Team Code:

Code: T3

IN THE

HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF SARVIA

(F ILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTI

CONSTITUTION OF SARVIA)
TUTION

IN THE MATTER OF :

SHRI .MADHUKAR VATS

(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

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................

........................
..................
..................
................
.................
...................
..................
................
..........
.. 2

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

.........................
..................
..................
.................
.................
..................
..................
...........
... 4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................

........................
...................
...................
................
................
...................
...................
............
.... 5

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

........................
...................
...................
................
................
..................
..............
.... 8

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

.........................
...................
..................
................
................
...................
...................
...............
....... 9

ISSUES PRESENTED ................

........................
...................
...................
................
................
..................
...................
.................
.......... 11

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS .................

.........................
..................
..................
.................
.................
..................
................
...... 12

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED .................

.........................
..................
..................
.................
.................
..................
..................
.......... 14

1. THAT THE WRIT PETITIONS FILED BY MR. MADHUKAR VATS ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE ....
......
.. 14

1.1. RESPONDENT IS NOT A STATE WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 12..................

12..........................
.................14
.........14

1.2. THE WRIT JURISDICTION

JURISDICTION CANNOT BE
BE EXERCISED TO DECIDE
DECIDE ISSUES BETWEEN
BETWEEN PRIVATE

PARTIES – ................................
................................ ............................... ....................... ...................... ....................... .... 15

1.3. ALTERNATIVE EXHAUSTED : ...............

LTERNATIVE REMEDIES HAVE NOT BEEN EXHAUSTED ......................
..............
.................
.................
..............
....... 15

1.4. THE PRESS AND REGISTRATION OF BOOKS ACT, 1867

1867 DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR
CANCELLATION OF A DECLARATION OF A NEWSPAPER ON THE GROUND OF COMMENTS ..............
..................
.... 17

1.5. THE RESPONDENTS COMMENT IS FAIR AND PROPORTIONATE ................................ .............. 17

2. THAT THE LICENSE OF JANAVANI AND JANAVANI NEWS CANNOT CANCELLED. .......
CANNOT BE CANCELLED ..........
......
... 18

2.1. FREEDOM OF PRESS AND

AND TELEVISION IS NOT A LICENSE AND
AND IT CANNOT CURTAILED .....18
CANNOT BE CURTAILED

2.3. THE PRESS LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR CANCELLATION OF LICENSE . ...............
......................
..............
..........
... 19

2.4. PROVISIONS UNDER CABLE TELEVISION NETWORKS (REGULATION) ACT, 1995

1995 DO NOT
EMPOWER THE SUPREME COURT TO CANCEL THE LICENSE . ..............
.....................
..............
.................
.................
..............
...............
........ 20

2.5. BY CANCELLATION OF LICENSE , THE RESPONDENTS RIGHT UNDER ART . 19(1

19(1)(
)(A) AND
19(1)(G) WOULD BE DENIED ............................... ...................... ....................... ....................... ........ 22

2.6. CANCELLATION OF LICENSE VIOLATES PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY ..............

......................
..............
...... 23
2|Page Memorial on Behalf of Respondent

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................

........................
..................
..................
................
.................
...................
..................
................
..........
.. 2

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

.........................
..................
..................
.................
.................
..................
..................
...........
... 4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................

........................
...................
...................
................
................
...................
...................
............
.... 5

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

........................
...................
...................
................
................
..................
..............
.... 8

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

.........................
...................
..................
................
................
...................
...................
...............
....... 9

ISSUES PRESENTED ................

........................
...................
...................
................
................
..................
...................
.................
.......... 11

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS .................

.........................
..................
..................
.................
.................
..................
................
...... 12

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED .................

.........................
..................
..................
.................
.................
..................
..................
.......... 14

1. THAT THE WRIT PETITIONS FILED BY MR. MADHUKAR VATS ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE ....
......
.. 14

1.1. RESPONDENT IS NOT A STATE WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 12..................

12..........................
.................14
.........14

1.2. THE WRIT JURISDICTION

JURISDICTION CANNOT BE
BE EXERCISED TO DECIDE
DECIDE ISSUES BETWEEN
BETWEEN PRIVATE

PARTIES – ................................
................................ ............................... ....................... ...................... ....................... .... 15

1.3. ALTERNATIVE EXHAUSTED : ...............

LTERNATIVE REMEDIES HAVE NOT BEEN EXHAUSTED ......................
..............
.................
.................
..............
....... 15

1.4. THE PRESS AND REGISTRATION OF BOOKS ACT, 1867

1867 DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR
CANCELLATION OF A DECLARATION OF A NEWSPAPER ON THE GROUND OF COMMENTS ..............
..................
.... 17

