ALLIANCE SCHOOL OF LAW MOOT COURT

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

W.P. (CIVIL) NO.____ OF 2022

UNDER ARTICLE 19 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

IN THE MATTER OF
ALOK……………………………………………………..PETITIONER
V.
RIA………………………………………..RESPONDENT
SARTAJ…………………………………..RESPONDENT
QUIBBLER TV…………………………...RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1
 TABLE OF CONTENT

TITLE PAGE NO.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 03

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 04

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 05

STATEMENT OF FACTS 06

ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION 09

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 10

ISSUE 1 11

ISSUE 2 12

PRAYER 13

2
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

SERIAL NO. ABBREVIATION FULL FORM

1. AIR All India Reporter
2. Hon’ble Honourable
3. V. Versus
4. Ltd Limited
5. No. Number
6. AC Appeal Cases
7. Vs. Versus

3
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
i. TABLE OF CASES

1. Shri Vijay Kumar vs. Smt. Kusum, (2013)

2. Brig. B.C. Rana v. Ms. Seema Katoch & Ors., (2012)

ii. LIST OF STATUTES/LEGISLATIONS

1. Equality act,2010
2. IPC 354D,2013

iii. BOOKS REFERRED

1. W.V.H. ROGERS, M.A., WINFIELD AND JOLOWICZ ON

TORT (Sweet & Maxwell, 18th Edition, South Asian Edition, 2010)

4
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Petitioners have approached the court under Article 19 of the Constitution
of India, read with defamation. The Respondents submit to the same.

5
 STATEMENT OF FACTS
Part I
Alok was the founder CEO of Essex Corporation. What began as a small start up with a
couple of college friends, barely five years ago, is now one of the top brands in the financial
market that provides financial advisory services to its customers. The exponential growth of
Essex Corporation to a large extent was attributable to the hard work, perseverance and
brilliance of Alok.

Umbrella Corporation, a giant conglomerate of financial companies having its head office in
the United States has been negotiating the takeover of Essex Corporation for several weeks
now. If the acquisition were to go through, it would be the turning point of Alok’s life. At the
age of 31 years, he would be the country’s youngest billionaire.

The due diligence of Essex Corp having been completed, the directors of Umbrella
Corporation were meeting Alok and his team on 24.11.2018 for finalising the deal. It was
undoubtedly the most important meeting of Alok’s life. On 23.11.2018, Quibbler TV aired an
interview of Ria wherein she levelled various allegations against Alok. She said, “the Me-
Too movement would be a farce unless men like Alok who have stalked, and harassed
women continue to enjoy impunity and are not made to feel remorse about their actions.” On
the basis of these statements, the news anchor of Quibbler TV- Sartaj Singh carried out a 2-
hour story on prime time. In the first segment, Quibbler TV called for viewers to vote on
“Whether Alok should be allowed to get away with harassing women?” The TV channel also
started a twitter campaign with the #alokthepervert. In the next segment, a debate was telecast
on how companies need to strengthen their policies and refuse to collaborate with people who
were accused of harassment in the ‘Me Too’ movement unless they prove their innocence.

In light of the developments, Umbrella Corporation informed Alok that they did not want to
be seen as a company that does business with anyone who is in the middle of a media trial as
the public relations would be a nightmare. The deal was called off. Antagonised, Alok filed a
civil suit for defamation, character assassination and damages before the Delhi High Court
arraying Ria as the First Defendant, Sartaj as the Second Defendant and Quibbler TV as the
Third Defendant. He contended that the accusations of Ria and the television program by
Sartaj Singh has caused irreparable damage to his reputation. Further Quibbler TV is
vicariously liable for the actions of Sartaj. Alok sought for a public apology by all the
Defendants to be aired on Quibbler TV along with monetary damages to the tune of Rs. 100
crores.

6
Upon the receipt of the suit summons, Ria and the other Defendants have filed their Written
Statement. While Ria claimed that truth is her sole defence, the Second Defendant claimed
for immunity under the freedom of press, speech and expression. It was further asserted that
there was no factual error in the news program that was telecast on 23.08.2018. If Alok is
innocent as he claims, he ought to prove his innocence for the requirement is to believe the
victim unless proven otherwise. The Third Defendant too has denied any liability on their
part as Sartaj was hired on a contractual basis.

Part II
It was the summer of 2012; Ria had just graduated from college and just like all her friends
and getting placed in a company was on the top of her priority. Though she had applied at
several places, she desperately wanted to join Wade Enterprises. It was well known that a
stint in one of the most prestigious companies such as Wade Enterprises worked wonders for
the career graph of a fresher. Wade Enterprises was one of the leading wealth management
companies in the country. The securities and investments division were headed by Alok who
had made a remarkable name for himself in the organization. While Ria’s academic record
was not as impressive as many other applicants, she fared quite well in the interview taken by
Alok and joined the organization on 01.09. 2012..

As Alok worked extensively with his team for long hours, he grew quite fond of Ria who was
indeed very good looking. Alok never expressed his feelings to Ria fearing rejection and
losing her as a friend. However, some of his colleagues had figured that Alok was infatuated
with her. Alok knew that any relationship with any of his subordinates would unnecessarily
complicate the matters. However, you do not choose whom you love. Like rain, he fell for
her.

At the New Year’s Eve, during an office party Ria had a little too much to drink. As she was
too drunk to drive, Alok stayed up till late night and dropped her back. When they reached
Ria’s home, she invited him over. As Ria was intoxicated, Alok declined and thought best if
he left. Ria gave him a hug and kissed him goodbye. Alok couldn’t believe what just
happened. His excitement knew no bounds. He immediately called up his entire friends in the
office and told them what happened.

The next morning, when Ria walked into the office, she was flabbergasted to find her
workplace filled with red heart shaped balloons and decorations. In the centre was Alok who
was down on one knee with a ring proposing to her. Ria was petrified. She did not know how
to respond. While assimilating all what was happening around her, she spoke to Alok and
told him that she did not feel that way about him. She clarified that he was reading too much
into last night and she did not have any romantic thoughts or feelings for him. Alok was
dejected. He tried to persuade Ria who was just avoiding Alok under one pretext or the other.
Alok was getting restless as he thought that he had messed up his friendship and relationship

7
with Ria. He called her up several times and tried messaging her, but she had blocked his
number. Finally, he tried to meet her at her residence, but the security at the apartment would
not let him in. Dejected, Alok waited outside Ria’s house so that he could meet her.

When Ria stepped out to meet her friends over for dinner, Alok followed her to the restaurant
to talk to her. Ria was furious to see him at the restaurant. She refused to talk to him and
asked him to leave. Considering the awkward situation, Alok thought it would be best if he
and Ria did not work in the same department. The next day Ria received a mail from the HR
of Wade Enterprises informing her that she is no longer with the securities and investment
team of Stark Industries and that she will be reporting to the marketing team henceforth. Ria
was furious, she felt that she is being punished for refusing to date Alok and argued that if
anybody has to be transferred, it is Alok. The management did not budge considering the fact
Wade Enterprises needed Alok in the securities and investment division more than Ria who
had been with them for barely a few months. Ria escalated the issue by filing a complaint
against Alok alleging stalking, unwelcomed physical advances and detrimental treatment at
her workplace to her disadvantage for having refused the advances of Alok under the Sexual
Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

In terms of the Act, an Internal Complaints Committee was set up. Alok was shocked at the
accusations and allegations levelled against him. He was at a loss of words at this move by
Ria. With a view not to precipitate the matter and to have a closure on the issue, Alok
tendered his resignation to the company.

After working for a couple of months at the marketing division of Wade Enterprises, seeking
no growth in the near future, Ria left the organization. She then applied at several places
seeking for employment in her desired field of securities and investment. However, in light of
what transpired at Wade Enterprises not many companies were keen on having her on board.
They feared that any negative feedback about her work during her employment or any
criticism of work would invite allegations of sexual harassment.

Ria could not understand where she had erred. She could not find a suitable job elsewhere
and could not stop blaming Alok for ruining her career. Several years later, when the Me Too
movement started, Ria found it fit to raise her voice and speak up.

8
 ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

ISSUE 1
WHETHER ALOK IS GULITY OF HARASSMENT?

ISSUE 2
WHETHER SARTAJ SINGH AND QUIBBLER TV ARE LIABLE FOR DEFAMATION?

9
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE 1 - WHETHER ALOK IS GUILTY OF HARASSMENT?
The equality act says it’s harassment where the behaviour is meant to or has the effect of
either:
 Violating your dignity
 Creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment
This means it’s harassment even if the person harassing you didn’t mean to offend or
intimidate you.

ISSUE 2 – WHETHER SARTAJ SINGH AND QUIBBLER TV ARE

LIABLE FOR DEFAMATION?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that Sartaj Singh and Quibbler TV are not
liable for defamation.
To charge someone with defamation, it needs to fulfil some conditions;
1. The statement must be defamatory.
2. It must be for the defamed party;
3. It must be published to at least any other third party.
Even though it was for the defamed party and was published to other third party it doesn’t
constitute defamation because of missing defamatory element in the statement. The statement
given by Ria and followed by Sartaj Singh, and Quibbler TV is not defamatory.

10
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Issue 1 - Whether Alok is guilty of harassment?

The equality act says it’s harassment where the behaviour is meant to or has the effect of
either:
 Violating your dignity
 Creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment1
This means it’s harassment even if the person harassing you didn’t mean to offend or
intimidate you.
According to section 354D IPC, stalking is
 Continuously following a woman or contacting her,
 Either online or in person,
 Where she has clearly shown she doesn’t want the attention.2
Alok was continuously following Ria as he called her up several times and tried messaging
her, but she had blocked his number. Finally, he tried to meet her at her residence, but the
security at the apartment would not let him in.
Alok also followed her to the restaurant to talk to her when she was out for dinner with her
friends. Ria was furious to see him at the restaurant. She refused to talk to him and asked him
to leave.
These acts of Alok of continuously following Ria in person when she was not showing any
kind of attention, held Alok guilty under section 354D IPC for sexual offenses.

1
Equality act, 2010, Act of the parliament, 2010, (United Kingdom)
2
Section 354D, Indian Penal Code, 2013

11
 Issue 2 – Whether Sartaj Singh and Quibbler TV are liable for
defamation?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that Sartaj Singh and Quibbler TV are not
liable for defamation.
To charge someone with defamation, it needs to fulfil some conditions;
4. The statement must be defamatory.
5. It must be for the defamed party;
6. It must be published to at least any other third party.
Even though it was for the defamed party and was published to other third party it doesn’t
constitute defamation because of missing defamatory element in the statement. The statement
given by Ria and followed by Sartaj Singh, and Quibbler TV is not defamatory.3
To get defence from the charge with defamation, the defaming party must prove three points.
1. The statement published was true,
2. Fair comments made with public interest based on true incidents,
3. Certain persons are vested with the privilege to make statements even if they are
defamatory, example judicial proceedings and members of parliament.4
The statement published by the defendants was true and the comments were based on true
incidents and was not defamatory at all as the harassment charges have already been proven
against the petitioner.
By all these arguments, it is clear that the statement made by the defendants are true and does
not make them liable for defamation.

3
Brig. B.C. Rana v. Ms. Seema Katoch & Ors., (2012)

4
Shri Vijay Kumar Jha v. Smt. Kusum, (2013)

12
 PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments and authorities cited, it is humbly
requested that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to adjudge and declare:

i. That the Alok is guilty of harassment;

ii. That all the defendants published the true statement and are not liable
for defamation.

And pass such order writ or direction as the Hon’ble court deems fit and proper
in the light of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience, for this the petitioner shall
duty bound pray.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

13