beevi v. State of Kerala, 2003 (3) K.L.T. 788; Praveen Rashtrapal, I.R.S. (Retd.) v. Chief
Officer, Kadi Municipality and ors., (2006) 3 G.L.R. 1809; M/S. Meenakshi Pharma Distributors, Bangalore v.
State of Karnataka and Others, 1999 (2) Kar.L.J. 164; Society for Cancer in Oral-cavity Prevention Through
Education, Hyderabad v. Union of India and ors., 2002 (3) A.L.T. 579.
177
¶ 17, Page 7, STATEMENT OF FACTS, Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition 2017-18.
27
THIRD PROF. N.R. MADHAVA MENON SAARC MOOTING COMPETITION 2017-18: INDIA ROUNDS

clause (c), it is also found that those companies, corporations or partnerships which are

engaged in making drugs etc. are under an obligation not to capitalize the function of

providing healthcare. This applies equally to NGOs and VOs. The Counsels submit that the

two clauses be read ex visceribus actus and harmoniously.

[5.2.2] Right to health to be read with Right to access to health care


178
[¶66] Preservation of life is of paramount importance. Everyone has the right to the health

care, adequate food179, housing180, and a healthy environment.181 The human right to health

care means that hospitals, clinics, medicines, and doctors’ services must be accessible,

available, acceptable, and of good quality for everyone. Access to health care must be

universal, affordable and comprehensive. The health care system must be open with regard to

information, decision-making, and management which was clearly absent in the instant

case.182 Furthermore, even the order by this Hon’ble Court, dated 10.04.2016 has in a

categorical language called for initiation of actions against such NGOs and VOs which

misappropriate fund and maintain no transparency.183

[5.3] Interpretation of term ‘be provided by law’ in liberal sense

[¶67] A liberal interpretation is made of the term ‘Provided by law’, under Art. 21 H (c), to

make it synonymous with ‘Due process’, is necessary when it comes to protect individual

178
Parmananda Katara v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 2039.
179
Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 1051; Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal
Totame, A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 630;
180
U.P Evam Vikas Parishad v. Friends Co-op Housing Society Ltd., A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 114; J.P.Ravidas v.
Navyuvak Uthapan Multiunit Industrial Co-op Society Ltd., A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 2151; Ahmedabad Municipal
Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan, A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 152.
181
Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 420.; T. Damodar Rao v. Municipal Corpn., Hyderabad,
A.I.R. 1987 AP 171; Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 2426; Chhetriya
Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti v. State of U.P., (1990) 4 S.C.C. 449; Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana,
(1995) 2 S.C.C. 577; Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (1996) 3 S.C.C. 212;M.C.
Mehta v. Union of India, (1996) 4 S.C.C. 750; Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1996
S.C. 2721; Milk Men Colony Vikas Samiti v. State Of Rajasthan, (2007) 2 S.C.C. 413.
182
¶ 17, Page 7, STATEMENT OF FACTS, Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition 2017-18.
183
¶ 8, Page 4, STATEMENT OF FACTS, Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition 2017-18.
28
THIRD PROF. N.R. MADHAVA MENON SAARC MOOTING COMPETITION 2017-18: INDIA ROUNDS

rights. In India, too, the Judiciary held that ‘Procedure established by law’ within the

meaning of Article 21 must be ‘right and just and fair’ and ‘not arbitrary, fanciful or

oppressive’ otherwise, it would be no procedure at all and the requirement of Article 21

would not be satisfied.184 It is submitted by the Counsels that the ‘procedure established by

law’ has acquired the same significance in India as the ‘due process of law’.

[5.3.1] Procedure established by law replaced by due process of law

[¶68] Procedure established by law185 means that a law that is duly enacted by legislature or

the concerned body is valid if it has followed the correct procedure. The court would assess

that whether there is law or not, whether the Legislature is competent to frame the law and

whether it had followed the procedure laid down to legislate and would mean that a law duly

enacted is valid even if it is contrary to principles of justice and equity. This would raise the

risk of compromise to life and personal liberty of individuals.

[¶69] The Counsels humbly submit that to avoid this situation, this Court may be pleased to

stress over the importance of due process of law which not only checks if there is a law to

deprive the life and personal liberty of a person, but also sees if the law made is fair, just and

not arbitrary. This doctrine provides for more fair treatment of individual rights.

[5.3.2] NGO and its collaboration with the drug making companies not an act of law
[¶70] In Indian Constitution, the words used are “procedure established by law” where the

word “established” connotes some degree of firmness, permanence and general

acceptance.186Procedure established by law meant the procedure established by a

legislature.187A reference to the Indian Constitution,188 law includes any Ordinance, order,

bye law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usages and laws passed or made by

184
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 597.
185
INDIA CONST., art. 21
186
2 H.M. SEERVAI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA 1114 (2014).
187
Id. at 980.
188
INDIA CONST., art. 13 cl. 3.
29
THIRD PROF. N.R. MADHAVA MENON SAARC MOOTING COMPETITION 2017-18: INDIA ROUNDS

Legislature or other competent authority. The then Government of Eden had “in principle”

permitted the drugs manufacturers to carry out experimentations subject to supervision by the

Eden Council of Medical Research.189However, the permission was not supported by some

Rules, Regulations or other matters involved in the definition of law. The Counsels humbly

submit that the act of granting permission by the Government was not an act of law.

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is

humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare:

1. That Right to Parliamentary Privileges is an absolute right and that Article 102(ii)

levies wide restrictions on judicial review and is constitutionally invalid.

2. That Right to Reputation is a fundamental and inalienable right enshrined in Articles

21 D and 21.

3. That the Right to Health is a fundamental Right.

4. That the Right to Access to Health care includes Right to Health.

AND PASS ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN
THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.

ALL OF WHICH IS HUMBLY PRAYED,


NRMC-306
COUNSELS FOR THE PETITIONER.

189
¶ 17, Page 6, STATEMENT OF FACTS, Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon SAARC Mooting Competition 2017-18.
30