I

TEAM CODE:-_______

JAYANTILAL H. PATEL LAW COLLEGE

INTRA-COLLEGIATE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019 .

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF AJMERIKA

ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

W.P. (CIVIL) NO. ___ OF 2019

IN THE MATTER OF

OUR CULTURE OUR RIGHTS FOUNDATATION …..PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS
MACFLIX AJMERICK. LTD ….RESPONDENT

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON‟BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS

COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF AJMERIKA

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

[Type text]
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 II
TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………………
1. ABBREVIATIONS………………………………………………………………
2. CASE LAWS……………………………………………………………………..
3. BOOKS……………………………………………………………………………
4. STATUTES……………………………………………………………………….
5. WEBSITES……………………………………………………………………….

B. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………………………...

C. STATEMENT OF FACTS……………………………………………………………...

D. STATEMENT OF ISSUES………………………………………………………………

E. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS………………………………………………………….

F. ARGUMENT ADVANCED………………………………………………………………

G. PRAYER…………………………………………………………………………………...

[Type text]
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 III
A. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

1.ABBREVIATIONS
ABB DEFINITION

AIR All India Reporter

Ors Others

Art Article

COI Constitution Of India

Cr.L J Criminal Law Journal

Ed Edition

HC High Court

Hon’ble Honourable

IPC Indian Penal Code

ILR Indian Law Reporter

i.e. That is

(J) Judge

Ltd Limited

No. Number

P. Page

S Section

SC Supreme Court of India

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Reporter

SS. Sections

U/s Under Section

UOI The Union Of India

V Versus

[Type text]
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 IV

2. CASE LAWS
S.. Case Citation

10

11

12

13

[Type text]
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 V

3. BOOKS REFERED

S.No. Name

3. Statutes
S.No Name

1 The Constitution of India

2 The Indian Penal Code,

4. Websites
S.No. Name

4 www.manupatra.com

5 www.lawyersclubindia.com

6 www.lawoctopus.com

7 www.legallyindia.com

8 www.scconline.com

[Type text]
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 B. STATEMENT OF JURISDIACTION

The HON’BLE Supreme Court of Ajmerika has the jurisdiction in this matter under
Article 32 of the Constitution of Ajmerika which reads as follows:
“32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part-
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights
conferred by this Part is guaranteed
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of
habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the
enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.”

[Type text]
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 Statement of facts

 Macflix Ajmerika Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Macflix”) is a subsidiary of Macflix Inc., an Amreecan
online media service provider, with headquarters in Kyu York. It has about 137 million subscribers
worldwide including about 40 million in Ajmerika.

 Macflix has announced its plans to make new original content in a variety of genres and hopes to
capitalize on the sheer number of Ajmerika users logging on to the internet.

 On March 6, 2019 a series based on a 2006 best-selling novel-

‘Underworld’ by renowned author-‘Jaiditya Chandra, portraying violence, abusive language, obscenity,
played by a cast of seasoned Ajmerikan film-stars, was released with the title ‘Jacred Games’.

 The fourth episode of Jacred Games depicts, Rawazuddin Siddique’s character calling Kajiv Gandhi
the former Prime Minister from Krogress Party, a ‘Fattu’ and showed the ill nuggets of the former
ruling party. In another episode the protagonist alleges that former Prime Minister Kajiv Gandhi had
overturned the ruling of one ‘Shabana Bano Case’ depicting him as cruel and perverted. This scene has
sparked a war of words between Krogress and the ruling party leading to protests and an increased
feeling of animosity amongst religious communities.

 Another Macflix web-series named ‘GharWapsi’ also caused controversy It was claimed to project
proselytization, obdurate ideology and majoritarian communalism. The series' protagonist in a scene
was seen throwing away her ‘Mangal Sutra’ (a sacred ornament), bangles and commenting upon a
religion in a defiling manner. This act, as alleged by some religious groups and activists, was a
deliberate and intentional attempt to abrogate sentiments of the Sindhu community and its tenets leading
to nationwide protests. It also involves scenes of nudity, obscenity and vulgarity which has been
criticized and raised the question of its suitability to general audiences due to the indiscriminate
screening rights which Macflix enjoys in absence of laws censoring internet content. A demand for
Macflix to comply with the Cable Television Networks Act like other cable network operators has been
made by the protesters.

 Another controversial web series released on Macflix was “Operation Red Star” which is inspired by
‘Khalisgarh Separatist Movement’ , started in Ajmerika in the year 1971. Some political groups and
activists have alleged that the series is designed in indirect support of Khalisghari Terrorists, to depict
the acts of Government of Ajmerika and its Armed Forces as brutal and barbarous and is an attempt to
arouse the feeling of disaffection and hatred against government in the minds of citizens of Ajmerika
and therefore is a threat to unity and integrity of the nation.

