T-18 Petitioner Memorial

TEAM CODE: 18
2nd SURANA & SURANA & KLE LAW COLLEGE
NATIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
MOOT COURT COMPETITION – 2018
BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
IN THE MATTERS OF:
ALL INDIA MEDIA FEDERATION ... PETITIONER
V.
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ... RESPONDENTS
WRIT PETITION NO. _____ / 2018
(FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)
ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

2ND SURANA & SURANA & KLE LAW COLLEGE PA GE |2
NATIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL LAW MOOT COMPETITION -2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................... 4
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES...................................................................................................... 6
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.......................................................................................... 8
STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................................ 9
ISSUES RAISED ..................................................................................................................... 10
SUMMARY OF ARGUEMENTS .......................................................................................... 11
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ................................................................................................. 12
1. THAT THE PROGRAMME CODE ISSUED AMOUNTS TO EXCESSIVE
DELEGATION OF POWER…………………………………………………………12
1.1. THAT RULES AMBIGUOUSLY GRANT UNGUIDED DISCRETION ON
AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………………………...15
2. THAT THE RULES ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHTS……………………………………………………………………………...16
2.1. THAT WIDER RANGE OF CIRCULATION OF INFORMATION OR ITS
GREATER IMPACT CANNOT RESTRICT THE CONTENT OF THE RIGHT NOR
CAN IT JUSTIFY ITS DENIAL…………………………………………………….18
2.2. THAT THE SOCIETY DERIVES INFORMATION FROM THE MEDIA AND
OBSTRUCTING THAT MEDIUM WILL AFFECT THE PUBLIC DIRECTLY….19
2.3. THAT RULES IMPOSE UNREASONABLE RESTRICTION UPON THE
FREEDOM OF PRESS………………………………………………………………19.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

2.4. THAT RULES ARE IN CONFLICT TO THE PROVISIONS OF OTHER
LEGISLATIONS, SUCH AS IPC AND CERTAIN JUDICIAL DECISION……….20
2.5. THAT SEXUAL OFFENCE IS AGAINST SOCIETY AT LARGE THEN THE
PUBLIC IS ALSO VICTIM AND HAVE RIGHT TO KNOW THE IDENTITIES OF
STAKEHOLDERS…………………………………………………………………...21
2.6. THAT MEDIA TRIAL SOLVES ISSUES AND PROVIDES FACETS TO
PROBLEMS THAT JUDICIARY MIGHT NOT……………………………………21
2.7. THAT MEDIA HELPS THE OTHER THREE PILLARS OF THE DEMOCRACY
TO MAINTAIN THE BALANCE BETWEEN CRIME COMMITTED AND CRIME
REPORTED………………………………………………………………………….22
2.8. THAT MEDIA POSSESS THE RESPONSIBILITY TO INFORM GENERAL
MASSES ABOUT REALITY BEHIND THE SCENES OFTEN SUPPRESSED BY
POLTICS……………………………………………………………………………..22
2.9. THAT MEDIA ACTS AS A LINK BETWEEN THE RESERVOIR OF
KNOWLEDGE AND THE UNEDUCATED INDIANS…………………………….24
2.10. THAT FREE FLOW OF OPINIONS AND IDEAS IS ESSENTIAL TO
SUSTAIN THE COLLECTIVE LIFE OF THE CITIZENRY……………………….25
PRAYER……………………………………………………………………………………..27

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AILSA All India Law Students Association
AIMF All India Media Federation
AIR All India Reporter
Anr. Another
Art,. Article
CJI Chief Justice of India
Co. Company
C.W.N. Calcutta Weekly Notes
etc. Etcetera
FIR First Information Report
i.e. That is
IISc. Indian Institute of Science
Inst. Institution
Ltd. Limited
NCW National Commission for Women.

Ors. Others
Pg. Page
PIL Public Interest Litigation
Pvt. Private
Retd Retired
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCJ Supreme Court Judgements
TRP Television Rating Point
UOI Union Of India
U.P. Uttar Pradesh
U.S. United States
v. Verses
Viz. Namely
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES
1. The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act (1995)
2. The Constitution of India (1949)
3. The Indian Penal Code (1860)
BOOKS, ARTICLES & TREATISES
1. M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (7th ed, J. Ruma Pal, Samaraditya Pal, eds., 2010)
2. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code (35th edition, Justice K.T.Thomas and M A
Rashid,2017)
CASES
Dr. D.C. Saxena, Contemnor Vs. Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India, AIR, 2481 (SC 1996)
……………………………………………………………………………………………..…24
Hinsa Virodhak Sangh Vs. Mirzapur Moti Kuresh Jamat and Ors, 5, SCC, 33 (SC
2008)………………………………………………………………………………………....15
Kartongen Kemi Och Forvaltning AB and Ors. vs. State through CBI, 72, DRJ, 693 (DHC
2004) …………………………………………………………………………………………21
Life Insurance Corporation of India etc. Vs. Manubhai D. Shah, AIR, 171 (1993)………….14
Madhubhai Amathalal Gandhi Vs. The Union of India(UOI), AIR, 21 (SC 1961)…………..14
Madhu Limaye Vs. S.D.M. Monghyr, AIR, 2486 (SC 1971) ……………………………….19
O.K.Ghosh Vs. E.X.Joseph, AIR, 812 (SC 1963)………………………………………….. 19

Public Union for Civil Liberties Vs. Union of India, AIR, 2363 (SC 2003)………………..17
R.rajagopal and Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors, AIR, 264 (SC 1995)………………22
Secretary Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Government of India Vs. Cricket
Association of Bengal, AIR 1995 SC 1 236…………………………………………………12
Shreya singhal v. Union of India, 1, SCC, 5 (SC 2015)……………………………………. 18
S. Khushboo Vs. Kanniammal and Anr, 5, SCC, 600 (SC 2010)……………………………25
State of U.P. Vs. Raj Narain and Ors, AIR, 315 (SC 1959)………………………………….17
Union of India (UOI) Vs. Col. L.S.N. Murthy and Anr., 1, SCC, 718 (SC 2012)………..….13
Vasu Dev Singh and Ors. Vs.Union of India (UOI) and Ors., 12, SCC, 753 (SC 2006)…... 15

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Petitioner has approched this Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article- 32 clause- 1 of the
Constitution of India, 1949 which states –
“The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the
rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.”

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Many incidents were cited by The All India Law Students’ Association (AILSA) in the
PIL, that they filed in the Supreme Court of India in search of remedy against the media
where it was alleged that the media had invaded upon the rights of the people in specific
and caused threat to social interest at large.
2. The Supreme Court of India admitted the PIL. The UOI gave the undertaking that it
will take necessary measures to address the issue at hand to protect the interest of
national security, general public and safeguard the image and integrity of the judiciary.
3. The UOI initiated the process through its Ministry of Broadcast and Information
Technology by drafting certain rules to regulate the media houses and issued a piblic
notice inviting objections to the proposed rules. After considering the responses, the
Ministry exercising its power under the Cable Telivision Networks (Regulation) Act,
1995 issued a programme code.
4. The code came into immediate effect and the media houses debated the Programme
Code and gathered the support of many editors, jurists and libertarians and under the
auspices of All India Media Federation filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court
challenging the constitutional validity of the impugned code on certain grounds.
5. The application filed by AILSA to intervene and represent the interest of the victims of
media excesses was granted by the court along with the writ petition of AIMF.

2ND SURANA & SURANA & KLE LAW COLLEGE P A G E | 10
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
I. WHETHER THE PROGRAMME CODE ISSUED AMOUNTS TO EXCESSIVE
DELEGATION OF POWER OR NOT?
II. WHETHER THE RULES ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHTS OR NOT?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
I. THAT THE PROGRAMME CODE ISSUED AMOUNTS TO EXCESSIVE
DELEGATION OF POWER.
The programme code was not created under the authority as it should have been done because
nowhere it has been written that any rule should be made which goes against the fundamental
rights. This programme code is against the Article 19(1) (a).
II. THAT THE RULES ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.
There are many case laws which have been cited which show the gravity of curbing the power
and independence of the media by making rules which are against the fundamental rights or
Article 19(1) (a) to be specific. These rules which are created are completely arbitrary as it
lacks the backing of Article 19(2) which serves as the only medium of curbing 19(1) (a).

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. THAT THE PROGRAMME CODE ISSUED AMOUNTS TO EXCESSIVE
DELEGATION OF POWER.
1. The fundamental concept of the terminology Excessive delegation states that,
“The Legislature must declare the policy of the law, lay down legal principles and
provide standards for the guidance of the delegate to promulgate delegated legislation,
otherwise the law will be bad on account of ‘excessive delegation’.”1
2. In the case of Secretary Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Government of India
Vs. Cricket Association of Bengal2, it has been said that,
“The wider range of circulation of information or its greater impact cannot restrict the
content of the right nor can it justify its denial. The virtues of the electronic media
cannot become its enemies. It may warrant a greater regulation over licensing and
control and vigilance on the content of the programme telecast. However, this control
can only be exercised within the framework of Article 19(2) and the dictates of public
interests. To plead for other grounds is to plead for unconstitutional measures. It is
further difficult to appreciate such contention on the part of the Government in this
country when they have a complete control over the frequencies and the content of the
programme to be telecast.”
1
. M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 58 (7th ed, J. Ruma Pal, Samaraditya Pal, eds., 2010)
2
AIR 1995 SC 1 236

3. This case refers to the fact that the positive work by the media cannot be overlooked
just because of certain incidences and an array of rules be imposed on it to restrict its
functioning of supplying news to the general public.3
4. In the case of Union of India (UOI) Vs. Col. L.S.N. Murthy and Anr4., it has been said
that.,
“A reading of Clause (2) of Article 13 of the Constitution quoted above would show
that by the said clause the State is prohibited from making any law which takes away
or abridges the fundamental rights conferred by Part-III of the Constitution. Clause(2)
of Article 13 of the Constitution further provides that any law made in contravention of
clause (2) shall to the extent of the contravention be void.
5. In clause(3) (a) of Article 13 of the Constitution, the word 'law' has been defined for
the purpose of Article 13 to include any Ordinance order, bye-law, rule, Regulation,
notification, custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law.
Clause(3)(a) of Article 13 of the Constitution therefore makes it clear that not only law
made by the legislature but also an order or notification which takes away or abridges
the fundamental rights conferred by Part-III of the Constitution would be void.
6. Thus, Clause (3)(a) of Article 13 of the Constitution is relevant, where an order or
notification of the Government attempts to take away or abridge the fundamental rights
conferred by Part III of the Constitution and this provision of the Constitution has no
relevance in deciding a question whether an agreement is void and is not enforceable
in law.”
3
Ib.
4
1, SCC, 718 (SC 2012)

7. The programme code which has been issued is a clear violation of Article 19(1) (a) and
allowing it to sustain its constitutionality will be against Article 13.5
8. In the case of Madhubhai Amathalal Gandhi Vs. The Union of India(UOI)6., it has been
said that,
“Under article 13(2) of the Constitution, the State shall not make any law which takes
away or abridges the rights conferred by Part III thereof; and "law" is defined under
article 3(a) to include a notification. Therefore, the validity of the notification issued
by the State, it being law, is as much vulnerable to attack as that of the Act itself on the
ground that it infringes any of the fundamental rights.”
9. In the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India etc. Vs. Manubhai D. Shah7, it was
said that,
“Modern communication mediums advance public interest by informing the public of
the events and developments that have taken place and thereby educating the voters, a
role considered significant for the vibrant functioning of a democracy. Therefore, in
any set-up, more so in a democratic set-up like ours, dissemination of news and views
for popular consumption is a must and any attempt to deny the same must be frowned
upon unless it falls within the mischief of Article19(2). This freedom must, however, be
exercised with circumspection and care must be taken not to trench on the rights of
other citizens or to the jeopardise public interest.”
5
Ib.
6
AIR, 21 (SC 1961)
7
AIR, 171 (1993)

10. All the news which do not jeopardize the ‘public interest’ will also be stopped from
telecasting if this programme code is sustained. It’s a direct blow to the fundamental
rights and its infringement should attract the required consequences.8
11. In the case of Vasu Dev Singh and Ors. Vs.Union of India (UOI) and Ors. 9 it was said
that,
“On the facts and circumstances of a case, a subordinate legislation may be struck
down as arbitrary or contrary to statute if it fails to take into account very vital facts
which either expressly or by necessary implication are required to be taken into
consideration by the statue or, say, the Constitution. This can only be done on the
ground that it does not conform to the statutory or constitutional requirements or that
it offends Article 14 or Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.”
12. “Delegation of essential legislative function is impermissible. It is essential for the
legislature to declare its legislative policy which can be gathered from the express
words used in the statute or by necessary implication, having regard to the attending
circumstances. It is impermissible for the legislature to abdicate its essential legislative
functions.”
1.1. THAT RULES AMBIGUOUSLY GRANT UNGUIDED DISCRETION ON
AUTHORITIES.
13. In the case of Hinsa Virodhak Sangh Vs. Mirzapur Moti Kuresh Jamat and Ors10. it
was said that,
8
Ib.
9
12, SCC, 753 (SC 2006)
10
5, SCC, 33 (SC 2008)

