4th RGNUL National Moot Court Competition, 2015 |R-TC-07|

7th National Moot Court Competition, 2019 |TC-03|

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MINDIA

Petition No. of 2019

(Art. 136 of the Constitution of Mindia, 1950 Special Leave to Appeal against the order passed
by the Hon’ble High Court of State of Mindia)

Xing T.V and another. ………………………………………………………………Appellant

VERSUS

Mr.Vijay Lalit Sodhi………………………………………………………………..Respondent

Petition No. of 2019

(Art. 136 of the Constitution of Mindia, 1950 Special Leave to Appeal against the order passed
by the Hon’ble High Court of State of Mindia)

Xing T.V. ………………………………………………………………………… Appellant

VERSUS

Union of Mindia…………………………………….……………………….….…Respondent

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

COUNSELS APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Page 1 of 28
 7th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019 |TC-03|

TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Abbreviations .................................................................................................................3

Index of Authorities ...................................................................................................................4

Statement of Jurisdiction............................................................................................................6

Statement of Facts......................................................................................................................7

Issues Raised............................................................................................................................11

Summary of Arguments...........................................................................................................12

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED .................................................................................................14

I.WHETHER THE NON-RECUSAL OF JUSTICE MARK FROM THE CASE HAS RESULTED IN
GRAVE PREJUDICE TO THE APPELLANT AND CAUSED STRICT VIOLATION OF THE
PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE OR NOT?.......................................................................14

[A]. Principle of Natural Justice…………………………………………………………...14

[B]. Non – Recusal of Justice Mark………………………………..................................15

II. WHETHER THE COMMITTEE SET UP BY THE IB MINISTRY VIOLATED DUE PROCESS
OF LAW AND THE DECISION OF BLANKET BAN WAS ARBITRARY AND UNTENABLE IN
LAW OR NOT?......................................................................................................................17

[A]. Due process of law not violated …………..........................................................17

[B]. Blanket ban was not arbitrary ............................................................................18

III. WHETHER XING T.V. VIOLATED THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF MR. VIJAY LALIT
SODHI, OR WHETHER IT WAS A MERE EXERCISE OF FREEDOM OF PRESS OR
NOT?..................................................................................................................................21

[A]. Right to Privacy…………………………………………………………………………..21

Prayer...............................................................................................................................24

Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………25

Page 2 of 25
 7th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019 |TC-03|

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

¶ Paragraph
A.P. Andhra Pradesh
AIHC All India High Court Cases
AIR All India Reporter
Art. Article
Cal Calcutta
cl. clause
ed. Edition
FCR Federal Court Reports
GKSMB Gatoch Kormi Shrines Management Board
Hon’ble Honourable
No. Number
Pat Patna
PC Privy Council
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
Sec. Section

v. Versus

Page 3 of 25
 7th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019 |TC-03|

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

1 Ex-Armymen’s Protection Services (P) Ltd. V. (2014) 5 SCC 409 14

Union of India,
2 Sahara India Real Estate Corpn. Ltd. V. SEBI, 2013) 1 SCC 1 14

3 Natwar Singh v. Director of Enforcement, (2010) 13 SCC 255 14,15

4 Arcot textile Mills Ltd. V. Relg. Provident Fund (2013) 16 SCC 1 14

Commr.
5 R.S.Dass v. Union of India 1986 (Supp.) SCC 617 14

6 State of Kerala v. K.T. Shaduli Grocery (1977) 2 SCC 777 15

7 Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India (2014) 8 SCC 470 15

8 R.K. Anand v. Delhi High Court (2009) 8 SCC 106 15

9 Ganesh Ramkisan Bairagii vs Parwatabai Wd/O Second Appeal No.24 of 16, 17

Tukaram Appa 2002
10 Advocates-on-Record - Association and another v. 2015 (11) SCALE 1 16
Union of India
11 A.K.Gopalan v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 27, 99 17

12 D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A Industries Ltd. (1993) 3 SCC 259, para 10 18

13 Sahara India Real Estate Corpn. Ltd. V. Securities 2012 Cri LJ 4584 19,20
Exchange Board of India
14 Indian Express Newspaper v. Union of India and 1986 AIR 515, 19
others Etc. 1985 SCR (2) 287
15 Sreenivasa General Traders v. State of A.P. (1983) 4 SCC 353 19

16 Virendra v. State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 896 19,20

17 Sakal Papers (P.)Ltd.v. Union of India AIR 1962 SC 305 19

18 Shri Surya Prakash Khatri & Anr. vs Smt. Madhu 2001 CriLJ 3476 19
Trehan And Others
19 In re:Harjai Singh (1996) 6 SCC 466 19

20 M.C. Mehta v. UOI (2004) 1 SCC 712 20

21 Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1961 SC 884 20

22 Gobind v. State of M.P. (1975) 2 SCC 148 21

Page 4 of 25
 7th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019 |TC-03|

23 K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India and others (2017) 10 SCC 1 21

24 Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. AIR 1963 SC 1295 22

25 R. Rajagopalan v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994) 6 SCC 632, 650 22,23

26 Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra (1987) 4 SCC 373 22

27 Prabha Dutt v. Union of India (1982) 1 SCC 1 22

28 State through Supdt., Central Jail, N.D. v. Charulata (1999) 4 SCC 65 22

Joshi
29 Amar Singh v. Union of India (2011) 7 SCC 90 23

Page 5 of 25
 7th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019 |TC-03|

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

I. PETITION NO. OF 2015

It is most respectfully submitted that the Petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court under
Article 136 of the Constitution of India that reads:

Article 136: Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court

(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, 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.

