TEAM NO: 12

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ESTANCIA

IN THE MATTERS OF

SUIT NO: 001/2021

Ayush Pandey……………………. ……………………………………………….PETITIONER

V.

Cineflix Ltd. & Ors ……………………………………………………………...RESPONDENT

BEFORE SUBMISSION TO HON’BLE JUDGES OF SUPREME COURT OF ESTANCIA

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

[1]. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

[2]. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

[3]. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

[4]. STATEMENT OF FACTS

[5]. STATEMENT OF ISSUES

[6]. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

[7]. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

[8]. PRAYER
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATION EXPANSION

AIR All India Reporter

Anr Another

Art. Article

¶ Paragraph

S Section

Hon’ble Honourable

HC High Court

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

PIL Public Interest Litigation

IPC Indian Penal Code

CrPC Code of Criminal Procedure

Edn Edition

Ors Others

SUPP Supplementary

U.O.I Union of India

SLP Special Leave Petition

V. versus

Vol. Volume
 HMA Hindu Marriage Act.

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

1. LIST OF STATUTES

1. THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

2. THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973
3. THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955
4. THE SPECIAL MARRIAGE ACT, 1954
5. THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT,1872
6. THE HINDU MAINTENANCE ACT, 1955
7. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950

II. LIST OF CASES REFERRED

S.No Cases Citation

1. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research v K. G. S. Bhatt AIR 1972 (SC)

2. Raghunath G. Pauhale v Chagan Lal Sundarji & Co 8 SCC 1 (SC)

3. Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of income Tax 1955 AIR 65

4. Kusum Bhatia v. Sagar Sethi 16051/2017

5. Joseph Shine v. Union of India 2018 SC 1676

6. Abdul munaf v. Salima 1979 CriLJ 172

7. V. Revathi v. Union of India & Ors 1988 SCC (2) 72

8. Central Inland Water Transportation and Common Cause 1986 AIR 1571

9. Sari v. Kalyan 85 CWN 73

10. Usha Bharti V. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 22035/2013

11. State of Assam Vs. Ripa Sarma 2671/2011

12. Suseel Finance & Leasing Co. Vs. M. Lata & Ors. (2004) 13 SCC 675

13. Bhanumati & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh through its 4135-4152/2010
Principal Secretary & Ors

14. Shayara Bano v Union of India (2017) 9 SCC 1

15. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, [WP (Crl.) No.

76/2016]

16. K M Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1

17. Nar Singh Pal v. UOI, (2000) 3 SCC

589,594

18. Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India, AIR 2008 SC 663

19. Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K .M. & Ors S.L.P. (Crl.) No.
5777 of 2017

20. R.M.D.C. v. UOI, AIR 1957 SC 628

LIST OF BOOKS REFERRED

S.No BOOK TITLE

1. Dr. J S Pandey, Constitutional Law of India, 54th Edition

2. P.S Achuthan Pillai, Criminal Law

3. Universal's The Constitution of India (Bare ACT)

4. S.N Mishra, The code of Criminal Procedure

5. KD Gaur, Textbook on Indian Penal Code

6. Family Law by Dr. Paras Diwan

7. Mookerjee, Marriage Separation and divorce, Edn 4th 2008

8. Gurbax Singh, The Principle of Hindu Law, Edn 2009

9. S.A Desai, Mulla; Principle of Hindu Law, Vol. 2 Edn.28th 2007

10. Halsbury‟s Law of India, Family Law II, Vol. 28, 2007

LIST OF JOURNALS REFERRED

1. All India Reporter

2. Supreme Court Cases

3. Indian Law Reporter

4. Supreme Court Cases

LIST OF DATABASES REFERRED

1. www.judis.nic.in

2. www.lexisnexis.com

3. www.manupatrafast.com

4. www.scconline.com

5. www.lawotopus.com

6. www.indiankanoon.org

7. www.westlaw.com
8. www.Journal.indianlegalsolution.com

9. www.legalserviceindia.com

10. www.blog.ipleaders.in
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon‟ble Supreme Court of Estancia has the jurisdiction in this matter under Article 32 of the
Constitution of Estancia which reads as follows:

“32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part-

(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the
enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed

(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs,
including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo
warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any
of the rights conferred by this Part.”
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Republic of Estancia is the second most densely populated country in the world.
Article 19 of the Estancia Constitution guarantees the fundamental right to freedom of
speech and expression subjected to certain restrictions. The Media enjoys a great deal of
freedom as a fundamental right.

A web-series released on Cineflix named “The Law Life” casted by famous actors Jack
and Jonny was telecasted from 12th March 2020 onwards. This screenplay of this series
revolved around a budding advocate's life. Few contents in an episode of this web-series,
were addressing the lawyers as thieves, rogues, goons, and rapists. The said remarks have
caused utmost damage to the legal profession and impugned the image of lawyers in the
eyes of millions of viewers, who visited this streaming website.

The web-series released on Cineflix named “The Law Life” is highly disparaging and
demeaning in nature and brings disrespect to the profession of law and lawyers in the
eyes of the general public.