“A piece of delegated legislation is also statutory in character and the only limitation
on it is that it should not violate the provisions of the parent statute or of the
Constitution.”
14. These case laws suggest to only one of the point that the delegation of power in this
particular facts and circumstances have not been used properly and have raised a
question of ambiguity on the usage of the same.11
15. The power of media to present news to the public has been restricted which is indirectly
curtailing the right of the people to know various information, which can be provided
only by the media.12
16. The restrictions should not be placed on the media as the right under Article 19(1)(a)
has been violated. Under the programme code the word ‘anything’13 specifically means
that nothing should be informed regarding to that matter whereas the people have a
right to know as to what is happening in the country and the media is being the bridge
between that knowledge and ignorance.
17. Such restrictions are not restrictions on the media but on Article 19(1) (a) per se. Hence,
the programme code has been created on the excessive delegation of authority.
2. THAT THE RULES ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.
18. In the case of Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Govt. of India and
others Vs. Cricket Association of Bengal and others With Cricket Association of Bengal
and another Vs. Union of India and others14, it has been said that,
11
Ib.
12
Supra note 10
13
Rule 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.5, 1.6 of facts sheet, pg 3
14
AIR 1995 SC 1 236

“The importance and significance of television in the modern words needs no emphasis.
Most people obtain the bulk of their information on matters of contemporary interest
from the broadcasting medium. The television is unique in the way in which it intrudes
into our homes. The combination of picture and voice makes it an irresistibly attractive
medium of presentation.”
19. This forms the basis of the opinion that right to know has been derived from the media
and the restrictions will affect the public and restrict them from knowing what they
have a right to know is happening in the public itself.15
20. In the case of Public Union for Civil Liberties Vs. Union of India16, it was held that,
“In due course of time several species of right unremunated in Article 19(1) (a) have
branched off from the genus of the Article through the process of interpretation by this
Apex Court. One such right is the ‘right to information’.”
21. In the case of State of U.P. Vs. Raj Narain and Ors.17, it was held that,
“The people of this country have a right to know every public act, everything, that is
done in public by their public functionaries.”
22. These three judgements have shown a new direction to the thinking of the general
public and the three pillars of democracy that should be inculcated.18
It shows that putting restrictions on the media for showing facts can be harmful for the
people in the broader context as it is their fundamental right which is being curtailed
and being done so by the Government itself.19
15
Ib.
16
AIR, 2363 (SC 2003)
17
AIR, 315 (SC 1959)
18
Ib.
19
Supra note 17

23. The Judiciary being the keeper of fundamental rights of the people should not allow
such an incident to take place and lift the restrictions imposed on the media by the
programme code.20
2.1. THAT WIDER RANGE OF CIRCULATION OF INFORMATION OR ITS
GREATER IMPACT CANNOT RESTRICT THE CONTENT OF THE RIGHT
NOR CAN IT JUSTIFY ITS DENIAL.
24. In the case of Shreya singhal v. Union of India21, it was held,
“The wider range of circulation of information or its greater impact cannot restrict the
content of the right nor can it justify its denial. The virtues of the electronic media
cannot become its enemies.”
25. “When, however, there are surplus or unlimited resources and the public interests so
demand or in any case do not prevent telecasting, the validity of the argument based
on limitation of resources disappears.”
26. This case was a landmark judgement which showed that any law which restricted the
fundamental right to speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1) (a) cannot
be let to function if those restrictions do not come under the purview of Article 19(2).22
One of the terms which are used to curb the actions of media is ‘public order’.
“The term public order covers a small riot, an affray, breaches of peace, or acts
disturbing public tranquillity. But ‘public order’ and ‘public tranquillity’ may not
always be synonymous.”23
20
Supra note 17
21
1, SCC, 5 (SC 2015)
22
Ib.
23
. M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 1044 (7th ed, J. Ruma Pal, Samaraditya Pal, eds., 2010)