[Type text]
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
  While another Macflix series-‘Dilli Crime’ has got rave reviews for its sensitive portrayal of the
infamous Dilli Gang-rape case of December 2012. Police Inspector Akhil Sharma, the Station House
Officer (S.H.O) of the Basant Vihar Police Station, Dilli has been depicted in an undignified manner. He

is upset with the makers and is planning to take the legal recourse against them for the depiction of the
character based on him.

 In a country where films and televisions shows must follow the specific guidelines of ‘Ajmerika’s
Censor Board’ governed by the
Cinematographic Act, 1952, Macflix online web series and shows stands out because Ajmerika does not
currently censor online media platform contents, and the show/series can include more violence, adult
scenes, obscene language among other such things which would have been regulated by the board.

 Amid the whole controversy, Miss Swati Shetty, Content and Operational
Head, Macflix Ajmerika Ltd., in a press conference spoke-

“ In our transparency policy we clearly mention details about description of service, terms and condition
of usage etc., on our website. (https://www.macflix.com). For the convenience of our viewers a
Grievance Redressal Mechanism through which their complaints can be redressed in a time-bound
manner. At the time of account creation we specifically mention the minimum age requirements along
with other terms and conditions. Web-series get some tags like- sexual content, coarse language, drugs
use, humor etc., through which viewers’ discretion is exercised.

 Macflix sent an open letter to‘Ajmerikan Film & Television (Directors, Producer & Cine Workers)
Association' addressing them about the present conditions prevailing in the film and television industry.
They mentioned being targeted by some political parties, pseudo-nationalist and self-proclaimed
religious activists and threatened with death calls, rape threats, tarnishing their image. Some political
and religious activists have also sabotaged and vandalized various shooting sites.

 On 29 August, 2019 a Public Interest Litigation was filed in Supreme Court of Ajmerika by an NGO
called Our Culture Our Rights Foundation seeking an injunction against Macflix and have prayed for
framing of guidelines to regulate online media streaming platforms /on-demand entertainment
application including but not limited to Macflix and also alleged that such series/shows etc., display
unregulated, uncertified, sexually explicit, vulgar, inappropriate, religiously forbidden and legally
restricted content. Some of the shows often depict women in objectifying manner. It is alleged that these
shows contain obscene, nude and vulgar scenes which are cognizable offences under the
Cinematography Act, 1952, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition)
Act, 1986 and the Information
Technology Act, 2000 (as amended), The Cable Television Networks Act, 1995.

[Type text]
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether the present petition is maintainable before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Ajmerika?
2. Whether injunction should be granted or not?
3. Whether there has been infringement of any fundamental rights of any party in the present case?
4. Whether the provision of the Cinematography Act, 1952 and The Cable Television Act, 1995 are
applicable against Respondent No.2?

[Type text]
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

ISSUE I
Whether the present petition is maintainable before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Ajmerika?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon‟ble Court that present PIL is maintainable against Union of
Ajmerika and also against Macflix Ajmerika Ltd.since, it is a state u/a 12 of the Constitution. It is
further submitted that since there has been gross violation of Article 19 1(a), 19(2) and 21 of the
Constitution, the PIL is maintainable, and on account of the same relief is sought.

ISSUE II
Whether injunction should be granted or not?

ISSUE III
Whether there has been infringement of any fundamental rights of any party in the present case?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that there has been infringement of fundamental rights of Art
19 (1) (a), 19 (2), and 21. The section 19 embodies a reasonable restriction upon the freedom of speech and
expression guaranteed by Art.19 and does not fall outside the limits of restriction permitted by cl1. (2) of the
Article. The section seeks no more than the promotion of public decency and morality which are the words of
that clause.

ISSUE IV

Whether the provision of the Cinematography Act, 1952 and The Cable Television Act, 1995 are
applicable against Respondent No.2?
Yes provision of Cinematography Act,1952 u/s2 3, 4 and 5B and for the Cable Television Act,1995 rule
(6) (n), 2(6) of the act are applicable against Respondent No. 2.

1
Cl-clause
2
u/s- under section
[Type text]
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 AGRUMENT ADVANCED

I.Whether the present petition is maintainable before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Ajmerika?

The present petition is maintainable under Article 32 of the Constitution3, since, (I.1) Macflix Ajmerika Ltd.
(hereinafter referred to as Macflix) falls within the ambit of “other authorities” as enshrined u/a 12 of the
Constitution (II.2) There has been violation of Fundamental Rights.

I.1. Public Interest litigation can be filed against the Union and Macflix

[Type text]
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
[Type text]
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
[Type text]
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
[Type text]
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
[Type text]
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
[Type text]
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
[Type text]
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
[Type text]
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
[Type text]
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
[Type text]
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
[Type text]
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
[Type text]
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
[Type text]
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
[Type text]
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 PRAYER

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

[Type text]
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER