BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

APPEAL________OF 2012.

Writ Petition under Article 32

Of the Constitution of India.
___________________________________________________________

JANATA RAKSHA &

ANOTHER ……………….. PETITIONER

V.

UNION OF INDIA………….. RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

M.K.NAMBYAR MEMORIAL NATIONAL LEVEL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION,2012
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Index of Authorities;
II. Statement of Jurisdiction;
III. Questions Presented;
IV. Statement of Facts;
V. Summary of Pleadings;
VI. Pleadings
VII. Prayer.
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES REFERRED

1. A-G v.Guardina Newspaper Ltd. (No.2),(1990)1AC 109 at 183 : (1988)3 AII ER 545 at 600
2. Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal , AIR 2003 SC 280
3. Attorney General v.British Broadcasting corpn.,(1981)1AC 303 (1980)3 WLR 109 : (1980)3 AII
ER 161 (HL)
4. Becharam v. R ,AIR 1944 Cal 224
5. Bokaro & Rampur Ltd v. State of Bihar,AIR 1963 SC516,518
6. Chhotka v. State ,1958 Cal 482
7. Com v. Webster ,5 Cush 295
8. Dinesh Dalmia v C.B.I , AIR 2008 S.C 78
9. Dinesh Dalmia v.State , 2006 CriLJ 2401
10. Gurmej Singh v. State of Punjab , AIR 1992 SC 1222
11. Guruvayur Debaswam v. C.K Rajan, AIR 2004 Supp.SC561
12. Indian News papers (Bombay)p ltd v. Union of India AIR 1986SC 515
13. Janata Dal v.H.S Chowdhary(1992)4 SCC
14. John D.Pennekamp v.State of Florida, (1946)328 US 331 : 90 L Ed 1295
15. Krishnappa v. State of Karnataka,1996 AIHC 1030
16. Krishnaswami v. State ,1996 Cr LJ 3372(mad)
17. Kushum Lata v.Union of India , (2006)6 SCC 180 : AIR 2006 SC 2643
18. M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, AIR 1954 SC 300
19. Narmada Bachao Andolan v.Union of India, (2000)10 SCC 664 : 2000(7)Supreme 264
20. Newyork Times v.Sullivan , 376 US 254
21. Printers (Mysore) Ltd v. Assistant Commercial Tax Officers , (1994) 2 SCC 129
22. R v. Williams, (1878) 84 Cr App R 298 CA
23. R.K Anand v.Delhi High Court, (2009)8SCC(106)
24. R.M.Malkani v.State of Maharashtra , AIR1973 SC 157
25. R.Ragagopal v.State of T.N.,(1994)6 SCC 632
26. R.v.Maqsud ali,(1966)1QB 688
27. R.v.Payne,(1963)1WLR 637 AC
28. Rojo George v. Deputy Superintendent of police, 2006 (2) K.L.T 495
29. S.C.Bahri v.State of Bihar,1994 Cr LJ 3271
30. S.Mulgaokar,AIR 1978 SC 727
31. Sachidanand Pandey v.State of West Bengal,(1987)2 SCC 295
32. Sakal Papers v. Union of India AIR 1962 SC 305; (1962) 3 SCC 842
33. Shailendar Sharma v.State. WP(CRL)532 OF 2008
34. Smt. Selvi and others v. State of Karnataka. AIR 2010 SC 1974.
35. Sonelal v. State of U.P,AIR 1978 SC 1142
36. Sooraj v. State, 1994 Cr LJ 1155
37. State (Through Cbi) v.Santhosh Kumar Singh , 2007 Cri LJ 964,133(2006)DLT 393
38. State of Bombay v.Kathi Kalu Oghad , AIR 1961 SC 1808 : 1961 (2) Cr.LJ 856
39. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Students of Medical College., AIR 1985 SC 910 : (1985)3 SCC
169
40. State of Maharashtra v. Bhanudas Sommanna Sangolkar , 1997 Cr LJ 3205
41. State v.Siddharth Vashisth & Manu Sharma, 2001 IIAD Delhi 829,2001 Cri LJ
2404,90(2001)DLT 548
42. Terminiello v. Chicago 337 U S 1
43. Vishal Yadav v.State of Delhi, 116(2005)DLT 341,2005(79)DRJ 254

STATUTES REFERRED
1. Constitution of India
2. Code of Criminal Procedure
3. Indian Penal Code
WEBSITES
1. Indiankanoon.org
2. Supremecourt.nic.in
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE PRESENT PETITION HAS BEEN FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION
OF INDIA BEFORE THIS HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
 QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 IS MAINTAINABLE

2. WHETHER THE SPECIAL CRIMES (TRUTH DETECTION TESTS) ACT, 2010 IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
3. WHETHER THE FREEDOM OF PRESS DOES NOT INCLUDE FREEDOM TO INTERFERE
IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
4. WHETHER THE STATEMENTS MADE IN THE T.V SHOWS ARE INADMISSIBLE
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

Janata Raksha is a NGO well known for its social services in India.It has filed several PIL’s and Writ
petitions before various courts for the protection of fundamental rights of its citizens.