(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, and sentence or order passed or
made, by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.

Page 6 of 25
 7th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019 |TC-03|

STATEMENT OF FACTS

BACKGROUND

Mindia is a Sovereign Democratic Republic Country situated in the south-east of Masia, which
got its Independence in the year 1947 after a prolonged struggle for independence with
Mingland. Immediately after attaining its independence, Mindia drafted its own Constitution
and recognized it as the supreme law of the land. While formulating the Constitution certain
extra powers and rights were provided in the areas pertaining to Judiciary, Executive,
Legislature, Press and privacy of the citizens.

Mr. Vijay Lalit Sodhi is one of the leading business tycoons of Mindia, who is well known for
his political ties and widely expanded businesses. He is also the chairman of Women helpline
NGO which provides pro bono services to the women in the society. In the past, various State
Governments and Central Governments had recognized the services and contributions of Mr.
Vijay Lalit Sodhi and awarded him with various awards. However, there were certain
speculations in the current year elections that he had funded the election campaign of the ruling
party of Mindia and it is also alleged that he possessed clout over the government.

Mr. Vijay Lalit Sodhi had two daughters, Chinky Lalit Sodhi, the elder daughter and Pinky
Lalit Sodhi, the younger one Ms. Pinky Lalit Sodhi recently won the prestigious Fhoding
Scholarship by virtue of which she got admission into the Forward University for pursuing
master's in law and diplomacy whereas his elder daughter Ms. Chinky Lalit Sodhi is an
established and well reputed Lawyer and she had completed her masters in Law from Sondon.
Moreover, due to her exemplary performance in academia, she was also awarded a full funded
scholarship from Government of Mindia, for pursuing her master's degree. After completing
her masters, she started practicing in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Mindia. Apart from the
above, she was also an empaneled lawyer for various government departments and PSUs.

NEWS REGARDING A BILLION DOLLAR CONTRACT

Days after the results of the elections were announced, Fling Times a daily newspaper, which
was controlled by the Xing TV, in its front page on 26/04/2019 published a news regarding a
Billion Dollar contract for manufacturing Time Machine, which was given to one company in
the name and style of My Rules Pvt. Ltd., on 11/04/2019 and the company was owned by the
Mr. Vijay Lalit Sodhi. However, the headline of the newspaper stated: “Isn't it too early to pay
election debts”.
Page 7 of 25
 7th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019 |TC-03|

F.I.R. AGAINST XING T.V.

Furthermore, Vijay Lalit Sodhi was the chairman of a Women Helpline NGO, which provided
pro-bono services for the welfare of women in society. On 30/04/2019, the very famous news
channel Xing TV telecasted a breaking news with the headline, “Mr. Vijay Lalit Sodhi and his
various affairs” in that news show, Xing TV revealed many private and obscene pictures of
Mr. Vijay Lalit Sodhi with different women.

Aggrieved by which, on very next day, dated: 1/05/2019, Mr. Vijay Lalit Sodhi lodged an FIR
against Xing TV as the news item violated his right to privacy and caused irreparable harm to
his business and reputation, on 05/05/2019 he also filed a formal complaint before the Ministry
of Information and Broadcasting (herein after referred as IB Ministry). Meanwhile, Xing T.V.
had already telecasted that show thrice on their news channel. Moreover, the aforementioned
show received the highest TRP of all times in that week.

Few months back Ms. Chinky Lalit Sodhi had also filed a complaint against Xing TV before
the IB Ministry, as it was alleged that one of the journalists associated with Xing TV clicked
a picture of her with a famous Bollywood actor Patlu Sikka and broadcasted it with a headline
“New love birds of B-Town?” Resultantly, after reading the news, fiancé of Ms. Chinky Lalit
Sodhi, Mr. Kabir Singh, who was a famous Russian Actor, broke up his ties with her.

Later on it was found that it was just an assumption made out by the news channel. Resultantly
Xing TV was ordered to scroll an apology stating name of Ms. Chinky Lalit Sodhi for 24 hours
for the next 7 days.

After the telecast of news related to Mr. Vijay Lalit Sodhi. He was immediately removed from
the position of the chairman from his Women Helpline NGO. Not only this but also his
company share prices suffered a major downfall and reduction in their price.

Further Six women ex-employees filed a complaint against Mr. Vijay Lalit Sodhi in the police
station alleging that Mr. Vijay Lalit Sodhi was a person with a questionable character. It was
also alleged that he had often asked for personal favours from them on many occasions, and
subsequently all of them got sacked from their jobs when they tried to expose Mr. Vijay Lalit
Sodhi.

SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO XING T.V.

Xing TV received a show-cause notice dated: 10/05/2019 from the Ministry of IB and was
directed to appear in person before the committee. On the day of appearance, Xing TV in their
reply to notice stated that, they had received a parcel from an undisclosed third party containing
Page 8 of 25
 7th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019 |TC-03|

a video clip of Mr. Vijay Lalit Sodhi and therefore keeping general interest of public in mind,
they ran that news in their news channel as it is their right to broadcast correct and authentic
news. However, the committee was not satisfied with the justifications presented by the news
channel.

Subsequently after giving due consideration to the present case, the Committee imposed a
blanket ban on the Xing TV for 10 days with immediate effect stating that the rationale
produced by Xing TV was not sufficient. Against which, the news channel pleaded that they
have investigated regarding the authenticity of the images and videos broadcasted on TV and
it emerged as a true story. Hence, it was important news in the interest of the public.

The blanket ban attracted many criticisms from across the globe. Some newspapers even
printed that, Mr. Vijay Lalit Sodhi used his clout to ban Xing TV. It was also alleged that, one
person among the committee members was a relative of Mr. Vijay Lalit Sodhi. Moreover, one
scholar also wrote “The Mindian government used the right to press, for its old friend.”

On 01/05/2019 Mr. Vijay Lalit Sodhi along with his PR team held a press conference to clear
the air on the issue. However, in the press conference, only his PR team answered the questions
asked by the media personnel. In the press conference his PR Team also told the media persons
that the complaint filed by the ex-employees of Mr. Vijay Lalit Sodhi were false, fabricated
and hence baseless. They all were sacked from their jobs because it was found from the internal
investigation that they had leaked the confidential data pertaining to the Time Machine
Contract to the media. His PR team also alleged that Xing TV and Fling Times are deliberately
trying to frame Mr. Vijay Lalit Sodhi and his family members for the reasons best known to
them.

On 03/05/2019 after the press conference, again Fling times published the news regarding
termination of his six employees from the office of Mr. Vijay Lalit Sodhi. Newspaper reported
that out of his six ex-employees four were removed from their job in the month of January and
February, 2019.

NON-RECUSAL OF JUSTICE MARK

Aggrieved by the decision of the Committee, Xing TV filed a petition in the Hon'ble High
Court of the State of Mindia. The present case was listed before the Court of Justice Filan J
Mark and Justice Manuradha.

Justice Mark had once written a letter of Recommendation for the daughter of Mr. Vijay Lalit
Sodhi when she was a judicial clerk of Hon'ble Justice, which also helped her in bagging the
Page 9 of 25
 7th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019 |TC-03|

scholarship. Moreover, Justice Mark had also Co-authored an article “Media cannot enter into
private affairs” in his college days, which was recently referred by the Hon'ble Apex Court
while pronouncing landmark judgment pertaining to linking of Rashion Cards.

The counsel of Xing T.V. moved an application for recusal of Justice Mark from the present
case stating that there was a possibility of bias and existed conflict of interest in the present
matter as the Hon'ble Justice had written a letter of recommendation for the daughter of Mr.
Vijay Lalit Sodhi.

However, Justice Mark didn't recuse himself from the present case in hand and While deciding
the case, Justice Mark upheld the decision of the committee and observed “Media should think
before broadcasting” and he also ordered Xing T.V. to pay additional cost as damages to Mr.
Vijay Lalit Sodhi and explicitly mentioned that, for further monetary claims, Mr. Vijay Lalit
Sodhi is free to approach the Civil Court. Aggrieved by the decision of Hon'ble High Court,
Xing T.V. filed a Special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of Mindia
against the order of Hon'ble High Court in the apex institution of the country.

Page 10 of 25
 7th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019 |TC-03|

ISSUES RAISED

I.

WHETHER THE NON-RECUSAL OF JUSTICE MARK FROM THE CASE HAS RESULTED IN GRAVE
PREJUDICE TO THE APPELLANT AND CAUSED STRICT VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF
NATURAL JUSTICE OR NOT?

II.

WHETHER THE COMMITTEE SET UP BY THE IB MINISTRY VIOLATED DUE PROCESS OF LAW
AND THE DECISION OF BLANKET BAN WAS ARBITRARY AND UNTENABLE IN LAW OR NOT?

III.

WHETHER XING T.V. VIOLATED THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF MR. VIJAY LALIT SODHI, OR
WHETHER IT WAS A MERE EXERCISE OF FREEDOM OF PRESS OR NOT?

Page 11 of 25
 7th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019 |TC-03|

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. WHETHER THE NON-RECUSAL OF JUSTICE MARK FROM THE CASE HAS RESULTED IN
GRAVE PREJUDICE TO THE APPELLANT AND CAUSED STRICT VIOLATION OF THE
PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE OR NOT?

The Counsel for the Respondent most humbly and respectfully submits that non recusal of
justice mark has not violated any of the principle of natural justice as Natural Justice is an
expression of English Common Law having its origin in Jus Natural. Natural Justice also
involves the procedural requirement of fairness. However, the rules of natural justice have
limitations. The rules of natural justice being founded on principles of fairness can be available
only to party which has itself been fair, and therefore, deserves to be treated fairly. Further
According to the Black’s Law Dictionary 10th Edition Recusal means that the act of a judge or
prosecutor being removed or voluntarily stepping aside from a legal case due to conflict of
interest or other good reasons. However, held in the absence of a genuine plea of bias, judge
recusing himself from the matter would constitute an act in breach of oath of office of the judge
which mandates the judge to perform duties of his office, to the best of his abilities, without
fear or favor, affection or ill-will.