“Therefore, such acts as disturb only serenity of others may not fall within the term
‘public order’.”24
27. The leading case in this regard is Madhu Limaye Vs. S.D.M. Monghyr25. In this case it
was held that,
“The expression ‘public order’ includes absence of all acts which are a danger to the
security of the state…”
2.2. THAT THE SOCIETY DERIVES INFORMATION FROM THE MEDIA AND
OBSTRUCTING THAT MEDIUM WILL AFFECT THE PUBLIC DIRECTLY.
28. This sentence speaks for itself in many ways i.e., the telecast of facts by the media will
not affect the society in any negative way. The society derives many of its information
from the media and obstructing that medium will affect the public directly.26
29. In the case of O.K.Ghosh Vs. E.X.Joseph27, it was said that,
“This clause again cannot be interpreted to mean that even if the connection between
the restriction and the public order is remote and indirect, the restriction can be said
to be in the interests of public order. A restriction can be said to be in the interests of
public order only if the connection between the restriction and the public order is
proximate and direct. Indirect or far-fetched or unreal connection between the
restriction and public order would not fall within the purview of the expression ‘in the
interests of public order.’”
2.3. THAT RULES IMPOSE UNREASONABLE RESTRICTION UPON THE
FREEDOM OF PRESS.
24
Ib.
25
AIR, 2486 (SC 1971)
26
Supra 8
27
AIR, 812 (SC 1963)

30. The restrictions imposed by the programme code hence can be said to be arbitrary and
unreasonable as it affects the functioning of media even when the media is supplying
the news or facts to the general public. The effects which are caused are too remote and
indirect for such a programme code to be imposed on the media.28
31. The independency of the media to function is its greatest asset, as it guarantees that the
media can function to its true capabilities without any fear of being limited in bringing
the true facts and happenings of the society to the people. 29
2.4. THAT RULES ARE IN CONFLICT TO THE PROVISIONS OF OTHER
LEGISLATIONS, SUCH AS IPC AND CERTAIN JUDICIAL DECISION.
32. Under Section 354 of IPC,1860, it has been said,
“Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or
knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, [shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year but
which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine].”30
“These provisions of section 354 IPC has been enacted to safeguard public morality
and descent behaviour.”31
33. This has been done because the crime committed like sexual assault or rape (Section
376) is morally a crime against the society at large and hence, if the media intervenes,
takes proper steps of covering the victim’s identity and showcasing the world that such
28
Ib.
29
Supra note 27
30
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code,825 (35th edition, Justice K.T.Thomas and M A Rashid,2017)
31
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code,826 (35th edition, Justice K.T.Thomas and M A Rashid,2017)

a heinous crime has been committed as a fact then the restrictions which have been
imposed on the media are completely baseless.32
2.5. THAT SEXUAL OFFENCE IS AGAINST SOCIETY AT LARGE THEN THE
PUBLIC IS ALSO VICTIM AND HAVE RIGHT TO KNOW THE IDENTITIES
OF STAKEHOLDERS.
34. The importance of the work conducted by the media in such cases is very high. The
media wants the other victims of the same offence to come forward and fight against it
sighting various provisions which are there in law to help them get justice.
Restrictions as such on the functioning of the media will be hindering the very justice
system of the country. To stop it from happening the functioning of the media has to be
free from restrictions.33
2.6. THAT MEDIA TRIAL SOLVES ISSUES AND PROVIDES FACETS TO
PROBLEMS THAT JUDICIARY MIGHT NOT.
35. In the case of Kartongen Kemi Och Forvaltning AB and Ors. vs. State through CBI34,
it was held that,
“It is said and to great extent correctly that through media publicity those who know
about the incident may come forward with information, it prevents perjury by placing
witnesses under public gaze and it reduces crime through the public expression of
disapproval for crime and last but not the least it promotes the public discussion of
important issues. All this is done in the interest of freedom of communication and right
32
Ib.
33
Supra note 20
34
72, DRJ, 693 (DHC 2004)

of information little realizing that right to a fair trial is equally valuable. Such a right
has been emphatically recognized by the European Court of Human Rights.”
36. Media trial will solve many issues and provide facets to the problem which the judiciary
might not have thought.35
2.7. THAT MEDIA HELPS THE OTHER THREE PILLARS OF THE DEMOCRACY
TO MAINTAIN THE BALANCE BETWEEN CRIME COMMITTED AND
CRIME REPORTED.
By telecasting of such an issue, it might so happen that those who have been affected
by it but still keep quiet just maintain honour and dignity might come forward to
demand justice which is rightfully theirs.36
37. Thus, indirectly media is helping the other three pillars of the democracy of the country
to maintain the balance between crime committed and crime reported and aims at
diminishing the gap.37
38. If such is the motive and results of the work of the media then the restrictions placed
are clear cut violation of Article 19(1) (a) which guarantees freedom to speech and
expression under public interest.38
2.8. THAT MEDIA POSSESS THE RESPONSIBILITY TO INFORM GENERAL
MASSES ABOUT REALITY BEHIND THE SCENES OFTEN SUPPRESSED
BY POLTICS.
39. In the case of R.rajagopal and Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.39 it was said that,
35
Ib.
36
Supra note 21
37
Supra note 21
38
Supra note 21
39
AIR, 264 (SC 1995)

“…that the freedom of press extends to engaging in uninhibited debate about the
involvement of public figures in public issues and events.”
Many a times it does happen that the media is accused of commenting on the
involvement of a particular public figure, in such cases it has an obligation to do so
because the power comes with a responsibility to inform the general mass about the
‘behind the scene activity’.40
40. “The learned Judge held that the press cannot be said to have violated the Georgia law
or the right to privacy if it obtains, the name of the rape victim from the public records
and publishes it.”41
This sentence from the judgement is a clear-cut protection to the media in cases of rape
or sexual assault cases.42
41. “Over the last few decades, press and electronic media have emerged as major factors
in our nation's life. They are still expanding - and in the process becoming more
inquisitive. Our system of government demands - as do the systems of government of
the United States of America and United Kingdom - constant vigilance over exercise of
governmental power by the press and the media among others.”43
42. This gives the media enormous range of power to conduct a surveillance on the
functioning of the government functions and report the same to the public if it is not
done in the procedure as stated under law.44
“We may now consider whether the State or its officials have the authority in law to
impose a prior restraint upon publication of material defamatory of the State or of the
40
Ib.
41
Supra note 22
42
Ib.
43
Supra note 22
44
Ib.

officials, as the case may be? We think not. No law empowering them to do so is brought
to our notice.”45
2.9. THAT MEDIA ACTS AS A LINK BETWEEN THE RESERVOIR OF
KNOWLEDGE AND THE UNEDUCATED INDIANS.
43. If prior restraint be imposed on the media to stop it from telecasting something then it
would hamper the functioning of the media and would stop the flow of knowledge from
the issue concerned to the general masses through the media. Media acts as a link
between the reservoir of knowledge and the uneducated Indians.46
44. In the case of Dr. D.C. Saxena, Contemnor Vs. Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India,47 it
was said that,
45. “Equally, debate on public issues would be uninhibited, robust and wide open. It may
well include vehement, sarcastic and sometimes unpleasant sharp criticism of
Government and public officials. Absence of restraint in this area encourages a well
informed and politically sophisticated electoral debate to conform the Government in
tune with the constitutional mandates to return a political party to power. Prohibition
of freedom of speech and expression on public issues prevents and stifles the debate on
social, political and economic questions which in long term endangers the stability of
the community and maximizes the source and breeds for more likely revolution.”
46. The situation without an effective media will be a dangerous platform for the future of
a nation as it may evolve revolution and can challenge the stability of the system. The
45
Supra note 22.
46
Ib.
47
AIR, 2481 (SC 1996)

media via its criticism keeps a check that the administrative functions of a nation is
being processed smoothly.48
47. The Government on the other hand is very cautious in taking a single step as it has the
knowledge of being monitored by media. Hence, these measures help in maintaining a
balance between both the sides and establishing a secured society.49
2.10. THAT FREE FLOW OF OPINIONS AND IDEAS IS ESSENTIAL TO SUSTAIN
THE COLLECTIVE LIFE OF THE CITIZENRY.
48. In the case of S. Khushboo Vs. Kanniammal and Anr.,50 it has been said that,
“Even though the constitutional freedom of speech and expression is not absolute and
can be subjected to reasonable restrictions on grounds such as 'decency and morality'
among others, we must lay stress on the need to tolerate unpopular views in the socio-
cultural space.
49. The framers of our Constitution recognised the importance of safeguarding this right
since the free flow of opinions and ideas is essential to sustain the collective life of the
citizenry. While an informed citizenry is a pre-condition for meaningful governance in
the political sense, we must also promote a culture of open dialogue when it comes to
societal attitudes.”
50. The press considers the restrictions but if the press is to create a difference and keep a
check on the system then the system has to tolerate the unpopular views which will
expose the loop holes of the Government then it will be a healthy practice to raise the
bar of the efficiency of the functioning of the nation in the various sectors.51
48
Ib.
49
Supra note 23
50
5, SCC, 600 (SC 2010)
51
Ib.

