KALINGA UNIVERSITY, NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020

TEAM CODE: KU2NM06

KALINGA UNIVERSITY
MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT, INDIA

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION

UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

MS. SHRUTI KUMARI …..APPELLANT 1

JASWANT DUTTA …..APPELLANT 2
V.
AAWAZ Newspaper .…RESPONDANT 1
NGO PRAYAS ….RESPONDANT 2

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

1
 KALINGA UNIVERSITY, NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SR. NO CONTENT Pg. no,

1. Cover Page 1
2. Table of Abbreviations 4

3. Index of Authorities 5-6

4. Statement of Jurisdiction 7
5. Statement of Facts 8-9
6. Statement of Issues Raised 10
7. Summary of Arguments 11-12
8. Arguments Advanced 13-24
Issue 1: Whether Shruti Kumari’s Right to Privacy was breached 13-15
by AAWAZ and NGO PRAYAS?
1.1 Right to Privacy as an integral part of a person’s life
1.2 Breach of dignity of a woman by AAWAZ and NGO
PRAYAS
1.3 Whether the national newspaper AAWAZ to be held liable
for committing the offence of Voyeurism under Section
354C of IPC?
Issue 2: Whether Shruti Kumari and Jaswant Dutta’s reputation 16-19
was defamed by AAWAZ and NGO PRAYAS?
2.1 Whether the appellant is entitles to claim damages for the
same?
Issue 3: Whether Shruti Kumari and Jaswant Dutta are liable to 20-21
pay compensation to Nisha Mishra?
3.1 RS and his friends to be entitled to pay compensation.
Issue 4: Whether Shruti Kumari and Jaswant Dutta are guilty of 22-24
allegations made against them?

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

2
 KALINGA UNIVERSITY, NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020

4.1 Ignorance of general guidelines to be followed before

broadcasting content by AAWAZ
9. Prayer 25

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

3
 KALINGA UNIVERSITY, NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020

LIST OF ABBREVIATION

IPC Indian Penal Code

Sec Section
SLP Special Leave Petition
Hon’ble Honourable
Ors Others
Ltd Limited
SC Supreme Court
UOI Union of India
v./ vs versus
AIR All India Record
para paragraph
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
SCR Supreme Court Record
Id Idem
& And
RS Rudra Sharma
SK Shruti Kumari
JD Jaswant Dutta
NM Nisha Mishra
CBI Central Bureau of Investigation
ANR Another
Retd. Retired
Cen. Central
Pub. Public
Dr. Doctor

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

4
 KALINGA UNIVERSITY, NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

TABLE OF CASES

1. Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) ... vs Union Of India And Ors. MANU/SC/1604/2017

2. Cen.Pub.Information ... vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal MANU/SCOR/22153/2015
3. Shri R.P. Chauhan vs General Manager on 25 March, 2009
4. Court On Its Own Motion vs State on 14 December, 2007
5. Procter & Gamble Home Products ... vs Hindustan Unilever Ltd. on 17 February, 2017
6. Whether Reporters Of Local Papers ... vs Sureshchandra V Parekh & on 20 March, 2014
7. Rajat Prasad vs C.B.I MANU/SC/0351/2014
8. State of Maharashtra v. Madhulkar Narain, AIR 1991 SC 207
9. Sahib Singh Mehra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC 1451 (1452)
10. Dr. P.K. Rana,” Right to Privacy in Indian Perspective”, 2IJL 07(2016)
11. McLeod (1880) 3 All 342

LEGISLATIONS REFERRED
1. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1950
2. INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860
3. INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT 1872
4. CABLE TELEVISION NETWORKS (Regulation) Act, 1995
5. THE CABLE TELEVISION NETWORKS RULES, 1994

BOOKS REFERRED
1. Dr. J.N. Pandey, The Constitutional Law of India (49th Edition)
2. K.D. Gaur, The Indian Penal Code (4th Edition)
3. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code (33rd Edition)
4. M.Neelamalar, Media Law and Ethics
5. Oxford advanced learners dictionary (8th Edition)