II. WHETHER THE COMMITTEE SET UP BY THE IB MINISTRY VIOLATED DUE PROCESS OF
LAW AND THE DECISION OF BLANKET BAN WAS ARBITRARY AND UNTENABLE IN LAW
OR NOT?
The counsel for the respondent most humbly and respectfully submits that the committee set up
by the Ministry of Information and broadcasting has not violated the due process of law of as
the due process is the application of the law as it exists in fair and regular course of
administrative procedure which includes that due process of law is procedure established by law
+ procedure should be fair/just and not arbitrary. Further due process of law had not been
violated as the committee followed the fair and regular course of administrative procedure
because the show cause notice was issued to Xing T.V. and reasonable opportunity was also
given to file their reply and after the justification given by Xing T.V. decision of blanket ban
for 10 days was given by the committee. The blanket ban imposed by the committee of ministry
of IB was not arbitrary as State is empowered to impose reasonable restrictions on the freedom
of press of Xing T.V, under Article 19(2). The restrictions may be imposed by any of authorities
Page 12 of 25
 7th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019 |TC-03|

who are included in the definition of ‘State’ in Art. 12 and who are competent to make ‘law’
under Art. 13(3)(a).

III. WHETHER XING T.V. VIOLATED THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF MR. VIJAY LALIT
SODHI, OR WHETHER IT WAS A MERE EXERCISE OF FREEDOM OF PRESS OR NOT?

Xing T.V. has violated right to privacy of Mr. Vijay Lalit Sodhi as privacy has been described
as “the rightful claim of the individual to determine the extent to which he wishes to share of
himself with others and his control over the time, place and circumstances to communicate with
others. Privacy simpliciter is the “right to be left alone”. The term “privacy” has been described
as “the rightful claim of the individual to determine the extent to which he wishes to share of
himself with others and his control over the time, place and circumstances to communicate with
others. Further none can publish anything concerning the above matters without his consent —
whether truthful or otherwise and whether laudatory or critical. If he does so, he would be
violating the right to privacy of the person concerned and would be liable in an action for
damages.

Page 13 of 25
 7th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019 |TC-03|

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

At the outset, it is submitted that the Constitution of India is analogous to the Constitution of
Mindia. Furthermore, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting of State of Mindia is
analogous to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting of State of India.

I. WHETHER THE NON-RECUSAL OF JUSTICE MARK FROM THE CASE HAS RESULTED
IN GRAVE PREJUDICE TO THE APPELLANT AND CAUSED STRICT VIOLATION OF THE
PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE OR NOT?

[A]. PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE

1. The Counsel for the Respondent most humbly and respectfully submits that non recusal of
justice mark has not violated any of the principle of natural justice. As Natural Justice is an
expression of English Common Law having its origin in Jus Natural (law of Nature).
Natural justice is a principle of universal application. It requires that persons whose interest
are to be affected by the decision, adjudicative and administrative, receive a fair and
unbiased hearing before decision are made.1
2. Natural Justice also involves the procedural requirement of fairness. However, the rules of
natural justice have limitations. The Party concerned cannot always enjoy the advantage of
procedural prescriptions under the rules of natural justice, whether fair or not. The rules of
natural justice being founded on principles of fairness can be available only to party which
has itself been fair, and therefore, deserves to be treated fairly.2 The concept of fairness is
not a one-way street. The principles of natural justice are not intended to operate as
roadblocks to obstruct statutory inquires. 3
3. Further the principle of natural justice should neither be treated with absolute rigidity nor
should they be imprisoned in the straitjacket. The concept of natural justice requires
flexibility in the application of the rule. What is required to be seen is the ultimate weighing
on the balance of fairness the requirements of natural justice depend upon the
circumstances of the case.4 Furthermore, these principles do not apply to all cases and
situations.5
4. It is further submitted that Justice B. Sudershan Reddy in Natwar singh v. Director of

1
Ex-Armymen’s Protection Services (P) Ltd. V. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 409, para 1
2
Sahara India Real Estate Corpn. Ltd. V. SEBI, (2013) 1 SCC 1, paras 258, 259, 262
3
Natwar Singh v. Director of Enforcement, (2010) 13 SCC 255, para 26
4
Arcot textile Mills Ltd. V. Relg. Provident Fund Commr., (2013) 16 SCC 1, paras 31 and 34
5
R.S.Dass v. Union of India, 1986 (Supp.) SCC 617, para 25
Page 14 of 25
 7th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019 |TC-03|

Enforcement6 has observed that the requirement of natural justice must depend on the
circumstances of the case, the nature of the inquiry, the rules under which the tribunal is
acting, the subject-matter to be dealt with and so forth. Natural justice are not constant;
they are not absolute and rigid rules.7