51. Hence, it is more profitable to lift the restrictions from the media in the form of
programme code to benefit both the public and the Government itself and keep a check
on the smoothness of functioning of different levels of the country which will be
affected by the lifting up of the regulations on the media which also includes the general
public at large.

PRAYER
Wherefore in the lights of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
humbly requested that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to adjudge and declare:
1. That the programme code issued by the UOI is without the appropriate legal authority.
2. That the code impugned is constitutionally invalid.
And pass any such order or direction as the Hon’ble court deems it fit and proper in the interest
of justice, equity and good conscience, for the petitioner shall as duty bound ever pray.
ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

T-18 Petitioner Memorial

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

T-18 Petitioner Memorial

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TEAM CODE: 18

2nd SURANA & SURANA & KLE LAW COLLEGE

NATIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

MOOT COURT COMPETITION – 2018

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

IN THE MATTERS OF:

ALL INDIA MEDIA FEDERATION ... PETITIONER

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ... RESPONDENTS

WRIT PETITION NO. _____ / 2018

(FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

NATIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL LAW MOOT COMPETITION -2018

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................... 4

STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................................ 9

ISSUES RAISED ..................................................................................................................... 10

SUMMARY OF ARGUEMENTS .......................................................................................... 11

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ................................................................................................. 12

1. THAT THE PROGRAMME CODE ISSUED AMOUNTS TO EXCESSIVE

1.1. THAT RULES AMBIGUOUSLY GRANT UNGUIDED DISCRETION ON

2. THAT THE RULES ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE FUNDAMENTAL

2.1. THAT WIDER RANGE OF CIRCULATION OF INFORMATION OR ITS

GREATER IMPACT CANNOT RESTRICT THE CONTENT OF THE RIGHT NOR

CAN IT JUSTIFY ITS DENIAL…………………………………………………….18

OBSTRUCTING THAT MEDIUM WILL AFFECT THE PUBLIC DIRECTLY….19

2.3. THAT RULES IMPOSE UNREASONABLE RESTRICTION UPON THE

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

NATIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL LAW MOOT COMPETITION -2018

2.4. THAT RULES ARE IN CONFLICT TO THE PROVISIONS OF OTHER

LEGISLATIONS, SUCH AS IPC AND CERTAIN JUDICIAL DECISION……….20

2.5. THAT SEXUAL OFFENCE IS AGAINST SOCIETY AT LARGE THEN THE

PUBLIC IS ALSO VICTIM AND HAVE RIGHT TO KNOW THE IDENTITIES OF

2.6. THAT MEDIA TRIAL SOLVES ISSUES AND PROVIDES FACETS TO

PROBLEMS THAT JUDICIARY MIGHT NOT……………………………………21

TO MAINTAIN THE BALANCE BETWEEN CRIME COMMITTED AND CRIME

2.8. THAT MEDIA POSSESS THE RESPONSIBILITY TO INFORM GENERAL

MASSES ABOUT REALITY BEHIND THE SCENES OFTEN SUPPRESSED BY

2.9. THAT MEDIA ACTS AS A LINK BETWEEN THE RESERVOIR OF

KNOWLEDGE AND THE UNEDUCATED INDIANS…………………………….24

2.10. THAT FREE FLOW OF OPINIONS AND IDEAS IS ESSENTIAL TO

SUSTAIN THE COLLECTIVE LIFE OF THE CITIZENRY……………………….25

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

NATIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL LAW MOOT COMPETITION -2018

AILSA All India Law Students Association

AIMF All India Media Federation

AIR All India Reporter

CJI Chief Justice of India

C.W.N. Calcutta Weekly Notes

FIR First Information Report

IISc. Indian Institute of Science

NCW National Commission for Women.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

NATIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL LAW MOOT COMPETITION -2018

PIL Public Interest Litigation

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCJ Supreme Court Judgements

TRP Television Rating Point

UOI Union Of India

U.P. Uttar Pradesh

U.S. United States

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

NATIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL LAW MOOT COMPETITION -2018