Advocate Ayush Pandey has filed a suit with a plea seeking to restrain online
media-streaming platform Cineflix from airing its web-series “The Law Life” for
sabotaging and defaming the image and reputation of lawyers and advocate profession.
The suit also pleads to direct the producers, directors, actors, and writers of the web
series to issue “an unconditional apology online for slandering the image of the lawyers’
community”.
 ISSUES RAISED

1. WHETHER THE WEB-SERIES “THE LAW LIFE” IS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF

ARTICLE 19(1) (a) OF THE CONSTITUTION

2. THERE ARE NO GROUNDS ON WHICH INJUNCTION CAN BE GRANTED TO

RESTRAIN THE EXHIBITION OF THE MOVIE
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

WHETHER THE WEB-SERIES “THE LAW LIFE” IS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF

ARTICLE 19(1) (a) OF THE CONSTITUTION

It is humbly submitted that under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of Estancia it is the
fundamental right of the producers of the web-series ‘The Law life’ to have the series exhibited.
Any restriction on the exhibition of the series would amount to curbing the freedom of speech
and expression of the filmmaker.

THERE ARE NO GROUNDS ON WHICH INJUNCTION CAN BE GRANTED TO

RESTRAIN THE EXHIBITION OF THE MOVIE

It is submitted that there are no grounds on which injunction can be granted against the release of
the movie. The balance of convenience favours the release of the movie. Granting of an
injunction would cause huge losses for the filmmaker and thus the movie should be allowed to be
exhibited.
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE WEB-SERIES “THE LAW LIFE” IS WITHIN THE SCOPE
OF ARTICLE 19(1) (a) OF THE CONSTITUTION

It is submitted that Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution protects the fundamental right of
filmmaker of ‘The Law life’ to have the web-series exhibited as a part of his freedom of speech
and expression.

In LIC v Manubhai D Shah1 the Apex Court held that a filmmaker had the fundamental right
under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution to exhibit a film as a part of his right to freedom of
speech and expression. This view was reiterated in Directorate of Film Festivals v Gaurav
Ashwin Jain2 where the Court opined that films are a medium to express and communicate ideas,
thoughts, information, messages, sentiments and emotions. In Mahesh Bhatt v Union of India3,
the High Court of Delhi emphasized that the filmmaker has the right to project life in all its hues
including the imperfections which was earlier stated in the K.A Abbas v Union of India 4 case
where the court was of the view that portrayal of a social vice could not by itself attract
censorship.

Thus, it is the fundamental right of the filmmaker to have the web-series exhibited and any
restriction on the exhibition would essentially mean curbing the freedom of speech and
expression of the filmmaker and would be thus unconstitutional as per Article 19 (1) (a).

1
2
3
4
ISSUE 2: THERE ARE NO GROUNDS ON WHICH INJUNCTION CAN BE GRANTED
TO RESTRAIN THE EXHIBITION OF THE WEB-SERIES

It is humbly submitted that no injunction should be granted against the web-series and exhibition
of the web-series ‘The Law life’ should be allowed.

Section 37(2) of the Specific Relief Act, 196312 provides for a perpetual injunction can be
granted upon the merit of the suit. The court in Reliance Petrochemical v Proprietors of Indian
Express Newspapers Bombay (P.) Ltd.5 formulated a three test step which was to be followed
before granting of an injunction. The test specified that injunction should be granted on
reasonable grounds for administration of justice to be kept unimpaired, there should be
reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is real and imminent and it should be
based on the balance of convenience test. In R.K. Anand v Registrar, Delhi High Court6 the court
was of the view that an order of pre-censorship on the grounds that the trial was pending would
affect the freedom of speech and expression as guaranteed under Article 19(1) (a) of the
Constitution. The Apex court in Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. Vs. Coca Cola Co.7 opined that while
granting injunction the court has to examine the comparative loss caused to the applicant and the
respondent in case the order is not granted, i.e. the court will examine the extent of loss and also
whether such a loss can be made good through monetary compensation and compare it with the
loss that will be caused to the respondent. The party who would suffer a greater loss would be
said to be having balance of convenience in his favour and the court should decide accordingly.

An injunction granted against the web-series ‘The Law life’ would fail the balance of
convenience test and would not satisfy any of the three tests which is required to grant
injunction. The web-series is fictitious and there is no real and imminent danger apprehended for
the web-series and not releasing it would cause immense losses to the producers. Thus the
web-series will in no way cause any defamation and at best it uses a decided set of facts in a
purely fictional manner. Thus, on applying the balance of convenience test, the loss caused to the
filmmaker outweighs the apparent loss that the web-series might cause to the petitioner.

Thus, on applying the balance of convenience test, the loss caused to the filmmaker outweighs
the apparent loss that the web-series might cause to the petitioner. It is contended, therefore, that
no injunction should be granted against the release of the web-series and its exhibition should be
allowed.

5
6
7
 PRAYER

In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this Hon’ble
Court be pleased to:

1. The web-series ‘The Law Life’ is within the scope of Article 19(1)(a) of the
constitution

2. The web-series “The Law Life” is not defamatory to advocates

3. There are no grounds on which injunction maybe granted to restrain the exhibition
of the Web-series

AND/OR

Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience. And
for this, the Respondents as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.

(COUNSELS IN BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS)