Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Memorial Filed On Behalf of Respondent PDF
Memorial Filed On Behalf of Respondent PDF
Code: T3
IN THE
IN THE MATTER OF :
(Petitioner)
V.
UNION OF SARVIA&ORS.
(Respondent)
Memorial submitted to
Memorial Filed
Filed on behalf of Respondent
Counsel appearing
appearing on Behalf of Respondent
2|Page Memorial on Behalf of Respondent
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. THAT THE WRIT PETITIONS FILED BY MR. MADHUKAR VATS ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE ....
......
.. 14
PARTIES – ................................
................................ ............................... ....................... ...................... ....................... .... 15
2. THAT THE LICENSE OF JANAVANI AND JANAVANI NEWS CANNOT CANCELLED. .......
CANNOT BE CANCELLED ..........
......
... 18
2.3. THE PRESS LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR CANCELLATION OF LICENSE . ...............
......................
..............
..........
... 19
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. THAT THE WRIT PETITIONS FILED BY MR. MADHUKAR VATS ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE ....
......
.. 14
PARTIES – ................................
................................ ............................... ....................... ...................... ....................... .... 15
2. THAT THE LICENSE OF JANAVANI AND JANAVANI NEWS CANNOT CANCELLED. .......
CANNOT BE CANCELLED ..........
......
... 18
2.3. THE PRESS LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR CANCELLATION OF LICENSE . ...............
......................
..............
..........
... 19
3. THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OUGHT NOT TO FORMULATE ANY GUIDELINES FOR
REPORTING OF CASES PENDING BEFORE THE COURTS OR REGARDING MATTERS WHICH ARE SUB -
PRIVACY AND
AND AMOUNTS TO INTERFERENCE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. ..............
INTERFERENCE IN .....................
....... 31
PRAYER ................
........................
..................
..................
................
.................
...................
..................
................
................
...................
........... 37
4|Page Memorial on Behalf of Respondent
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Art. Article
Co. Company
Ed. Edition
Hon’ble Honourable
Ltd. Limited
Mgt. Management
Ors. Others
SC Supreme Court
Sr. Senior
& And
v./vs. Versus
5|Page Memorial on Behalf of Respondent
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
• Ambard v. Attorney General for Trinidad and Tobago, AIR 1936 PC 141 ..................... 18
• Aniruddha Bahal v. State, 172 (2010) DLT 268 ............................................ .................. 36
• Ashif Hamid v. State of J & K, AIR (1989) SC 1899 ............................................. .......... 21
• Bennett Coleman & Co. v. U.O.I , (1972) 2 SCC 788................................................. 26, 28
• Brij Bhushan v. Delhi, AIR 1950 SC 129....................................... ............................ 25, 27
• City of Boerne v Flores, (1997) 521 US 570 .......................................... .......................... 24
• Coimbatore Distt. Central Coop. Bank v. Employees’ Assn, (2007) 4 SCC 696 ............. 23
• Court On Its Own Motion v. State, 146 (2008) DLT 429........................................... 33, 34
• E.P Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555.................................................. 22
• Gajanan Visheshwar Birjur v. UOI , (1994) 5 SCC 550............................................. 27, 28
• Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh , AIR 1975 SC 1378 ............................................... 32
• Grosjean v. American Press Co., (1935) 297 US 233...................................................... 26
• Indian Express Newspapers(Bombay) Pvt. Ltd . v. UOI , AIR 1985 SC 515... 23, 24, 26, 28
• Kharak Singh v. State of UP, AIR 1963 SC 1295 .......................................... .................. 32
• M. Hasan v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1998 AP 35(40,41)........................... .......... 19
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 ................................... 14, 22, 23, 26
• Mc Kart v. United States, 395 US 185 (1969)................................................................. . 16
• Metropolis Theatre Company v. City of Chicago , (1912) 57 L Ed 730 ........................... 22
• MetropolitanPolice Commissioner, ex parte Blackburn, [1968] 2 QB 150 ..................... 18
• Miami herald v. Tornillo, (1974) 418 US 241................................................................. . 32
• Mohan Ram v. Usha Rani Rajgaria, (1992) 4 SCC 61 .................................................... 15
• Narain Das v. Govt. of MP, AIR 1974 SC 1252.............................................................. 18
• Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1967 SC 1 .............................. 29
• Observer and Guardian v. UK, 1991 14 EHRR 153,191....................... .......................... 28
• P. D. Shamdasani v. Central Bank of India, AIR 1952 SC 59......................................... 15