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

5
 KALINGA UNIVERSITY, NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020

WEBSITES REFERRED
1. Indiankanoon- https://indiankanoon.org/
2. Manupatra Online Resources, https://www.manupatrafast.com/pers/Personalized.aspx
3. Oxford Dictionary, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com.
4. Lexis Nexis Legal, http://www.lexisnexis.com/in/legal.
5. Legal services india http://www.legalservicesindia.com/

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

6
 KALINGA UNIVERSITY, NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Under Art. 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950, this Hon’ble Court has been vested, in its
discretion, to grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or
order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India. In
this case, the petitioner has preferred an appeal against the impugned orders of the Hon’ble High
Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur.

The present memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments in the present case.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

7
 KALINGA UNIVERSITY, NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. On 15th August 2019, Nisha Kumari, a 15-year-old student of St Peter high school, Raipur
was lured by Rudra Sharma, also a 15-year-old student of the same school to smoke joints
containing drugs, one of it identified as marijuana. At first behind the premises of a shop
and then invited her over to a secluded new construction site outside the city.
2. Later that day Rudra Sharma arrived on the rooftop of the deserted construction site
accompanied by four other boys aged 14 to 19 years where Nisha Kumari had been waiting
for him. The boys intoxicated Nisha Kumari by offering her a ‘chocolate’ which contained
marijuana and thereafter sexually molested her. Nisha Kumari was unaware of the nature
of the act as she ended up losing her senses completely.
3. On 16th August 2019 at 2:30 PM Nisha Kumari found herself naked in the corner of the
same building on a different Floor. She received an email from Rudra Sharma which
included photos and videos of her being molested and raped by all the boys. Later she
received a call from Rudra Sharma threatening her to keep the incident disclosed or facing
consequences of her video being uploaded on U-2 and Face Life (social network websites).
4. On 18th August 2019 Rudra Sharma demanded rupees 10,000 within 24 hours from Nisha
Kumari with dire consequences of uploading the photos and videos of her if done
otherwise. At first Nisha Kumari worked up the plan and furnished the ransom to Rudra
Sharma. Since these threats continued for a while, Nisha's father on realizing approached
an NGO “PRAYAS”.
5. The NGO took Nisha to a nearby police station on 25th August 2019 to file a FIR. On
preliminary investigation police came up with two dozen more cases of teenagers being
victims of such acts. Post Interrogation it was found the accused supplied such videos to
Jaswant Dutta, resident of Delhi, who uploaded the same to free porn sites Open for
download in public domain.
6. The investigation brought light on the fact of there being a direct connection between
Jaswant Dutta and Shruti Kumari, the current Women and Child Development Minister of
India and a sitting Member of Parliament.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

8
 KALINGA UNIVERSITY, NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020

7. The NGO on being aware of this investigation report and other concerned information
passed on the same to a national newspaper AAWAZ who in turn conducted a “Sting
Operation” on Shruti Kumari on 30 August and compiled its data in three various compact
discs (C.D.'s).
Disc 1 Contained SK taking token money for a bribe from a reputed multi-billionaire
private tycoon active in many sectors in national and trans-national level and getting a
promise from that businessman for depositing the rest of the remaining amount in "Swiss
Bank" as directed by SK & JD.
Disc 2 Contained SK observing the transportation of few children from orphan homes
being transported to a third world country for prostitution etc.
Disc 3 Included contents of SK's 'private life' involved in natural/unnatural sexual
intercourse.
The channel thereafter broadcasted all the three discs on 02 September 2019. Following
the broadcast, almost all the News Channels in the Country aired the same news.
8. NGO went ahead and filed PIL in the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur for the same
on 5 September’19 and demanded SK's immediate resignation and an inquiry by CBI with
a request that the Hon'ble Court itself shall monitor the entire investigation as it was a very
high profile case. The Hon'ble High Court admitted PIL on 10 September’19 and issued
notices for the same to all the concerned parties.
9. SK filed a case of Defamation against AAWAZ & NGO on 15 September’19 alleging her
Right to Privacy enshrined by the Constitution being breached and that AAWAZ is from
no stretch of imagination authorized to put on Television the news contents like the current
one. Investigation report was called and provided to the parties. SK, JD and RS denied the
allegations and claimed the action by the opposite parties as private and malafide and
claimed damages for defamation.
10. The Hon’ble High Court after hearing the concerned parties passed its judgement
dismissing the WRIT for Defamation and Further investigation to be done by CBI and if
sufficient material to launch prosecution in the appropriate court and in accordance with
law. SK and JD thereafter filed S.L.P. before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was
admitted.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