“Indians Time” is a newspaper with maximum circulation in India.It has published several articles
expressing the failure of criminal administration of justice and further criticized the Parliament for not
enacting legislation for the regulation of criminal administration of justice which made public raise
voice against the governments inefficiency.

In 2010, the Parliament of India passed The Special Crimes (Truth Detection Tests) Act, 2010 which
came into force from 24thJuly; 2010.This Act empowers the Trial Court to direct the investigating
authority to conduct the truth detection test.

Mr.Ram Bhatia,a 50year old famous industrialist, and a sole owner of properties worth 100 billion
dollars was introduced to Fleur, a 22year old International super model in a Bengaluru fashion
week.Intimacy grew between them andwithin few weeks they were married.

A month later “Page3” a famous weekly magazine carried a story that their relationship had gone kaput
because of Fleur’s extra marital affair.A few days later in a party they had a heated argument which
ended with Mr.Bhatia threatening Fleur with dire consequences.

A few weeks later on 10th September 2010, Fleur was found dead in the Bhatia mansion and Mr. Bhatia
was charged with the offence of murder of his wife. The Court of Session acquitted him because of lack
of evidence. And the appeal was preferred before High Court of Karnataka against the decision of Court
of Session.

“Star Multiple”is a popular channel and “Face the Truth” is a famous reality show telecast live on the
channel. In this show celebrities are invited and made to sit on a chair which is twined with lie detector
wires and which in turn is connected to a polygraph machine.Several questions are put to these
celebrities.A green signal comes up when they give a true answer and a red signal for the false or untrue
answer. The contestants who give the highest number of true answer win a cash prize.
Mr. Bhatia was also invited to this ‘Face the Truth’ show while appeal against him was still pending
before the High Court of Karnataka. Of the several questions posed to Mr. Bhatia the three questions
were:

i) Whether a man should forgive his wife’s infidelity? He answered in negative and the green
signal came up.

ii) Whether he agrees with the decision of the Court of Session acquitting him? He answered in
positive and the red signal came up, which meant he was lying.

iii) Do you hold yourself responsible for your wife’s death? He answered in negative again and the
red signal came up, which meant he was lying again.

The investigating authority arrested Mr. Bhatia as soon as this show was telecast on Star Multiple
channel on 15thJanuary 2012. The Prosecution requested the High Court of Karnataka to consider the
admissions and statements made in the show ‘Face the Truth’ by Mr. Bhatia as evidence against him or
allow the investigating authority to conduct ‘Truth Detection Tests’ against Mr. Bhatia.

On 28th January 2012, a Writ Petition was filed by Mr. Ram Bhatia before the Supreme Court of India
questioning the evidential value of admissions made in T.V shows and also challenging the
Constitutional validity of The Special Crimes (Truth Detections Tests) Act, 2010.

On 10th of October 2011, Prof. Kapadia of P.S Law College, Delhi, was charged with the offences of
kidnapping and rape of his student. The Court of Session ordered Narco Analysis of Mr. Kapadia under
The Special Crimes (Truth Detection Tests) Act, 2010 and on the findings of Narco Analysis the Court
of Session convicted Prof. Kapadia.

On 20th of February 2012, Janata Raksha filed a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India challenging the Constitutional validity of The Special Crimes (Truth Detections Tests) Act, 2010.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided to hear both the Writ Petitions jointly.
 ANNEXURE

The Special Crimes (Truth Detection Tests) Act, 2010

An Act, to regulate the criminal administration of justice and to see that offenders do not escape
from punishment because of the witnesses turning hostile and to provide justice to the victims of
serious offences.

Section 1 – (1) This Act may be called The Special Crimes (Truth Detection Tests) Act, 2010
(2) It extends to whole of India.
(3) This Act will come into force from 24th July 2010.

Section 2 – Definitions
(a) ‘Brain Mapping’ means a set of neuroscience techniques predicated on the mapping of
biological quantities or properties onto spatial representations of the human or non-human brain
resulting in map.

(b) ‘Court’ includes Sessions Court, High Courts and Supreme Court of India.

(c) ‘Investigating Authorities’ means the investigating authorities formed under Central and
State statutes.

(d) ‘Lie Detection/ Lie Detector’ means a polygraph used to determine changes in certain body
activities, as blood pressure, pulse, breathing and perspiration, the result of which may be
interpreted to indicate the truth or falsity of a person's answers under questioning
.
(e) ‘Narco Analysis’ means a method of psychological investigation in which the conscious or
unconscious unwillingness of a person to express memories or feelings in diminished by the use of
psychoactive medication and drug.
(g) ‘Special Crimes' include offences punishable by death, life imprisonment and offences
punishable with imprisonment for a term of 7 years and above under any law for time being in force
within the territory of India.

(h) ‘Truth Detection Tests’ include brain mapping, lie detection and narco analysis.

Section 7 – The Court may, on its satisfaction, direct the investigating authority to conduct the truth
detection tests against accused, and in extraneous circumstances even against witnesses, in case of the
special crimes, provided the truth detection test shall be conducted by a medical practitioner who is an
expert in the same and he shall also record his findings.

Section 8 – The admissions or confessions made during truth detection tests can be used as
corroborative evidence and not conclusive evidence.
 PLEADINGS

I.THE WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 IS NOT MAINTAINABLE

The instant writ petition is not maintainable as there is no locus standi or public interest
Before a person can ask for a writ he should have the necessary qualifications for claiming the benefit of
the writ; i.e he should have the requisite standing for maintaining the writ petition or the locus
standi.Locus standi literally means legal standing of a person.In Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West
Bengal1, Supreme Court has laid down directions to the rule of locus standi.Generally a writ petiton can
be filed by an aggrieved party. 2 It is only when his legal rights are affected by the impugned action that
he can question that action in writ proceedings.
In the instant case Ram Bhatia has no locus standi since, there has been no violation of his basic
fundamental or legal rights.Art.20(3) of the Indian Constitutuion declares that no person accused of an
offence shll be compelled to be a witness against himself.This provision may be stated to consist of the
three followind components.
1.It is a right pertaining to a person accuse of an offence
2.It is a protection against compulsion to be a witness;and
3.It is a protection against such compulsion resulting in his giving evidence against himself.
If a person is suspected to have some information regarding the commission of an offence,there should
be no prohibition on conducting a Narco Analysis test on him as the protection under 20(3) is available
only to a person accused of an offence.Another requirement of Art.20(3) is that there should be no
compulsion on the accused to give testimony against him.However,in Narco Analysis test,the question
of compulsion does not arise because the prior consent of the person who is supposed to undergo such a
test is always taken.In fact,the supreme court in State of Bombay v.Kathi Kalu Oghad 3,held that there is
no compulsion when a police officer,in investigating a crime against,a certain individual,asks him to do
a certain thing.The fact that a person was in police custody when he made the statements is not a
foundation for an inference that he was compelled to make the statement.The mere questioning of an
accused by a police officer,resulting in a voluntary statement,which may ultimately turn out to be
incriminatory,is not compulsion.Considering,all these we can easily conclude that Narco Analysis does
not violate Art.20(3) to the extent that the person undergoing such a test is not compelled to do so,rather

1
AIR 2003 SC 280
2
Bokaro & Rampur Ltd v. State of Bihar,AIR 1963 SC516,518
3
AIR 1961 SC 1808 : 1961 (2) Cr.LJ 856
it is done with the consent of the person who has full knowledge of such a test.Only incriminatory
statements are hit by Art.20(3)Whether a statement is in criminatory or not can be ascertained only after
the test is conducted and not before it.,The court dismissed the petition filed against these tests and held
that these tests do not compel the accused or witness to incriminate himself and there is therefore no
question of violation of Art.20(3)bof the Constitution.
In Dinesh Dalmia v.State4the court observed that where the accused has not allegedly come forward
with the truth,the scientific tests are resorted to by investigation agency.Such a course does not amount
to testimonial compulsion.From the above,it is evident that conducting a narco analysis test does not
violateArt.20(3).Only after conducting the test,if the accused divulges information which is
incriminatiory,then it will be hit by Art.20(3).Other information divulged during the test can help the
investigation.Thus,there is no reason why we should prohibit such a test on grounds of
unconstitutionality.In 2004,the Bombay High Court ruled in the multi-crore rupee fake stamp paper case
that subjecting an accused to certain tests like narco analysis does not violate the fundamental right
against self incrimination.
Furthermore,Narco Analysis is conducted in a hospital in the presense of a physician and an anaesthetist
who administers the barbiturate.So there is least possibility that it could cause any adverse effect or
impose any threat to life of a person subjected to the test.In Rojo George v.Deputy Superintendent of
Police5,the Kerala High Court disagreed and held that narcoanalysis does not amount to deprivation of
personal liberty or intrusion nto privacy.Notably,the court did not substantiate its position and declined
to address the intrusion into mental privacy but narrowly restricted the scope of privacy to bodily
integrity..Hence,the medical examination if necessary of a party is required,it cannot be opposed as a
violation of right to privacy and right to personal liberty under Art.21.The court also rejected the
contention that narco analysis can be potentially hazardous and can violate the right to health.Also,when
a person becomes an accused,while investigation takes place,he/she does not necessarily have the
fundamental right.It will not be an infrigment of fundamental right when the reasonable restriction
principles are applied.
"Public Interest Litigation means a legal action initiated in a court of law for the enforcement of public
interest or general interest in which the public or class of the community have pecuniary interest or some

4
2006 CriLJ 2401
5
2006(2)KLT 197
interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected”. 6Public interest is something in which the
public community at large has some pecuniary interest,or some by which their legal rights or liabilities
are affected.The supreme court in Guruvayur Debaswam v. C.K Rajan7 summarized the principles of
‘public interest litigation’and stated that in case of a PIL, “The common rule of locus standi is relaxed so
as to enable the court to look into the grievances complained on behalf of the poor,deprived,illiterate and
the disabled,who cannot vindicate the legal injury caused to them for any violation of any constitutional
right. So,for a PIL to exist,there must be a public injury or public wrong caused by wrongful or
ultravires or omission of the state or public authority.It is to be used as an effective weapon in the
armoury of law for delivering social justice to the citizens
Public Interest Litigation cannot be used as a mask for frivolous litigation.The courts should be cautious
not to entertain such petitions. 8 The Supreme Court in Kushum Lata v.Union of India9,dealt with the
purpose of PIL and referred to misuse of it by some.The court held that the PIL is aimed at redressel of
genuine public wrong or public injury.It is not meant for publicity.The attractive brand name of public
interest litigation should not be used for suspicious products of mischief.It should be aimed at redressel
of genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity oriented or founded on personal vendetta.This
judgement is in tune with and continuance of the of the judicial policy on PIL excepting a recent
judicial aversion of a part of the Supreme Court to preserve PIL heralded great judicial jurists like
Justice V.R Krishna Iyer and Justice P.N Bhagwati,a daring creative judicial innovation to do justice to
those who are denied it due to penury,ignorance and inherent weakness due to their financial social and
educational handicaps.
Clearly in the instant case there has been no such handicaps in relation to any genuine public wrong or
public injury.Thus it can be asserted that the writ petition filed by Janata Raksha was for the mere aspect
of publicity.A Public interest Litigation cannot exists or is not valid in such a case. In Narmada Bachao
Andolan v.Union of India10,the Supreme Court held that Public Interest Litigation should not be allowed
to degenenate into Publicity Interest Litigation or Private Inquisitive Litigation.“Public Interest
Litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to

6
Janata Dal v.H.S Chowdhary(1992)4 SCC
7
AIR 2004 Supp.SC561
8
Sachidanand Pandey v.State of West Bengal,(1987)2 SCC 295
9
(2006)6 SCC 180 : AIR 2006 SC 2643
10
(2000)10 SCC 664 : 2000(7)Supreme 264
be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievience it does not encroach
upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the executive and the legislature” 11.
Thus a person who is aggrieved alone can challenge validity of a statute.Here, the public at large is not
affected.Human rights violation of any person who becomes an accused cannot be considered as human
rights violation at large. Thus there exist no public interest and so the writ petition filed by Janata
Raksha is not maintainable. Also inorder that a public interest be maintainable there must have been a
violation of the fundamental right.Clearly here there has been no such violation of fundamental
rights.Therefore the instant writ petitions filed by both Janata Raksha on 20th of February 2012 and that
filed by Mr.Bhatia on 28th of January 2012 are not maintainable.

II.SPECIAL CRIMES (TRUTH DETECTION TESTS) ACT,2010 IS CONSTITUTIONALLY

VALID
Parliament of India has passed special crimes (Truth Detection Tests) Act in 2010. The intention of the
Act is to regulate the criminal administration of justice and to see that offenders do not escape from
punishment because of the witness turning hostile and to provide justice to the victims of serious
offences.
‘Indian Time’ a newspaper published several articles criticizing the criminal administration of justice. It
reported that rate of conviction is just 7% whereas rate of acquittal is 93%. The poor investigation
process caused to lost confidence of public in the criminal administration of justice.
The Special Crimes Act is a good law and does not violate any of the provisions of constitution. Act is
in conformity with the fundamental rights as it is a procedure established by law. Art. 21 read as
follows: “No person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to procedure
established by law.” The procedure is fair, just and reasonable. It doesn’t apply to all the accused
persons. Sec.2 (g) of the Act defines the Special Crimes. From the definition, it is very clear that the act
is to punish the offenders of serious crimes.
The Narco analysis test is conducted by mixing 3 grams of Sodium Pentothal or Sodium Amytal
dissolved in 3000 ml of distilled water. Test is done by a team Comprising of an anesthesiologist, a
psychiatrist, a clinical/forensic psychologist, an audio-videographer, and supporting nursing staff. The
forensic psychologist will prepare the report about the revelations, which will be accompanied by a
Compact disc of audio-video recordings. Narco analysis is conducted by experts therefore it is clear that

11
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Students of Medical College., AIR 1985 SC 910 : (1985)3 SCC 169
Narco analysis is a reliable scientific procedure. The Madhava Menon committee devotes an entire
chapter to scientific tools of investigation and it is the contention of the authors that these can “help
improve capabilities of the police in apprehension of criminals, curtail unnecessary arrests, reduce
response time, avoid use of third degree methods in detection and interrogation, and improve prospects
of proof through scientific evidence….” ETC. Some of these high-tech tools are “DNA fingerprinting,
cyber forensics Narco analysis, brain-mapping et al”.
Moreover, in Shailendar Sharma v.State.12Delhi High court held that the test was also in conformity with
S. 53 (examination of accused by medical practitioner at the request of police officer) of the Criminal
Procedure Code. It held that the test could be done at the instance of a police officer not below the rank
of sub-inspector and subject to satisfaction of a registered practitioner. However, it stated that prior
permission of the court concerned was necessary to conduct the test on an accused.
Sec 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 does allow experts’ opinions in certain cases. It reads: “When
the court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, or of science, or art, or as to identity of
handwriting or finger impression, the opinions upon that point or persons especially skilled in such
foreign law, or of science, or of science, or art, or as t identity of handwriting or finger impressions are
relevant.”

Sec.2 (a), 2(d) and 2(e) of the Act defines the brain mapping, lie detection and Narco analysis. As per
Sec.7 of the act it is the discretion of court to direct the investigating agency to conduct these tests. The
Act does not confer power upon police to conduct these tests without the permission of court. Thus, it is
not amount to violation of Art. 21 of the constitution. Truth detection tests do not amount to third degree
measures. It is not conducted by the police and not in the presence of police.
A. Truth Detection Tests are not violative of Art. 20(3)
A cardinal principle of the Indian legal system is that an accused cannot be compelled to
give evidence against him. The objective of this principle is to eliminate the possibility of use of
torture methods against him. The objective of this principle is to eliminate the possibility of the use
of torture methods against accused. In Smt. Selvi’s case13, the SC held that use of Narco analysis
polygraph and brain mapping without consent of accused is violative of Article 20(3).

12
WP(CRL)532 OF 2008
13
Smt. Selvi and others v. State of Karnataka. AIR 2010 SC 1974.
 The right against self-incrimination is applicable only if there is an element of
compulsion. Normally narcoanalysis is conducting after obtaining necessary permission for the
persons. But in certain cases the persons are not willing to participate in this process. However in
such cases also where narcoanalysis may be conducted on a unwilling person one cannot defect any
element of compulsion in this test, because once the truth serum is injected to the person he will
speak voluntarily to the questions which are asked during the test.
Section 29 of Indian Evidence Act a Confession obtained under similar circumstance are
valid. This section says: if such a confession is otherwise relevant, it does not become irrelevant
merely because it was made under a promise of secrecy, or in consequence of a deception practiced
on the accused person for the purpose of obtaining it, or when he was drunk, or because it was made
in answer to questions which he need not have answered, whatever may have been the form of those
questions or because he was not warned that he was not bound to make such confession, and that
evidence of it might be given against him.
Thus in a case where the two accused persons who were left in a room thought they were
all alone, but secret tape recorders were recording their conversation, the confessions thus recorded
were held to be relevant14. Similarly, where an accused was persuaded to submit to a medical
examination for an innocent purpose which was in fact conducted for criminal purpose, his
statements to the doctor and doctor’s report were held to be relevant at the discretion of the court. 15
If under Section 29 of the Indian Evidence Act, the above mentioned methods of collection of
collection of evidence is accepted, narcoanalysis can should also he treated as a technique which
comes under this section. Thus it is submitted that the investigating agency can use the information
extracted through narcoanalysis as a base for further investigation and for collecting other valuable
evidence.
As there is no verbal answers in brain mapping it cannot be consider as violative of
Article 20(3).
The three main pillars of the Art20(3).to be violated to get the privilege against
incrimination:
1. it is a right pertaining to a person accused of an offence
2. it is a protection against compulsion to be a witness; and

14
R.v.Maqsud ali,(1966)1QB 688
15
R.v.Payne,(1963)1WLR 637 AC
 3. it is protection against such compulsion resulting in his giving evidence against
himself
The protection under article 20(3) is available only to person accused of an offence. A
person cannot claim the privilege if at the time he made the statement he was not an accused but
16
became an accused thereafter.
Another requirement of Article 20 (3) is that there should be no compulsion on the
accused to give testimony against him. However, in Narco Analysis test, the question of compulsion
does not arise because the prior consent of the person who is supposed to undergo such a test is
always taken. In fact, the Supreme Court in State of Bombay v Kathi Kalu Oghad,17 held that there
is no compulsion when a police officer, in investigating a crime against, a certain individual, asks
him to do a certain thing. It was held in the case that, to bring the evidence within the inhibition of
Art. 20 (3), it must be shown that there was a compulsion to make the statement having a material
bearing on the criminality of the maker. Compulsion means duress; “Duress is where a man is
compelled to do an act by injury, beating or unlawful imprisonment (sometimes called ‘duress’ in
strict sense) or by the treat of being killed suffering some grievous bodily harm or being unlawfully
imprisoned (sometimes called menace or ‘duress’ per mines) Duress also included threatening,
beating or imprisoning of the wife parent or child of a person. No such compulsion is made on the
petitioner here and the petitioner had given his consent and therefore matter of compulsion doesnot
arises. In Dinesh Dalmia v C.B.I, 18 The Madras High Court held that subjecting an accused to
Narco analysis is not tantamount to testimony by compulsion. The court said about the accused: “he
may be taken to the laboratory for such test against his will, but the revelation during such tests is
quite voluntary.
Right to silence can be claimed by the petitioner if evidence has been extorted using
compulsion. When compulsion is absent the claim cannot be entertained. Narco analysis is done with
the consent of the accused. In R.M.Malkani v.State of Maharashtra19,it was held that admission of
tape recorded evidence against the accused does not violate Art.20(3) when the conversation on his
part was voluntary and there was no compulsion.
B. Truth Detection Tests are not violative of Art. 21

16
M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, AIR 1954 SC 300
17
State of Bombay v Kathi Oghad, AIR SC 1808
18
AIR 2008 S.C 78
19
AIR1973 SC 157
 Though the right to privacy is not provided explicitly under Art.21, the judiciary through its
dynamic interpretation brought this right under Art.21. The basis for such action is Art.17 of
ICCPR, which states “no one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his
privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.”
In Mr. X. v. Hospital Z20, SC held that as one of the basic human rights , the right to privacy was
not treated as absolute and was ‘subject to such action as may be lawfully taken for the prevention
of crime or disorder or protection of health or morals or protection of rights and freedom of
others’. In Rojo George v. Deputy Superintendent of police, 21the Kerala High Court held that the
Narco analysis test did not amount to deprivation of personal liberty or intrusion into privacy.
A close analysis of Article17 of ICCPR reveals that only unlawful and arbitrary interference with
this right is prohibited. So if interference is lawful and non- arbitrary it is valid. The Human
Rights Committee’s General Comment to Art.17 makes it clear that the touchstone of the
arbitrariness inquiry is whether interference with privacy is “reasonable in the particular
circumstances”. Thus if the circumstances justify the conduct of a Narco analysis, the challenge
on the basis of right to privacy will not stand.
Right to fair trial is an important element of criminal justice administration in the country. This
right is conferred under Art.21 of constitution. Any right which is conferred under this article can
be restricted by procedure established by law. The collection of evidence and prosecuting an
accused is a compelling public interest. When the investigating agency is in the darkness and if
they can make any significant move by using these truth detection tests, it should be allowed in
such case.
It is submitted that the special crimes (Truth Detection Tests) Act is not a threat to the right
against self incrimination. On the contrary if it is properly utilized these truth detection tests will
be the best alternative to the traditional method of torture in criminal investigation.
III.MEDIA HAS THE FREEDOM TO INTERFERE IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF
JUSTICE

Media is regarded as one of the pillars of democracy. It has wide ranging roles in the
society and plays a vital role in moulding the opinion of the society.Iit is capable of changing the

20
CITATION
21
2006 (2) K.L.T 495
 whole viewpoint through which people perceive various events. The media can be commended
for starting a trend where the media plays an active role in bringing the accused to hook.

Freedom of media is the freedom of people as they should be informed of public matters.It is thus
needless to emphasis that a free and a healthy press is indispensable to the functioning of democracy. In
a democratic set up there has to be active participation of people in all affairs of their community and the
state. It is their right to be kept informed about the current political social , economic and cultural life as
well as the burning topics and important issues of the day in order to enable them to consider to form
broad opinion in which they are being managed, tackled and administered by the government and their
functionaries. To achieve this objective people need a clear and truthful account of events, so that they
may form their own opinion and offer their own comments and viewpoints on such matters and issues
and select their future course of action

Thus both press and media enhances the chances of individuals with relevant information,hearing about
a case and coming forward with new informations.It prevents perjury by placing witnesses under public
scrutiny and prevents state and /or court wrongdoing by placing the criminal justice process under public
scrutiny.It further reduces crime through the public expresson of disapproval for crime;and promote the
public discussion of important issues.”
In India,trial by media has assumed significant proportions.Some of the famous cases that would have
gone unpunished but for the intervention of media includes the Jessica lal case,the Priyadarshini Mattoo
case,Nithesh Katara case and the Bijal joshi rape case.In State v.Siddharth Vashisth & Manu
Sharma22popularly called as the Jessica lal murder case,following the intense media and public pressure,
the prosecution appealed and the Delhi High Court conducted proceedings on a fast track with daily
hearings conducted over 25 days. The trial court judgment was overturned, and Manu Sharma was found
guilty of having murdered Lal. He was sentenced to life imprisonment on 20 December 2006.Similarly
in State (Through Cbi) v.Santhosh Kumar Singh23,popularly called as the Priyadarshini Mattoo case, the
intense media spotlight led to an accelerated trial, unprecedented in the tangled Indian court system.
The acquittal of Santosh Singh in 1999 had led to a massive public outcry and the investigating agency
CBI, under considerable pressure, challenged the judgment in the Delhi high court on February 29,
2000. The case is one of several in India that highlight the ineffectiveness of traditional criminal law

22
2001 IIAD Delhi 829,2001 Cri LJ 2404,90(2001)DLT 548
23
2007 Cri LJ 964,133(2006)DLT 393
system, especially when it comes to high profile perpetrators.Vishal Yadav v.State of Delhi24 is another
case in which the media played a very important role in bringing the criminals before law.

Freedom of press is an integral part of the inner strength and dynamism of our democracy.
Without this freedom there can be no democracy. Art.19 (1) (a) guarantees to all citizens the
right to freedom of speech and expression.
The prime purpose of the free press guarantee is regarded as creating a fourth institution outside the
government as an additional check on the three official branches – executive, legislature and judiciary 25.
The freedom of press regarded as a “Species of which freedom of expression is a genus” 26. The SC has
laid emphasis in several cases on the importance of maintaining freedom of press in a democratic
society. The press seeks to advance public interest by publishing facts and opinions without which a
democratic electorate cannot make responsible judgments. It is the primary duty of the court to uphold
the said freedom and invalidate all laws or administrative actions which interfere with the freedom of
press contrary to the constitutional mandate 27. In Printers (Mysore) Ltd v. Assistant Commercial Tax
Officers28, the SC has reiterated that freedom of press has always been a cherished right in all
democratic countries and the press has rightly been described as the fourth estate. The democratic
credentials of a state are judged by the extent of freedom the press enjoys in that state. Douglas,J. of the
U S Supreme Court has observed that “acceptance by government of a dissident press is a measure of
the maturity of the nation.”29
Recently press has emerged as a fourth estate. As the media is closely attached to the public, it is bound
to disclose the truth. These are for the sake of public interest. The status of the news media was
described by Sir John Donaldson MR in A-G v.Guardina Newspaper Ltd. 30 “I yield to no-one in my
belief that the existence of a free press, in which term I include other media of mass communication,is
an essential element in maintaining parliamentary democracy and the British way of life as we know
it.But it is important to remember why the press occupies this crucial position.It is not because of any

24
116(2005)DLT 341,2005(79)DRJ 254
25
Newyork Times v.Sullivan , 376 US 254
26
Sakal Papers v. Union of India AIR 1962 SC 305; (1962) 3 SCC 842
27
Indian News papers (Bombay)p ltd v. Union of India AIR 1986SC 515
28
(1994) 2 SCC 129
29
Terminiello v. Chicago 337 U S 1
30
(No.2),(1990)1AC 109 at 183 : (1988)3 AII ER 545 at 600
special wisdom,interest or status enjoyed by the proprietors,editors or journalist.It is because the media
are the eyes and ears of the general public.They act on behalf of the general public.Their right to know
and their right to publish is neither more nor less than that of the general public.Indeed it is that of the
general public for whom they are trustees”
Pervasive Media coverage clearly shapes popular opinions.Unlike the American legal system among
others which provide for “trial by jury”,our judicial system relies exclusively on the competence of the
judge.Our argument for allowing unrestrained media coverage can be that the same will not affect the
decisions of professional judges.This issue was in fact the subject of conflicting opinions delivered by
the House of Lords in 1981.31While Lord Denning opined that a professional judge will not be
influenced by media coverge which affects laymen,Lord Dilhorne rebutted this conception of “judicial
superiority”.The same issue had been commented upon by Justice Felix Frankfurter of the US Supreme
Court many years earlier.In John D.Pennekamp v.State of Florida,32he had observed:
“…No Judge fit to be one is likely to be influenced consciously except by what he sees or hears in court
and by what is judicially appropriate for his for his deliberations.However,Judges are also human,and
we know better than did our forbears how powerful is the pull of the unconscious and how treacherous
the rational process…And since Judges,however stalwart,are human,the delicate task of administrating
justice ought not to be made unduly difficult by irresponsible print…”
In our legal system,the courts do not have any power to impose “prior restraints”on the publication of
prejudicial material during the pendency of court proceedings. 33Even the use of remedies such as
“injunctions”, “gag orders” and orders for “postponement of publication”is not common in our
country.The must harmonize freedom of expression and prevention of obstruction of public justice.Thus
the court must harmonize the constitutional values of free criticism,and the need for a fearless crucial
process and its presiding functionary,the judge.To criticize,a judge fairly albeit fiercely,is no crime but a
necessary right.When freedom of expressions subserves public interest in reasonable measure,public
justice cannot gag it or manacle it.The Court must avoid confusion between personal protection of a
libeled judge and prevention obstruction of public justice and the community’s confidence in that great
process.The former is not contempt but latter is,although overlapping spaces abound.The Fourth

31
Attorney General v.British Broadcasting corpn.,(1981)1AC 303 (1980)3 WLR 109 : (1980)3 AII ER 161 (HL)
32
(1946)328 US 331 : 90 L Ed 1295
33
R.Ragagopal v.State of T.N.,(1994)6 SCC 632
functional canon is that the Fourth Estatevshould be given free play within responsible limits even when
the focus of its critical attention is the court,including the highest court; 34
In R.K Anand v.Delhi High Court35the supreme court held that the submission that the TV channel i.e.
NDTV should have carried out the stings after obtaining the permission of the trial court or the chief
justice of the Delhi High Court and should have submitted the sting materials to the court before its
telecast,is not correct.Moreover,to insist that a report concerning a pending trial may be published or a
sting operation concerning a trial may be done only subject to the prior consent and permission of the
court would tantamount to pre-censorship of reporting of court proceedings.And this would be plainly
an infraction of the media’s right of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Art 19(1)(a) of
the Constitution.

So, the star multiple channel has the freedom to conduct such a reality show. He contested in the
program voluntarily. A man who was an accused in a crime should expect such kind of questions. Ram
Bhatia was aware of the consequences of the reality show. It is humbly prayed before this court to
declare that media investigation for public interest is valid.

IV.STATEMENTS IN THE T.V SHOW IS ADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE

Sec.6 of Indian Evidence Act reads as follows: “Facts which, though not in issue, are o connected with a
fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time
and place or at different times and places.”
The proximity of time, nearness of the place, continuity of action, and community of purpose and design
for the offence is the factors one should have in mind to determine whether the facts form the part of the
same transaction.36
Investigating agency arrested Ram Bhatia after the telecast of show in star multiple channel. Prosecution
requested the HC to consider the admissions and statements made in the show as evidence against him.
He made statements voluntarily. There was no inducement, threat to him to make such a statement. ‘Face

34
S.Mulgaokar,AIR 1978 SC 727
35
(2009)8SCC(106)
36
Becharam v. R AIR 1944 Cal 224
 the Truth’ programme was a live telecast. So the is no chance for tampering of statements. He contested
knowing all the consequences.
First question was ‘whether a man should forgive his wife’s infidelity?’ He answered ‘No’. Fleur Dias
had an extra marital affair. It has broken their relationship. There was a heated argument between Ram
Bhatia and Fleur Dias in a party. At last he threatened Fleur with dire consequences. Statements made by
Ram Bhatia forms resgestae. It is admissible under sec.6 of the Indian Evidence Act.
A motive is something which prompts a person to form an opinion or intention to do certain illegal act
or even a legal act but with illegal means with a view to achieve that intention. 37
Proof of motive may be given directly or by inference from certain facts. Where the deceased had told
her daughter within three days immediately prior to her death about her property dispute with the accused,
motive could be inferred there from. 38 Ram Bhatia had a strong motive to kill his wife. The reason was
that a story published in ‘Page 3’ carrying extra marital affair of Fleur. The conflict was ended with
threatening by Ram Bhatia. He said that she will have to meet consequences for that. Statement made in
the reality show corroborates his motive to kill his wife. It is a clear evidence of motive. So, investigating
agency has the right to arrest him for further investigation. There is no any illegality in the arrest. “The
ordinary feelings, passions and propensities under which parties act, are facts known by observation and
experience; and they are so uniform in their operation that a conclusion may be safely drawn that, if a
party acts in a particular manner, he does so under the influence of a particular motive.”39Quarrel between
father of the deceased and that of accused a few hours earlier to incident indicates motive.40
The exchange of hot words by the accused two days prior to the incident can be enough motive to kill a
person and injure other. 41 In R v. Williams, 42the court held that in a case of a threat to kill to lead evidence
that the accused bore the victim a grudge because he had previously been imprisoned for assaulting her.
Motive may create a very strong suspicion but it cannot take place of proof. 43Motive may be inferred
from past enmity.44 Previous threats, previous altercations, or previous litigations between the parties are

37
S.C.Bahri v.State of Bihar 1994 Cr LJ 3271
38
Sooraj v. State 1994 Cr LJ 1155
39
Com v. Webster 5 Cush 295
40
Krishnaswami v. State 1996 Cr LJ 3372(mad)
41
Krishnappa v. State of Karnataka 1996 AIHC 1030
42
(1878) 84 Cr App R 298 CA
43
State of Maharashtra v. Bhanudas Sommanna Sangolkar , 1997 Cr LJ 3205
44
Sonelal v. State of U.P AIR 1978 SC 1142
 relevant to show motive.45 It has been held that old enmity coupled with an incident regarding the passage
of sullage water could be the motive for the crime. 46

It is a reality show and the press has the right to conduct program with lie detector. Any restrictions on
the freedom of press are invalid. The contestants are celebrities. So if the lie detector is wrong, it will
cause injury to the reputation of the celebrities. So it can be inferred that the test was conducted by
experts.
Video of television show can be considered as documentary evidence. An extra judicial confession is
valid. There is evidence to corroborate his statements. It is a clear admission of guilt. All the conditions
of confession are satisfied.
It is humbly prays to this Hon’ble SC to accept the statement made by Mr. Ram Bhatia as evidence
against him.

45
Chhotka v. State 1958 Cal 482
46
Gurmej Singh v. State of Punjab , AIR 1992 SC 1222
 PRAYER

In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is humbly prayed
before this Supreme Court
1. The writ petition filed under article 32 is not maintainable
2. The special crimes (truth detection tests) act, 2010 is constitutionally valid.
3. Media has the freedom to interfere in the administration of justice
4. The statements made in the t.v shows are admissible as evidence.

Respectfully Submitted,
_________s/d_____________
Counsel(s) for the respondent