• Printers (Mysore) Ltd v. Asst. Commercial Tax Officer, 1994 SCR (1) 682 ................... 26
• Raman Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC
1628........................................................................ ................................................. .......... 14
• RamkrishnaDalmia v. Justice Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538........................................... 23
• Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd . v. Proprietors of Indian Express Newspaper, AIR 1989 SC
190.................................................................. ................................................. .................. 18
• Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras , (1950) SCR 594,602 .............................................. . 26
• S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan, (1989) 2 SCC 574............................................................. 18
• Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd, (2003) 3 SCC 524 ................................... 17
• Sahara v. SEBI, Civil Appeal No. 9813 OF 2011 .......................................... .................. 30
• Sakal Papers v. U.O.I , AIR 1992 SC 106 .............................................. .......................... 26
• Schering chemicals v. Falkman, (1981) 2 ALL ER 321................................................... 34
• Secy. Miner Irrigation and Rural Engg. Services, UP v. Sangoo Ram Arya, (2002) 5 SCC
521.................................................................. ................................................. .................. 16
• Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. v. Union of India , AIR (1990) SC 1277..................................... 22
• State of Orissa v Ram Chandra Dev, AIR 1964 SC 685 ................................................. . 18
• State of Orissa v. Gopinath Dash, 2005 (1 ) Suppl. SCR 352.......................................... 21
• State of UP v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 865 ................................................ .................. 27
• Superintendent . v. Ram Manohar, AIR 1960 SC 633 ............................................ .......... 27
• John W. Thornton, Expanding Video Tape Techniques in Pretrial and Trial Advocacy , 9
FORUM 105 1973 - 1974................................................................................................. 35
MISCELLANEOUS
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
It is humbly submitted that the petitioner has approached the Honble Supreme court of Sarvia
under Art. 32 of the Constitution of Sarvia. The respondent submits to the same.
9|Page Memorial on Behalf of Respondent
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Salerno is a state in the Union of Sarvia. The All Sarvian Party is the ruling party at the center
while the Presidential Party is the major opposition. Two major media houses operated in
Salerno namely ANB News Ltd and JanavaniNews. ANB Group was run by the ANB Industries
Ltd. ANB Industries Ltd had majority stake in the ANB News Ltd. but had only 3 directors in the
board of total 10 directors. Sh.Madhukar Vats, leader of ASP was the promoter and largest
shareholder of ANB Industries Ltd.
Sh. D. Kamal founded Janavani and also authored the 1 stelection manifesto of Presidential Party
in 1967. Though Mr. Kamal never held a position in the Party but he was considered the guiding
light. Janavani emerged as single largest Hindi newspaper in last 3 decades. In the year 2000, a
Hindi news channel namedJanavani News was established by Mr. Ram Prasad son of Mr. D.
Kamal who holds the position of chief editor till today.
Janavanihas been at the forefront of exposing corrupt practices in the Union of Sarvia by ASP. In
Oct.2011, Janavanipublished details of coal block allocation and lease renewal by the
Government in Dec.2010. The documents published by Janavani prima facie revealed that coal
block allocation was allowed not as per the auction method andthat the minimum qualification
for coal block allocation was relaxed for certain companies which were otherwise not eligible
such as ANB Collieries Ltd, Natalie Collieries Ltd, Coal-ExploSarvia Ltd.
ANB Collieries Ltd. was a publically held co. listed with NSE. ANB Industries Ltd. held a
majority stake in ANB Collieries Ltd and all the companies of ANB Group used to spend 70% of
its total ad.budget to ANB news Ltd. After publication of allegations regarding adoption of
corrupt practices by ANB Collieries Ltd. in coal block allocation, a FIR was lodged against MD
of ANB Collieries Ltd. as well as Mr. Vats. Union of Sarvia appointed an empowered ministerial
committee to investigate into the scam. While the investigations were pending and the ministerial
committee was yet to submit its report, a series of articles as well as news reports were
broadcasted on Janavani & Janavani News respectively.
On 13-1-12, a charge sheet was filed by police against Mr. Vats as well as all the other
concerned sr. mgt. officials of various companies. On 17-1-12, Janavaninews broadcasted
interview of Coal Sec. (Retd) as well as CAG (Retd.) wherein they indicated that the coal block