9
 KALINGA UNIVERSITY, NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020

ISSUES PRESENTED

ISSUE 1

1. Whether Shruti Kumari’s Right to Privacy was breached by AAWAZ and NGO PRAYAS?
ISSUE 2

2. Whether Shruti Kumari and Jaswant Dutta’s reputation was defamed by AAWAZ and
NGO PRAYAS and if they are entitled to compensation for the same?
ISSUE 3

3. Whether Shruti Kumari and Jaswant Dutta are liable to pay compensation to Nisha Mishra?
ISSUE 4

4. Whether Shruti Kumari and Jaswant Dutta are guilty of allegations made against them?

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

10
 KALINGA UNIVERSITY, NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1: Whether SK’s Right to Privacy was breached by AAWAZ and NGO PRAYAS

AWAAZ and NGO are liable for breach of Shruti Kumari’s Right to Privacy under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India. The sting operation itself, as mentioned, was performed in very knotty
circumstances compiling discs including contents of Shruti Kumari's private life. Right to Privacy
being an intrinsic part of life and personal liberty, AAWAZ should be also made liable for
committing the offence of Voyeurism according to section 354C of IPC while filming “DISC 3”
which included contents of Shruti Kumai’s private life involved in sexual intercourse.

ISSUE 2: Whether AAWAZ and NGO PRAYAS should be held liable for the offence of
Defaming Shruti Kumari and Jaswant Dutta’s reputation and if they are entitled to damages
for the same.

It is submitted before the Hon’ble court that AWAAZ and NGO had committed the offence of
Defamation under Section 499 of Indian Penal Code. Shruti Kumari’s as well as Jaswant Dutta’s
reputation had been defamed by publishing and broadcasting its contents all over the country
without any verified evidence or valid grounds of recording the same. Both the essential
ingredients of defamation are fulfilled. Thus, Shruti Kumari and Jaswant Dutta are entitled to claim
damages from AAWAZ and the NGO.

ISSUE 3: Whether Shruti Kumar and Jaswant Dutta are liable to pay compensation to Nisha
Mishra?

It is submitted before the Hon’ble court that There is no sufficient nexus established between
Jaswant Dutta, Shruti Kumari and Rudra Sharma to make SK and JD liable for compensation of
Rs 1 lakh to Nisha Mishra. In all such cases, where the CD/DVD are being forwarded without a
certificate U/s 65B Evidence Act, such CD/DVD are not admissible in evidence and further expert
opinion as to their genuineness cannot be looked into by the Court as evident from the Supreme

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

11
 KALINGA UNIVERSITY, NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020

Court Judgment. The situation of the current case being contrary to Sec 65B of Indian Evidence
Act, it makes SK and JD pay compensation on behalf of Rudra Sharma out of question.

ISSUE 4: Whether Shruti Kumari and Jaswant Dutta are guilty of allegations made against
them?

