MULTI MOOT - OCTOBER 2021

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF NALANDA

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32

IN THE MATTER Of

MR. SIDDARTH....................................................................................................PETITIONER
Versus

CINEFLEX….......................................................................................................RESPONDENT

UNDER ART. 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF NALANDA

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
 MULTI MOOT - OCTOBER 2021

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.........................................................................................................3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ..............................................................……............................................4
STATUTES:………...............................................................................................................................4
BOOKS:……….....................................................................................................................................4
CASES:...............................................................................……….......................................................4
LEGAL DATABASES:………...............................................................................................................5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……...............................................................................................6
STATEMENT OF FACTS…….............................................................................................................7
STATEMENT OF ISSUES ……............................................................................................................9
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS……...................................................................................................10
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED…….......................................................................................................11
PRAYER...............................…..............................…….....................................................................12
 2
MULTI MOOT - OCTOBER 2021

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
& And

% Percentage

¶ Paragraph

A.I.R All India Reporter

Bom. Bombay

CA Calcutta

Cri. Criminal

Dr. Doctor

Del Delhi
 Edn Edition

Govt. Government

HC High Court

Hon’ble Honourable

Ibid Same as immediately above

ILR Indian Law Review

J. Justice

MP Member of the Parliament

Mad Madras

MANU Manupatra

MH Maharashtra

No. Number

PIL Public Interest Litigation

Pvt. Ltd. Private Limited

Pg. Page

Ors. Others

Raj Rajasthan

Rep. Represented

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SC Supreme Court

Supra Mentioned before

Suppl. Supplementary

UOI Union of India

U.P Uttar Pradesh

u/ Under
 3
MULTI MOOT - OCTOBER 2021

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES:

1. The Constitution of India, 1950

2. Indian Penal Code, 1860
3. Indecent representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986
4. The Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Act, 1956
5. The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act), 2012
6. Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994
7. The Cinematograph Act, 1952
8. Information Technology Act, 2000
9. Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules,
2021

BOOKS:

1. Dr. D.D. Basu, Commentary on Constitution of India, (8th Ed., Lexis Nexis, 2010).
2. Dr. J. N. Pandey, The constitution Law of India, (52nd ed. 2016)
 3. KD Gaur, The Indian Penal Code, (15th Ed., Law Publishers India Pvt. Ltd.,2016)
4. MP Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, ( 7th Ed., Lexis Nexis, 2016)
5. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, (33rd Ed., Lexis Nexis, 2016)

CASES:

1. Mahesh Bhatt v. Union of India, 156 (2009) DLT 725 (High Court of Delhi) 2. Ajay
Gautam v. Union of India & Others, AIR 2015 DEL 92 (High Court of Delhi) 3. Inter
Media Publishing Ltd., Calicut v. State of Kerala & Others, 2015 (4) KLT 868 (High
Court of Kerela)
4. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, AIR 2015 SC 1523 (Supreme Court of India)

4
MULTI MOOT - OCTOBER 2021

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

LEGAL DATABASES:

1. Indian Kanoon
2. Legit Quest
3. SCC Online
4. Manupatra
 5
MULTI MOOT - OCTOBER 2021

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The petitioner has filed the present Special Leave Petition before this Hon’ble Supreme Court Of
NALANDA for setting aside the impugned order of High Court of Omaxe. The Hon’ble court has
the jurisdiction to hear the matter under Article 136 of the Constitution of NALANDA.

ARTICLE 32 - REMEDIES FOR ENFORCEMENT OF RIGHTS CONFERRED BY THIS

PART IN THE SUPREME COURT

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 (3) Without
prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 ) and ( 2 ), Parliament
may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or
any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause ( 2 ) (4) The right guaranteed
by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution
 6
MULTI MOOT - OCTOBER 2021

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

STATEMENT OF FACTS

BACKGROUND:
1. The Republic of Nalanda is the second most densely populated country in the world. The
constitution of Nalanda makes it a social, secular, democratic and republic nation
governed by constitutional supremacy following rule of law. Article 19 of the
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.

RELEASE OF WEB SERIES:

2. A web-series released on the OTT platform Cineflix named “TERROR & THE CITY?”
was released on 12th March 2021. The screenplay of this series revolved around terrorist
activities in the National Capital City and how it's being tackled by the Nation's defence,
Army and Air force. The series became a subject of huge speculation for negatively
portraying the "Nalanda Air Force" and the members of the Nalanda Army. The series
was alleged to be misleading, pervasive and to have portrayed a work culture which is
highly inappropriate in the Army. It also contained several sexually explicit content
including violence against women.

OUTRAGE AGAINST THE WEB SERIES:

3. The outrage was caused by the particular episode No. 6 of Season 1 of the series wherein
an Army man was shown to be engaging in sexual activities while wearing his official
uniform which carries the Nation's Emblem on his shoulder flap which was clearly visible
in the scene. The same episode also contained a few scenes where one of the minority
community was portrayed as terrorists and to be having links with international terrorist
organisations. It received huge backlash from several patriots and was criticized hugely
for its disregard towards the patriotism of the citizen's of Nalanda and that the series is
deliberately promoting violence among the youth and is against public order, decency and
morality.
 7
MULTI MOOT - OCTOBER 2021

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

WRIT PETITION IN THE HIGH COURT OF VITTALA:

4. Mr. Siddarth, a leading advocate, filed a writ petition in the High Court of Vittala. The high
Court granted a temporary injunction from airing the series and dismissed the other
prayers of the petitioner stating that the content streamed on OTT platforms is not
“broadcast” within the ambit of Cinematographic Act,1952.

WRIT PETITION IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NALANDA:

5. Aggrieved by the dismissal from the High Court, Mr. Siddarth approached the Hon'ble
Supreme court by way of a writ petition under Art 32 seeking permanent injunction on the
series "TERROR & THE CITY" as it violates the Information Technology (Intermediary
Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, along with the prayer to
constitute an autonomous body for Regulating and Monitoring OTT content to monitor
and filter the contents on OTT platforms for Indian viewership.
6. The Hon'ble Bench of the Supreme Court, before hearing the Writ petition by Mr. Siddarth
considered the fact that several other related petitions are also filed in the various High
Courts, transferred all the similar petitions from the High Courts and clubbed the whole
matter together and posted for a joint hearing on 30th October 2021 in which the question
of maintainability is also an issue.
 8
MULTI MOOT - OCTOBER 2021

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

STATEMENT OF ISSUES
 9
MULTI MOOT - OCTOBER 2021

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
 10
MULTI MOOT - OCTOBER 2021

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 11
MULTI MOOT - OCTOBER 2021

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

PRAYER

WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND

AUTHORITIES CITED, IT IS HUMBLY REQUESTED THAT THIS HON‟BLE COURT
MAY BE PLEASED TO ADJUDGE AND DECLARE:

ANY OTHER ORDER AS IT DEEMS FIT IN THE INTEREST OF EQUITY, JUSTICE AND
GOOD CONSCIENCE.
FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER FACTION SHALL BE DUTY BOUND
FOREVER.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY
COUNSELS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
12