[B]. NON RECUSAL OF JUSTICE MARK

5. It is further most humbly and respectfully submitted that that According to the Black’s
Law Dictionary 10th Edition Recusal means that the act of a judge or prosecutor being
removed or voluntarily stepping aside from a legal case due to conflict of interest or other
good reasons. However, held in the absence of a genuine plea of bias, judge recusing
himself from the matter would constitute an act in breach of oath of office of the judge
which mandates the judge to perform duties of his office, to the best of his abilities, without
fear or favor, affection or ill-will.8
6. Further, not hearing the matter, would constitute an act in breach of the oath of office,
which mandates the judge to perform the duties of its office, to the best of their ability,
9
without fear or favour, affection or ill will. Furthermore, in the case of R.K.Anand10
Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that “The path of recusal is very often a convenient
and a soft option. This is especially so since a Judge really has no vested interest in doing
a particular matter. However, the oath of office taken under Article 219 of the Constitution
of India enjoins the Judge to duly and faithfully and to the best of his knowledge and
judgment, perform the duties of office without fear or favour, affection or ill will while
upholding the constitution and the laws. In a case, where unfounded and motivated
allegations of bias are sought to be made with a view of forum hunting / Bench preference
or brow-beating the Court, then, succumbing to such a pressure would tantamount to not
fulfilling the oath of office." And the above determination of the High Court of Delhi was
assailed before this Court in R.K. Anand v. Delhi High Court. The determination of the
High Court whereby Mr. Justice Manmohan Sarin declined to withdraw from the hearing
of the case came to be upheld, with the following observations: “The above passage, in
our view, correctly sums up what should be the Court's response in the face of a request
for recusal made with the intent to intimidate the court or to get better of an `inconvenient'

6
Supra 3
7
State of Kerala v. K.T. Shaduli Grocery, (1977) 2 SCC 777, para 2
8
Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India, (2014) 8 SCC 470
9
ibid
10
R.K. Anand v. Delhi High Court, (2009) 8 SCC 106
Page 15 of 25
 7th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019 |TC-03|

judge or to obfuscate the issues or to cause obstruction and delay the proceedings or in
any other way frustrate or obstruct the course of justice.”
7. Furthermore, Justice Ravi K. Deshpande in Ganesh Ramkisan Bairagii vs Parwatabai Wd/O
Tukaram Appa11 had observed that “A tendency has started growing amongst lawyers to
dictate a Judge to recuse from taking up his matters when the decision goes against his client
or his wavelength does not match with the Judge or he does not find comfort in conducting
the matter or for some such reasons. This is an insult personally to a Judge. Such reactions
are normally experienced when the lawyers take heavy fees from their clients with an
assurance to bring the result of the cases in their favour or to impress upon the clients sitting
in the court room during the course of hearing, the boldness which he possesses to browbeat
the Court. If a lawyer exercises his choice of not conducting the matter, he loses his client
and fees, which he does not want to do. If a Judge accedes to such demand of a lawyer for
recusal, the effect is three-fold - (i) the confidence of a lawyer to browbeat the Court is
boosted, (ii) a lawyer gets rid of the Court where he finds discomfort in conducting the
matter, and (iii) it creates an additional source of income for him, from the other lawyers
and the litigants, who do not want their matters listed or dealt with by such a Judge. This
promotes the practice of bench-hunting. No system of justice can tolerate such practice by
a lawyer and the same is required to be curbed and deprecated.”
8. It is further submitted that a Judge may recuse at his own choice from a case entrusted to
him by the Chief Justice and it would be a matter of his own choosing. But recusal at the
asking of the litigating party, unless justified, must never be acceded to. The question of
recusal is normally decided by a Judge on the basis of his personal or private interest in the
subject-matter of the litigation before him, his perception about conflict of interest in taking
up the matter, and his own conscience. Such decision does not depend upon the dictates of
lawyers or litigants. 12
9. Recusal to take the matters to be conducted by some lawyers, is a matter of Judge's own
choosing and it cannot be at the dictates of the lawyers. What a Judge has to see is that he
performs his duty of deciding the matters before him without fear or favour, affection or ill-
will. Ultimately, a Judge is also a human-being and the Judges come from different strata
of the Society, having their own views, ideas, angle or perception, based on the varied
individual experience in life, which may or may not match with each other’s or with some
lawyers or litigants. However, this cannot be a reason to avoid conducting the matters listed

11
Ganesh Ramkisan Bairagii vs Parwatabai Wd/O Tukaram Appa, Second Appeal No.24 of 2002
12
Advocates-on-Record - Association and another v. Union of India, reported in 2015 (11) SCALE 1
Page 16 of 25
 7th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019 |TC-03|

before such a Judge or the Judges. Once the constitutional authority of a Judge or the Judges
to adjudicate the matters is accepted, it cannot be lowered down by asking him or them to
recuse to hear and decide the matter.13 To prevent a Judge or the Judges from performing
his or their duties in this fashion causes distraction of attention in the judicial proceedings,
which amounts to interference in the course of justice.
10. Therefore, by non-recusal of justice Mark no principle of natural justice has been violated
as recusal of the judge depends on his own discretion in the absence on the genuine plea of
bias. Further principles of natural justice are not absolute there are some limitations to them
and they depend on the circumstances of the case. And in the present case beforehand there
is no genuine of bias and no violation of principle of natural justice as anybody can write a
letter of recommendation while recognizing a brilliant student mind for his/her better future
so a mere letter of recommendation cannot be a reason for accusing a virtuoso sitting judge
like justice Mark of bias.

II. WHETHER THE COMMITTEE SET UP BY THE IB MINISTRY VIOLATED DUE PROCESS
OF LAW AND THE DECISION OF BLANKET BAN WAS ARBITRARY AND UNTENABLE IN
LAW OR NOT?

[A]. DUE PROCESS OF LAW NOT VIOLATED

1. The counsel for the respondent most humbly and respectfully submits that the committee set
up by the Ministry of Information and broadcasting has not violated the due process of law
of as the due process is the application of the law as it exists in fair and regular course of
administrative procedure which includes that due process of law is procedure established by
law + procedure should be fair/just and not arbitrary. The best description of the expression
‘due process of law’ would be to say that it means in each particular case such exercise of
the power of the government as the settled maxims of law permits and sanction and under
such safeguards for the protection of the individual rights as those maxims prescribe for the
class of cases to which the one in question belongs. 14

2. Further due process of law had not been violated as the committee followed the fair and
regular course of administrative procedure because the show cause notice was issued to Xing

13
Supra 11
14
A.K.Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27, 99
Page 17 of 25
 7th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019 |TC-03|

T.V. and reasonable opportunity was also given to file their reply and after the justification
given by Xing T.V. decision of blanket ban for 10 days was given by the committee.15

3. It is further submitted that according to the law laid down by this Hon’ble Court in D.K.
Yadav v. J.M.A Industries Ltd.16 that “the procedure prescribed must be just fair reasonable
even though there is no specific provision in a statue or rules made thereunder for showing
cause of against action proposed to be taken against an individual, which affects right of that
individual. The duty to give reasonable opportunity to be heard will be implied from the
nature of the function to be performed by the authority which has the power to take punitive
or damaging action.” Furthermore, because show cause notice was issued and reasonable
opportunity was given to be heard to Xing T.V. therefore, it can held that due process of law
was followed by the committee setup by Ministry of IB

[B]. BLANKET BAN WAS NOT ARBITRARY

4. The counsel further submits that the blanket ban imposed by the committee of ministry of
IB was not arbitrary as State is empowered to impose reasonable restrictions on the freedom
of press of Xing T.V, under Article 19(2) which states as under

Nothing in sub clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or
prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions
on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause in the interests of the sovereignty
and integrity of Mindia, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public
order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to
an offence.

The restrictions may be imposed by any of authorities who are included in the definition of
‘State’ in Art. 1217 and who are competent to make ‘law’ under Art. 13(3)(a).18

5. Under our Constitution, no right in Part III is absolute. Freedom of expression is not an

15
Factsheet, ¶ 12, 13
16
D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A Industries Ltd., (1993) 3 SCC 259, para 10
17
Definition In this part, unless the context otherwise requires, the State includes the Government and Parliament
of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the
territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.
18
In this article, unless the context otherwise requires law includes any Ordinance, order, bye law, rule, regulation,
notification, custom or usages having in the territory of India the force of law; laws in force includes laws passed or
made by Legislature or other competent authority in the territory of India before the commencement of this
Constitution and not previously repealed, notwithstanding that any such law or any part thereof may not be then in
operation either at all or in particular areas.

Page 18 of 25
 7th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019 |TC-03|

absolute value under our constitution. It must not be forgotten that no single value, no matter
exalted, can bear the full burden upholding a democratic system of government. Underlying
our Constitutional system are a number of important values, all of which help to guarantee
our liberties, but in ways which sometimes conflict. Under our Constitution, probably, no
values are absolute. All important values, therefore, must be qualified and balanced against,
other important, and often competing values.19

6. It is further submitted that there is no such thing and uncontrolled or absolute liberty which
is completely free from restraint, for that would lead to anarchy and disorder. Every right is
subject to reasonable conditions essential to the safety, health, peace, and general order and
moral of the community. And for the very protection of these liberties, the Constitution
makes an attempt to strike balance between individual liberty and social control.
Furthermore, there could not be any kind of restrictions on freedom of speech and expression
other than those mentioned in Article 19(2).20

7. “Absolute and unrestricted individual rights do not and cannot exist in any Modern State.
There is no protection of the rights themselves unless there is a measure of control and
regulation of rights of each individual in the interest of all.”21

8. Further Under our constitution, there is no separate guarantee of the freedom of Press. It is
implicit in the freedom of expression conferred on all citizens.22 It is subject to the same
limitations as are imposed by Art. 19(2) and to those limitations only.23 The freedom of press
under our Constitution is not higher than that of citizen and that there is no greater privilege
attaching to the profession of the press as distinguished from the members of the public. To
whatever height the subject in general may go, so also may the journalist, and if an ordinary
citizen may not transgress the law so must not the Press. That the exercise of expression is
subject to the reasonable restriction of the law of contempt is borne out by clause (2)
of Article 19 of the Constitution.24

9. It has been established by the Supreme Court that freedom of press is not absolute, unlimited
and unfettered at all times and in all circumstances as it would lead to disorder and anarchy.25
Liberty of an individual which is so dear to every citizen of this country must necessarily be

19
Sahara India Real Estate Corpn. Ltd. V. Securities Exchange Board of India 2012 Cri LJ 4584
20
Indian Express Newspaper v. Union of India and others Etc., 1986 AIR 515, 1985 SCR (2) 287
21
Sreenivasa General Traders v. State of A.P.,(1983) 4 SCC 353, para 17
22
Virendra v. State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 896
23
Sakal Papers (P.)Ltd.v. Union of India,AIR 1962 SC 305.
24
Shri Surya Prakash Khatri & Anr. vs Smt. Madhu Trehan And Others, 2001 CriLJ 3476
25
In re:Harjai Singh, (1996) 6 SCC 466, para 10
Page 19 of 25
 7th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019 |TC-03|

balance with duties and obligations towards fellow citizens.26 Thus, anticipatory actions in
emergent circumstance may be reasonable e.g. - to prevent the breach of peace or public
morality. 27

10. Further it is a well-established principle that the imposition of pre-censorship in emergent

circumstance, i.e. for the breach of peace, public morality or communal disturbance, will be
valid.28 In Virendra v. State of Punjab29 a law which empowers the State Government or its
delegate to prohibit, for a limited period the publication in or importation into a particular
area of matters prejudicial to the maintenance of communal harmony, affecting or likely to
affect public order, because the mischief to be averted demands quick and effective decision
is vaild.

11. It is further submitted that just as every person possesses the freedom of speech and
expressions, every person also possesses a right to his reputation which is regarded as
property. Hence, nobody can so use his freedom of speech or expression as to injure
another’s reputation. Law penalizing defamation do not therefore, constitute infringement of
the freedom of speech.

12. Therefore, also by virtue of directive principle of state policy enshrined in our constitution
it is crystal clear that it the duty of the state to put a stop to something which possesses a
potential threat to the peace and harmony or the integrity of the country. It is further humbly
submitted that Mr. Vijay Lalit Sodhi is a great public icon and if something personal to that
person comes out in public it hampers the public at large. It will also be of prima facie
importance to not hear that even a person like Mr. Vijay Lalit Sodhi has his fundamental
rights to keep his personal things to himself. Begin a big business tycoon does not render a
person as a bait in the hands of public/press to be telecasted on television and therefore the
respondents has nothing but tried to do its duty of protecting each and every citizen of its
country which includes Mr. Vijay Lalit Sodhi also. And therefore, it cannot be said that the
committee setup by IB Ministry has violated any due process of law and also the ban was
reasonable and not arbitrary.

26
M.C. Mehta v. UOI, (2004) 1 SCC 712
27
BabulalParate v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1961 SC 884
28
Surpa 19
29
Supra 22

Page 20 of 25
 7th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019 |TC-03|

III. WHETHER XING T.V. VIOLATED THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF MR. VIJAY
LALIT SODHI, OR WHETHER IT WAS A MERE EXERCISE OF FREEDOM OF PRESS
OR NOT?

[A]. RIGHT TO PRIVACY

1. The counsel for the respondent most humbly and respectfully submits that Xing T.V.
has violated right to privacy of Mr. Vijay Lalit Sodhi as privacy has been described as
“the rightful claim of the individual to determine the extent to which he wishes to share
of himself with others and his control over the time, place and circumstances to
communicate with others.30 Privacy simpliciter is the “right to be left alone”.31

2. Right to privacy is not defined in law except in the dictionaries. The courts, however,
by process of judicial interpretation, have assigned meaning to this right in the context
of specific issues involved on case-to-case basis. The most popular meaning of “Right
to privacy” is “Right to be alone”.32 Privacy, in its simplest sense, allows each human
being to be left alone in core which is inviolable. 33

3. The term “privacy” has been described as “the rightful claim of the individual to
determine the extent to which he wishes to share of himself with others it means his
right to withdraw or to participate as he sees fit. It also means the individual's right to
control dissemination of information about himself; it is his own personal possession”34

4. The concept is used to describe not only rights purely in the private domain between
individuals but also constitutional rights against the State. It deals with the extent to
which a private citizen (which includes the media and the general public) is entitled to
personal information about another individual.

5. The right to privacy in India has derived itself from essentially two sources: the common
law of torts and the constitutional law. In common law, a private action for damages for
unlawful invasion of privacy is maintainable. The printer and publisher of a journal,
magazine or book are liable in damages if they publish any matter concerning the private

30
Adam Caryle Breckenridge, The Right to Privacy, 1971.
31
The phrase was coined by Thomas M. Cooley in his treatise, The Law of Torts (2nd Edn., 1888)
32
Gobind v. State of M.P., (1975) 2 SCC 148
33
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India and others, (2017) 10 SCC 1
34
Adam Carlyle Breckenridge: The Right to Privacy, 1971.
Page 21 of 25
 7th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019 |TC-03|

life of the individual without such person's consent.

6. It is further submitted that our Constitution does not expressly declare a right to privacy
as a fundamental right, but the said right is an essential ingredient of personal liberty.35
This Hon’ble Court in Kharak Singh held that “nothing is more deleterious to a man's
physical happiness and health than a calculated interference with his privacy”36.
The right to privacy, though curiously absent in the Constitution of India derives its
ambiguous basis from the right to life and personal liberty, as enshrined in Article 21,
thereby being interpreted as an unarticulated fundamental right. Furthermore,
convergence of technologies has spawned immense concerns as to privacy rights and
data protection, owing to the facile accessibility and communicability of personal data.

7. Further the counsel respectfully submits that this Hon’ble Court in R. Rajagopal37
popularly known as “Auto Shankar” case held that None can publish anything
concerning the above matters without his consent — whether truthful or otherwise and
whether laudatory or critical. If he does so, he would be violating the right to privacy of
the person concerned and would be liable in an action for damages.

8. Furthermore, Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 (herein

after referred as UDHR) also provides that “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary
interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence or to attacks upon his
honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such
interference or attacks”.

9. This Hon’ble Court touched upon the rights of the individual to privacy vis-à-vis
invasions by journalists in Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra38, Prabha
Dutt v. Union of India39 and also recently in State through Supdt., Central Jail,
N.D. v. Charulata Joshi40 In all these cases journalists sought permission from the
Court to interview and photograph prisoners. Although the issue of privacy was not
directly dealt with, the Court implicitly acknowledged the right to privacy by holding
that the press had no absolute right to interview or photograph a prisoner but could do
so only with his consent. These cases are important because they endeavor to strike a

35
Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 1295
36
ibid
37
(1994) 6 SCC 632, 650, para 26
38
(1987) 4 SCC 373
39
(1982) 1 SCC 1
40
(1999) 4 SCC 65
Page 22 of 25
 7th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019 |TC-03|

balance between the public's right to know and the privacy of the individual.

10. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that Xing T.V. violated the right to privacy of Mr.
Vijay Lalit Sodhi as he has a right to determine the extent to which he wishes to share
information about himself with others and his control over the time, place and
circumstances to communicate with others. Mr. Vijay Lalit Sodhi also has a right to
control dissemination of information about himself as it is his own personal possession.
Further according to law laid down by this Hon’ble Court in State through Supdt.,
Central Jail, N.D. v. Charulata Joshi 41and Auto Shankar42 Case that “None can publish
anything concerning the above matters without his consent — whether truthful or
otherwise and whether laudatory or critical.” Xing T.V. failed to take the consent and
confirm the news from Mr. Vijay Lalit Sodhi and declared him guilty in the trial of
media.

11. Furthermore, Xing T.V. also failed to declare the identity of the third party from whom
they received the parcel containing a video clip and images of Mr. Vijay Lalit Sodhi
before the committee and learned High Court. Also according to observation made by
this Hon’ble Court in Amar Singh v. Union of India43 that “any person who makes an
affidavit in the court must state the full facts that he knows to be true and point out the
sources of his information. Secondly, by virtue of Section 106 of the Evidence Act
“Burden of proving the fact especially in knowledge is upon a person in whose
knowledge that fact is”. Therefore, according to the facts of the present case in hands
responsibility was on Xing T.V. to prove the authenticity of its source about the news.
But as already mentioned above the Xing T.V. failed to prove this before the learned
committee as well as before Hon’ble High Court. Thirdly, that no person must
come to the court with unclean hands.” Xing T.V. failed to disclose the full facts about
the source of information and investigation made by them about the authenticity of
videos and images in the affidavit made by them before the committee and the learned
High Court.

12. Therefore, from the point mentioned above it is crystal clear that Xing T.V. violated the
right to privacy of Mr. Vijay Lalit Sodhi by abusing the freedom of speech and
expression and also they came to this Hon’ble Court with unclean hands.

41
ibid
42
Supra 37
43
(2011) 7 SCC 90
Page 23 of 25
 7th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019 |TC-03|

PRAYER

Wherefore, in light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is humbly
prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:

I. Petition may kindly be dismiss with heavy costs.

AND/OR

Pass any such order as this Hon’ble Court deems fit or proper, benefitting the

respondent, for this petition shall duty bound pray, in the interest of Justice and Equity.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully

submitted.

Place: ----- S/d----

Date: Counsel on the behalf of the Respondent

Page 24 of 25
 7th NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019 |TC-03|

BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. ONLINE SOURCES

1. Indian Kanoon

2. All India Reporter

3. Manupatra

4. Law finder

5. Supreme Court Cases Online

6. Case Mine

7. Jstor.org

8. Legal Crystal

II. BOOKS REFERRED

1. Natural Justice Principles and Practical Application - Geoffrey A. Flick

2. Concise Law Dictionary – P. Ramanatha Aiyar

3. Black’s Law Dictionary 10th Edition - Bryan A. Garner, Henry Black

4. Black’s Law Dictionary 11th Edition - Bryan A. Garner, Henry Black

5. Indian Constitutional Law (8th edition) – M P Jain.

6. Commentary on the Constitution of India – C.K.Thakkar. (volume 1)
7. Commentary on the Constitution of India – C.K.Thakkar. (volume 2)
8. Commentary on the Constitution of India – C.K.Thakkar. (volume 3)
9. Shorter Constitution of India (14th edition) – Durga Das Basu. (volume 1)
10. Shorter Constitution of India (14th edition) – Durga Das Basu. (volume 2)
11. Constitutional Law of India (4th edition) – H. M. Seervai (volume 1)
12. Constitutional Law of India (4th edition) – H. M. Seervai (volume 2)
13. Constitutional Law of India (4th edition) – H. M. Seervai (volume 3)
14. P.K. Das International Law

Page 25 of 25