It is submitted before the Hon’ble court that the telecast of the sting operation by channel was
defamatory, deliberate, containing false and suggestive innuendos and half-truths. Section 5 of the
Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and the Rule 6(d) of Cable Television Network
Rules stipulates that no programme can be transmitted or retransmitted on any cable service which
contains anything obscene, defamatory, deliberate, false and suggestive innuendos and half-truths.
Thus, the Discs showing clips of Shruti Kumari and Jaswant Dutta cannot be taken as sufficient
evidence to hold them liable for bribery, money laundering and traffic of human beings.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

12
 KALINGA UNIVERSITY, NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. Whether SK’s Right to Privacy was breached by AAWAZ and NGO PRAYAS

Privacy per se is an undisputed right of an individual comprehensively bonded with his/her life
which has been denied to Shruti Kumari. Privacy becomes matter of controversy when it is
mishandled/intruded illegitimately by erroneous individuals.

Privacy is [t]he condition or state of being free from public attention to intrusion into or
interference with ones acts or decisions. The right to be in this condition has been described as the
right to be let alone. What seems to be essential to privacy is the power to seclude oneself and keep
others from intruding it in any way. These intrusions may be physical or visual and may take any
of several forms including peeping over one’s shoulder to eavesdropping directly or through
instruments, devices or technological aids.1

1.1 Right to Privacy as an integral part of a persons Right to Life

Right to Privacy has been declared as a Fundamental Right under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India in landmark judgement Puttaswamy vs Union of India2 wherein it was held that,

“Dignity cannot exist without privacy. Both reside within the inalienable values of life, liberty
and freedom which the Constitution has recognized. Privacy is the ultimate expression of the
sanctity of the individual. It is a constitutional value which straddles across the spectrum of
fundamental rights and protects for the individual a zone of choice and self-determination”.

Recording “Discs” which include content of Shruti Kumari's private life involved in
natural/unnatural sexual intercourse and the broadcast of the same on almost all the news channel
in the country can be clearly interpreted as breach of dignity as well as privacy of an individual
and against the Constitution.

1
Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) ... vs Union Of India And Ors. MANU/SC/1604/2017 (Para 21)
2
Ibid

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

13
 KALINGA UNIVERSITY, NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020

Consequently, AAWAZ, while conducting its sting operation in a knotty circumstance and
constitutionally unauthorized in order to record discs of incriminating evidence have breached
Shruti Kumari’s Right to Privacy.

“Privacy, it is uniformly observed in K.S. Puttaswamy, is essential for liberty and dignity.
Therefore, individuals have the need to preserve an intrusion-free zone for their personality and
family. This facilitates individual freedom. On the question of invasion of personal liberty, the
main judgment has referred to a three-fold requirement in the form of – (i) legality, which
postulates the existence of law ; (ii) need, defined in terms of a legitimate State aim; and (iii)
proportionality, which ensures a rational nexus between the objects and the means to be adopted
to achieve them.”3

According to the facts of the case “The NGO somehow became aware of this investigation report
and other concerned information(s) and passed on the information to a national newspaper
AAWAZ who in turn conducted a Sting Operation”4. The process of sting operation was not legally
sanctioned and did not carry a legitimate state aim to establish rational Nexus between object and
means adopted to achieve it. Consequently, the recording of private activities of an individual was
not conducted in favour public interest.

1.2 Breach of dignity of a woman by AAWAZ and NGO PRAYAS

Another aspect of right to privacy includes gender priority that implies not merely the prevention
and the incorrect portrayal of private life but the right to prevent it being depicted at all. Every
female has the basic right to be treated with decency and proper dignity5. Even a woman of easy
virtue is entitled to privacy and no one has the right to invade her privacy.6

Even in the ancient and religious texts of India, a well-developed sense of privacy is evident. A
woman ought not to be seen by a male stranger seems to be a well-established rule in the
Ramayana. The Arthashastra prohibits entry into another’s house, without the owner’s consent7

3
Cen.Pub.Information ... vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal MANU/SCOR/22153/2015 (para 42)
4
Fact sheet (para 6)
5
Dr. P.K. Rana,” Right to Privacy in Indian Perspective”, 2IJL 07(2016).
6
State of Maharashtra v. Madhulkar Narain, AIR 1991 SC 207
7
Supra 1

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

14
 KALINGA UNIVERSITY, NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020

Shruti Kumari being a woman of high status deserves to peacefully enjoy her life and her private
aspects not to be depicted or showcased in public like every other female individual citizen of
country. AAWAZ and NGO PRAYAS have not only ceased this right but also disrespected her
right to choose and sexual preference.