1.5. THE RESPONDENTS COMMENT IS FAIR AND PROPORTIONATE ................................ .............. 17

2. THAT THE LICENSE OF JANAVANI AND JANAVANI NEWS CANNOT CANCELLED. .......
CANNOT BE CANCELLED ..........
......
... 18

2.1. FREEDOM OF PRESS AND

AND TELEVISION IS NOT A LICENSE AND
AND IT CANNOT CURTAILED .....18
CANNOT BE CURTAILED

2.3. THE PRESS LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR CANCELLATION OF LICENSE . ...............
......................
..............
..........
... 19

2.4. PROVISIONS UNDER CABLE TELEVISION NETWORKS (REGULATION) ACT, 1995

1995 DO NOT
EMPOWER THE SUPREME COURT TO CANCEL THE LICENSE . ..............
.....................
..............
.................
.................
..............
...............
........ 20

2.5. BY CANCELLATION OF LICENSE , THE RESPONDENTS RIGHT UNDER ART . 19(1

19(1)(
)(A) AND
19(1)(G) WOULD BE DENIED ............................... ...................... ....................... ....................... ........ 22

2.6. CANCELLATION OF LICENSE VIOLATES PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY ..............

......................
..............
...... 23
3|Page Memorial on Behalf of Respondent

2.7. THERE IS NO DEFAMATION ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 24

3. THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OUGHT NOT TO FORMULATE ANY GUIDELINES FOR
REPORTING OF CASES PENDING BEFORE THE COURTS OR REGARDING MATTERS WHICH ARE SUB -

JUDICE. ........................................... ................................................. ........................................... 25

3.2. GUIDELINES TEND TO VIOLATE FREEDOM OF MEDIA................................. .......................... 26

3.3. PRE-EXISTING MECHANISMS

MECHANISMS ARE SUFFICIENT TO CHECK ABUSE OF FREEDOM OF MEDIA ......28

4. THAT THE REVERSE STING OPERATION CARRIED

CARRIED OUT BY ABN NEWS VIOLATES THE RIGHT OF

PRIVACY AND
AND AMOUNTS TO INTERFERENCE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. ..............
INTERFERENCE IN .....................
....... 31

4.1. STING OPERATION HAS VIOLATED RIGHT TO PRIVACY ................................ ......................... 31

4.2. LICENSE OF ANB

ANB NEWS IS LIABLE
LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED. ..............
.....................
..............
.................
.................
..............
...........
.... 35

PRAYER ................
........................
..................
..................
................
.................
...................
..................
................
................
...................
........... 37
4|Page Memorial on Behalf of Respondent

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

A.I.R. All India Reporter

Art. Article

ASP All Sarvian Party

Co. Company

Ed. Edition

Hon’ble Honourable

Ltd. Limited

Mgt. Management

Ors. Others

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

Sr. Senior

& And

U.O.I Union of India

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

• PUCL v. U.O.I , AIR 1991 SC 207 ................................................. ............................ 32, 35

6|Page Memorial on Behalf of Respondent

•  R. K Garg v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 1829........................................... .................. 23

•  R. v. Oakes, (1986) 26 DLR (4th) 200................................... ........................................... 24
•  R.DBohet, Ex-Dy. Supdt. Gr - I, Central Jail v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, Govt. of NCT of 
 Delhi, CAT (Principal Bench), Decided on: 24.11.2006 (Unreported) ............................ 35
•  Rajgopal v. State of Tamil Nadu , 1994 6 SCC 632 .............................................. 31, 32, 33

•  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

• Tata Press Ltd. v. MTNL, (1995) 5 SCC 139 ................................................. .................. 18

• VidyaVerma v. Shivnarain, AIR 1956 SC 108 ............................................... .................. 15
• Virendra v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 896...................................... .......................... 27

BOOKS, TREATISES & DIGESTS

• A.C Breckenridge, The right to Privacy (1971) ............................................................... 32

7|Page Memorial on Behalf of Respondent

• Alan Westin, Privacy and Freedom (1967)............................................................ .......... 31

• Durga Das Basu,  Law of The Press (5th Ed. 2010, Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa)
............................................... ................................................. ............................... 27, 28, 34
• M.P Jain, Indian Constitution Law (6th Ed. Reprint 2012, Lexis Nexis Butterworth
Wadhwa, Nagpur).................................................. ............................................... 26, 27, 30

STATUTES, LEGISLATIONS & INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS

• Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995....................................... ...... 16, 20, 35

• Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994................................ ..................................... 20, 35
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (India).................................................... .......................... 30
• European Convention on Human Rights ................................................ .......................... 31
• Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 ............................................ .................... 15, 19
• The Press Council Act, 1978 ................................................. ..................................... 16, 19
• Universal Declaration of Human Rights........................ ............................................. 26, 31

ESSAYS, ARTICLES & REPORTS

• John W. Thornton,  Expanding Video Tape Techniques in Pretrial and Trial Advocacy , 9
FORUM 105 1973 - 1974................................................................................................. 35

MISCELLANEOUS

• Constitution of India .............................................. ......................................... 14, 17, 29, 32

8|Page Memorial on Behalf of Respondent

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

It is humbly submitted that the petitioner has approached the Honble 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