1.3 Whether the national newspaper AAWAZ to be held liable for committing the offence of
voyeurism under section 354C of IPC.

Section 354 (C) IPC defines voyeurism as an act where “Any man who watches, or captures the
image of a woman engaging in a private act in circumstances where she would usually have the
expectation of not being observed either by the perpetrator or by any other person at the behest of
the perpetrator or disseminates such image.”8

The act done by AAWAZ while capturing the “disc 3” fulfils the criteria of committing the offence
of voyeurism wherein the explanation it states that

“For the purpose of this section, “private act” includes an act of watching carried out in a place
which, in the circumstances, or the victim is doing a sexual act that is not of a kind ordinarily done
in public.”

From the contents of Disc 3, it is inferred, the respondent is alleged to have indulged in voyeurism
while recording acts of Shruti Kumari being engaged in sexual act.

Privacy, thus, constitutes the basic, irreducible condition necessary for the exercise of personal
liberty and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. It is the inarticulate major premise in Part III
of the Constitution.9

8
IPC Section 354C Voyeurism
9
Supra 1 (para 25)

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

15
 KALINGA UNIVERSITY, NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020

2. Whether AAWAZ and NGO PRAYAS should be held liable for the offence of Defaming
Shruti Kumari and Jaswant Dutta’s reputation and if they are entitled to damages for the same.

Section 499 of IPC defines Defamation as:

“Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations,

makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or
having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said,
except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person”10

The contents of the discs were published and broadcasted all over the country by AAWAZ
newspaper and moreover the contents being addressed to Shruti Kumari and Jaswant Dutta as well
as causing harm to their reputation makes the act an offense of defaming the respondents.
Publisher of the newspaper should be made responsible for defamatory matter published in such
newspaper or news channel whether he knows the content of such paper or not 11.

Further the case of the respondents that the aforesaid acts are also violative of all the norms and
canons of responsible journalism. Such conduct has been actuated by malice, against the appellant
and generally against the justice dispensation system. The defendants have failed to abide by the
minimum moral standards of ethics and there is a complete failure to comply with the etiquette
and ethical standards expected from them.

“In support of such arguments, the plaintiffs have relied upon number of citations and tried to
emphasize that freedom of the speech is not higher than the rights of a citizen and that use of such
freedom as to constitute infractions of law relating to defamation is not allowed and that injunction
against publication of such article and communication cannot be refused on the ground that
reputation can be compensated by paying damages because it will amount to granting license to
publish defamatory news against payment of compensation and that freedom does not give free
hand to publish defamatory matter under the guise of free expression and reformation in the society

10
IPC Section 354C Voyeurism
11
McLeod (1880) 3 All 342

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

16
 KALINGA UNIVERSITY, NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020

and that the Court is empowered to grant interim injunction against publication of the defamatory
articles and communications.”12

“The freedom of speech under our Constitution is not higher than that of citizen, and that there is
no privilege as distinguished from the prestige of the public at large. That the exercise of
expression is subject to the reasonable restriction borne out by Clause (2) of Article 19 of the
Constitution.13”

Consequently the reckless and irresponsible action of the respondents, seeking to increase the
circulation discs and creation of hue and cry nationwide at the cost of the reputation of the appellant
and her public office have caused grave and irreparable injury to their reputation and degraded the
dignity of the Institution of Justice.

Supreme Court recently in Subramanian Swamy supra concerned with a challenge to the vires
of Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 constituting defamation as defined therein
as an offence, on the ground of the same being violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of
India.

Negating the challenge Supreme Court held

(i) that while in a democracy, an individual has a right to criticize and dissent but his right
under Article 19(1)(a) is not absolute and he cannot defame another person as that
would offend the victim's fundamental right to reputation which is a facet of Article
21 of the Constitution and one fundamental right cannot be given higher status in
comparison to the other and what is required is proper balancing of the two and
harmonious construction in light of objective of fraternity and fundamental duties
envisaged under Article 51A(e) and (j) of the Constitution;
(ii) that Article 19(2) envisages ―reasonable restrictions‖; right to say what may displease
or annoy others cannot be throttled;
(iii) that there can be no cavil that the right to freedom of speech and expression is a right
that has to get ascendance in a democratic body polity but at the same time the limit
has to be ―proportionate and not unlimited;

12
[49&50] Whether Reporters Of Local Papers ... vs Sureshchandra V Parekh, C/AO/5/2014
13
Ibid

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

17
 KALINGA UNIVERSITY, NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020

(iv) that the restrictions should not be excessive and should be in public interest;
(v) the test of reasonableness cannot be determined by laying down any abstract standard
or general pattern--it would depend upon the nature of the right which has been
infringed or sought to be infringed and the ultimate impact i.e. the effect on the right
has to be determined;
(vi) that the principles of proportionality of restraint are to be kept in mind by the Court.14

Taking into consideration the current case, respondents although practicing their fundamental
rights have under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India have violated the appellant’s right
to reputation which is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution.

Being essentially a deceptive operation, though designed to nab a criminal, a sting operation raises
certain moral and ethical questions. The victim, who is otherwise innocent, is lured into
committing a crime on the assurance of absolute secrecy and confidentiality of the circumstances
raising the potential question as to how such a victim can be held responsible for the crime which
he would not have committed but for the enticement. Another issue that arises from such an
operation is the fact that the means deployed to establish the commission of the crime itself
involves a culpable act.15

The press has great power in impressing the minds of people and it is essential that persons
responsible for publishing anything in newspapers should take good care before publishing
anything which tends to harm the reputation of a person. Reckless comments are to be avoided.
When one is proved to have made if defamatory comments with an ulterior motive and without
the least justification motivated by self-interest, he deserves a deterrent punishment 16

2.1 Whether the appellant is entitled to claim compensation?

The fact that the Court after investigation could not collect evidence against the alleged act of
appellant and as held in the High Court judgement “Further investigation to be done by CBI and
if sufficient material to launch prosecution in the appropriate court and in accordance with law.

14
[34] Procter & Gamble Home Products ... vs Hindustan Unilever Ltd. on 17 February, 2017; CS(OS)
No.459/2016 & IA No.11244/2016
15
Rajat Prasad vs C.B.I MANU/SC/0351/2014(para 10)
16
Sahib Singh Mehra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC 1451 (1452) (para 1)

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

18
 KALINGA UNIVERSITY, NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020

No sanction need be taken for SK from Central Government.”17 The facts have been presented in
such a manner as is likely to mislead the public about their factual inaccuracy or veracity.

In these circumstances there are enough grounds and material on which Shruti Kumari could file
an appropriate case for causing damage to her reputation and for the mental agony and physical
hardship gone through by her. Damages in accordance with the law can be awarded by Courts in
cases of defamation and loss of reputation.18

17
Fact sheet [para 9 (i)]
18
Court On Its Own Motion vs State on 14 December, 2007

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

19
 KALINGA UNIVERSITY, NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020

3. Whether Shruti Kumar and Jaswant Dutta are liable to pay compensation to Nisha Mishra?

Statement made during the course of preliminary investigation admissible if it is accepted on

authentication by the maker and proved accordingly. It is stated that statement during the course
of preliminary investigation cannot be made admissible to hold him guilty.19

Considering the current case the statements made by the accused Rudra Shrama in the preliminary
investigation.

“ The police also found post interrogation that the accused not only abused and blackmailed their
victims but also supplied their Video files / Photographs to a person Jaswant Dutta, a resident of
Delhi where these Video's etc. were actually uploaded on free porn sites available for downloading
in public domain. Also, it came out in the investigation reports that the main Kingpin in the
aforementioned affair was no other that Ms. Shruti Kumari who also happens to be the current
Women & Child Development Minister of India and a sitting Member of Parliament directly in
touch with JD.” 20

This data retrieved through preliminary investigation done by police is yet to be proved. There is
no conformity as to involvement of Shruti Kumari and Jaswant Dutta in this gruesome act for easy
money and thus no nexus can be launched between the two parties i.e. Rudra Sharma and JD , SK.

3.1. RS and his friends to be entitled to pay compensation.

Being a concerned citizen and a responsible Women and Child Development Minister of India,
the appellate puts forward the concern for Nisha Mishra who was allegedly gangraped by RS and
his friends. According to the facts, four boys of age group between 14-19 years accompanied RS
to commit rape and it is clear with this fact that they all were not juvenile and must be dealt as per
offence committed under IPC sec 376DA.

Where a woman under sixteen years of age is raped by one or more persons constituting a group
or acting in furtherance of a common intention, each of those persons shall be deemed to have

19
Shri R.P. Chauhan vs General Manager on 25 March, 2009 (para 15)
20
Fact sheet (para 5)

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

20
 KALINGA UNIVERSITY, NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020

committed the offence of rape and shall be punished with imprisonment for life, which shall mean
imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s natural life, and with fine:

Provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses and
rehabilitation of the victim:

Provided further that any fine imposed under this section shall be paid to the victim.21

In the current case, Rudra Sharma and four boys being aged 14 – 19 years being accused for gang
rape of Nisha Mishra should be held liable to pay compensation to her.

21
Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

21
 KALINGA UNIVERSITY, NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020

4. Whether Shruti Kumari and Jaswant Dutta are guilty of allegations made against them?

In todays age and world, the impact of media is far reaching. Electronic media as compared to
print media has an added advantage because visuals have greater ramification and impact as it
directly and immediately influences the mind of the viewer. With the growth of the number of
News Channels and increasing popularity of "breaking news", electronic media has come to play
a major role in stirring public opinion and consciousness. It is this potency to reach the public that
entails that all the channels understand and realise the heavy responsibility that is thrust on them
and that there is no case for possible misuse. Keeping in mind the role a responsible media can
play in disseminating information and creating awareness among masses without crossing the
limits that a civilised society would expect, we proceed to dispose of the present writ petition.22

Shruti Kumari and Jaswant Dutta have been alleged to commit the offences of Bribery, money
laundering and child trafficking based on the discs obtained through “Sting Operation on Shruti
Kumari on 30/08/2019 in very knotty circumstances and compiled its data in three various compact
discs broadcasted by news channels across the country23.

Section 5 of the aforesaid Act24 provides that no person shall transmit or re-transmit through cable
service any programme unless the programme is in conformity with the prescribed programme
code. Rule 6 of the Cable Television Network Rules, 1994 prescribes a programme code that
should be followed by any person responsible for transmission/re-transmission of any programme.
The programme code is fairly exhaustive and stipulates that no programme which encourages and
incites violence, maligns and slanders any individual and person, contain any false and half-truths
etc, should be carried and broadcast in a cable service.25

The discs broadcasted contained false as well as defamatory information regarding the appellants
which has also led to their breach of privacy. In a landmark judgement of Uma Khurana case26 of
fake sting operation conducted on a schoolteacher alleging her for forcing school children into
prostitution, the Delhi High Court came up with certain guidelines

22
Court On Its Own Motion vs State on 14 December, 2007 (para 1)
23
Fact sheet (para 6)
24
Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995
25
Supra 22
26
Ibid

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

22
 KALINGA UNIVERSITY, NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020

4.1 Ignorance of general guidelines to be followed before broadcasting content by AAWAZ

Certain proposed guidelines were also placed before us by the learned amices. The said proposed
guidelines are as follows:

i. A channel proposing to telecast a sting operation shall obtain a certificate from the person who
recorded or produced the same certifying that the operation is genuine to his knowledge.

ii. There must be concurrent record in writing of the various stages of the sting operation.

iii. Permission for telecasting a sting operation be obtained from a committee appointed by the
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. The said committee will be headed by a retired High
Court Judge to be appointed by the Government in consultation with the High Court & two
members, one of which should be a person not below the rank of Additional Secretary and the
second one being the Additional Commissioner of Police. Permission to telecast sting operation
will be granted by the committee after satisfying itself that it is in public interest to telecast the
same. This safeguard is necessary since those who mount a sting operation themselves commit the
offences of impersonation, criminal trespass under false pretence and making a person commit an
offence.

iv. While the transcript of the recordings may be edited, the films and tapes themselves should not
be edited. Both edited and unedited tapes be produced before the committee.

v. All television channels must ensure compliance with the Certification Rules prescribed under
the Cable Television Network (Regulation) Act 1995 and the Rules made there under.

vi. The Chief Editor of the channel shall be made responsible for self-regulation and ensure that
the programmes are consistent with the Rules and comply with all other legal and administrative
requirements under various statutes in respect of content broadcast on the channel.

vii. The subject matter of reports or current events shall not: (a) Deliberately present as true any
unverified or inaccurate facts so as to avoid trial by media since a "man is innocent till proven
guilty by law"; (b) Present facts and views in such a manner as is likely to mislead the public about
their factual inaccuracy or veracity; (c) Mislead the public by mixing facts and fiction in such a
manner that the public are unlikely to be able to distinguish between the two (d) Present a distorted
picture of reality by over-emphasizing or under-playing certain aspects that may trivialise or

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

23
 KALINGA UNIVERSITY, NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020

sensationalise the content; (e) Make public any activities or material relating to an individual's
personal or private affairs or which invades an individual's privacy unless there is an identifiable
large public interest; (f) Create public panic or unnecessary alarm which is likely to encourage or
incite the public to crime or lead to disorder or be offensive to public or religious feeling.

ix. Broadcasters/Media shall observe general community standards of decency and civility in news
content, taking particular care to protect the interest and sensitivities of children and general family
viewing.

x. News should be reported with due accuracy. Accuracy requires the verification (to the fullest
extent possible) and presentation of all facts that are necessary to understand a particular event or
issue.

xi. Infringement of privacy in a news based/related programme is a sensitive issue. Therefore,

greater degree of responsibility should be exercised by the channels while telecasting any such
programmes, as may be breaching privacy of individuals.

xii. Channels must not use material relating to persons' personal or private affairs or which invades
an individual's privacy unless there is identifiable larger public interest reason for the material to
be broadcast or published.27

Considering the current case it is clear that majority of the guidelines were blinded by the
respondents before broadcasting defamatory information and framing grievous charges on Shruti
Kumai and Jaswant Dutta based on an action by the opposite parties which was private and
malafide. AAWAZ is from no stretch of imagination authorized to put on Television the news
contents like the current one.28

27
Supra 22 (para 11)
28
Fact sheet (para 8)

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

24
 KALINGA UNIVERSITY, NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2020

PRAYER

Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this
Hon‘ble Court be pleased to
1. Hold AAWAZ and NGO PRAYAS liable for breach of appellant’s right to privacy.
2. Shruti Kumari and Jaswant Dutta be entitled to damages for defamation
3. Rudra Sharma and his companions to be charged with section 376D and be held liable to
pay compensation to Nisha Mishra
4. AAWAZ and NGO PRAYAS to be held liable for Breach of Rule 6 of Cable Television
Network Rules
AND/OR
Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of justice, equity and good concise and for this
the appellant in duty bound may shall humbly pray.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

25