LLB V- PRACTICAL PAPER III

(MOOT COURT PRE TRIAL PREPARARTIONS

AND PARTICIPATION IN TRIAL PROCEEDINGS

WRITTEN MEMORIAL FOR MOOT COURT NO. XXXX

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION UNDER ARTCILE 136 OF THE

CONSTITUION OF INDIA
IN THE MATTER OF

TIMES TUBE BROADCASTING CO LTD

(APPELLANT)

VERSUS

JUSTICE P.B AMRIT

(RESPONDENT)

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

SUBMITED BY

SATVIK SINGLA- 0201LLB038

CHIRAG DRALL - 0201LLB068
LLB V

1
 Table of Contents

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................. 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................... 4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ...................................................................................... 5

SYNOPSIS OF FACTS ........................................................................................................... 6

STATEMENT OF ISSUES RAISED ..................................................................................... 8

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ............................................................................................. 9

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ................................................................................................ 10

PRAYER ................................................................................................................................. 14
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviations Full form

& And
Anr Another
Anr. Another
CPC Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Dec. December
Feb. February
FIR First Information Report
HC High Court
TTBC Time tube broadcasting co. Ltd.
I.e. That is
IPC Indian Penal Code,1860
Jan. January
MNC Multi National Company
NCTR National Capital Territory Region
No. Number
Ors. Others
RCR Restitution of Conjugal Rights
S. Section
SC Supreme Court
Sec./ S. Section
u/s Under Section
UD Uttam Desh
V. / Vs. Versus
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

[A] CASES

 Belt v. Laws (1882) 51 QB 359(LJ)

 Bowen v Hall 6 QBD. 333
 C.M.G. Ogilvie v Punjab Akhbarat and Press Company Ltd (1929) AIR Lah 561
 Cassidy v Daily Mirror Newspapers (1929) 2 KB 331
 Donoghue v Hayes (1831) Hayes R 265
 E Hulton Co v Jones (1909) 2 KB 444
 E. Houlton and Co. v Jones (1910) L.R.A.C

 Himachal Road Transport Corpn v Gurdev Kaur (1983) AIR HP 74

 Hough v London Express Newspapers (1940) 2 KB 507
 J Lakshmikantham v U Rajamma (1982) AIR AP 337
 Jagraj Singh v Birpal Kaur, (2007) AIR SC 2083
 K.P. Narayanan v. Mahendra Singh (1957) AIR
 Khair-ud-Din v Tara Singh (1927) AIR Lah 20 at p 23

 Knupffer v London Express Newspaper Limited (1944)AC 116

 Le Fanu v Malcolmson (1848) 1 HLC 637, 664

 Newstead v London Express Newspaper (1939) 4 All ER 319 (CA)

 P B Sawant v. Times Global Broadcasting Co. Ltd. And anr. 2011 (113) Bom LR 3801
 Prabhakar v Vinayakrao (1983) AIR Bom 301
 Pritam Singh v The State (1950) SCR 453
 R.v Hicklin, (1868) 3 QB 360 (LR)
 Rashpal Malhotra v Satya Rajput (1987) 4 SCC 391
 Shepheard v Whitaker L R 10 CP 502
 SNM Abdi v Prafulla Kr. Mahanta and Ors. (2002) AIR Gau 75
 State v Mohammad Hasan Khan (1983) AIR AP 277
 Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd v Lanco Kondapalli Power Ltd
 [B] STATUTES

Indian Penal Code, 1860

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Constitution of India, 1950

[C] BOOKS

 DD Basu Shorter Constitution of India (13th edn Wadhwa and Company

Nagpur 2006).
 Janet Loveless Criminal Law: Text, Cases, and Materials (2nd edn Oxford
University Press New York 2010).
 Jeremy Clarke-Williams and Lorna Skinner A Practical Guide to Libel and
Slander ( Butterworths London 2003).
 Media, Press & Telecommunications Laws (1st edn Eastern Book Company
Lucknow 2007).
 MP Jain Indian Constitutional Law (6th edn Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa
Nagpur 2010).
 Ratanlal Ranchhoddas and Dhirajlal Keshavlal Thakore The Indian Penal Code
( 31st edn Wadhwa Nagpur 2007).

[D] LEGAL DATABASES

1. www.scconline.com
2. www.manupatra.com
3. www.indiankanoon.org
 STATEMENT OF
JURISDICTION

The Respondent humbly submits the Memorandum for the Respondents in response to
the Special Leave to Appeal by the Petitioners filed before The Hon‟ble Supreme Court
of India under Article 136 of The Constitution of India, 1950.
 SYNOPSIS OF FACTS

 The Times Tube is a popular and leading 24-hours English television channel
which is owned by a media house known as Times Tube Broadcasting Co. Ltd.
(for brevity sake hereinafter referred to as T.T.B.C.).

 In one of its news broadcast on Sept 10, 2008 at 06:30 P.M. it ran a story on a
multi- crore provident fund scam. While mentioning the name of the then sitting
judge of a High Court, Justice P.K. Amritya who was allegedly involved in the
scam, it inadvertently displayed the picture of a retired Supreme Court Judge
and a former Chairman Press Board of India Justice P.B. Amrit for 15 seconds
due to mix up of phonetically similar sounding names.

 After realizing the mistake the news-channel made amends and did not show
the picture in the subsequent bulletins and apologized to Justice Amrit and ran
the apology in scroll news for five continuous days.

 However, Justice Amrit proceeded against TTBC for civil and criminal liability.
According to him, firstly, the channel is liable to pay fine for the offence of libel;
secondly, the criminal intention of the employee responsible for the broadcast of
the picture should be imputed to the corporation; and lastly, the employee responsible
for the broadcast should also be punished for the defamation caused in order to send
a tough message to the news channel against such irresponsible journalism and
libellous act. Further, Justice Amrit is of the opinion that once defamatory information
about a responsible person is published, it is believed by the public and injures his
reputation. Mere apologies do not compensate for the loss caused adequately.
Further, the principle of „slap – say sorry – forget‟ has been discarded from the
jurisprudence long back.

 The district court in which the case was filed awarded Justice Amrit Rs.100 crore
as damages. The T.T.B.C. appealed to the concerned High Court which passed
interim order against it to deposit Rs.100 crore (Rs.20 crore in cash and a bank
guarantee for the rest amount of Rs.80 crore) with High Court Registrar as
pre-condition before hearing appeal.
 Ultimately the matter was taken in special leave to appeal (SLP) under Art. 136
to the Supreme Court.

 TTBC argued that orders of both the High Court and the lower court are incorrect.
The decision taken is not just, fair and reasonable. The award of damages of Rs. 100
crore for the inadvertent, trivial, human error, without explaining how it was quantified
is violative of Doctrine of Proportionality (well established in jurisprudence). High libe
l damages are wholly uncalled for in the absence of any malice or intentional mistake
on the part of the Television channel. Moreover, since TTBC is a corporate body
hence criminal liability cannot be imputed to it. Further, award of grossly
disproportionate, punitive and exemplary damages muzzles the freedom of speech
and expression of media enshrined in Article 19 (1) (a) of Indian Constitution.

T.T.B.C., now, seeks to quash the impugned order and pending criminal proceedings
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES RAISED

~ ISSUE 1 ~

WHETHER THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION IMPOSED UPON TTBC FOLLOW THE

ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES OF LAW?

~ ISSUE 2 ~

WHETHER TTBC, A CORPORATION CAN HAVE CRIMINAL LIABILITY IMPOSED

UPON IT?

~ ISSUE 3 ~

WHETHER TTBC CAN BE HELD LIABLE FOR THE OFFENCE OF DEFAMATION AS

ENSHRINED UNDER SECTION 499 OF THE IPC, 1860?

~ ISSUE 4 ~

THE SUPREME COURT IS COMPETENT TO HEAR THE MATTER OF PENDING

CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS UNDER ARTICLE 136
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1) WHETHER THE COMPENSATION AWARDED IS PROPORTIONAL TO THE
DAMAGE CAUSED?

The Respondents have been defamed by the act of the petitioner. TTBC showed the picture
of the respondent on a national television related to a scam which caused a lot of damage
to the reputation of respondent. Apologies from the petitioner will not suffice the amount
of damage caused to his reputation. Therefore it is contended that the petitioner is liable
for the injury caused. And the damages imposed by the district court are totally justified.

2) WHETHER TTBC, A CORPORATION CAN HAVE CRIMINAL LIABILITY IMPOSED

UPON IT?

3) Whether TTBC can be held liable for the offence of defamation as enshrined
under Section 499 of the IPC,1860

Corporation is liable for defamation as it is also counted as a person and fulfills all
requirements of the offence.

4) THE SUPREME COURT IS COMPETENT TO HEAR THE MATTER OF

PENDING CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS UNDER ARTICLE 136

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. It has been specifically mentioned
that Special Leave Petition can be heard only against a „judgment, decree, determination, sentence
or order.‟ Since in the present case the case is still pending before a competent court and no judgment
has been passed, the Supreme Court cannot hear the matter in SLP.
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1) WHETHER THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION IMPOSED UPON TTBC FOLLOW THE
ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES OF LAW?

Libel is classified as both a crime and a tort. It is a publication of a false and defamatory
statement, in some permanent form, tending to injure the reputation of another person
without lawful justification or excuse.
The publication, thus made, relating to the picture of the respondent is clearly defamatory.
Wrong information about a responsible person was aired by T.T.B.C. to entire nation
and beyond, which was further believed by the public, causing injury to his reputation.
This falsity of the charge is presumed in Respondent‟s favour. Further, if a man has stated
that which is false and defamatory, malice is also assumed. And unless there is a plea of
privilege or fair comment (which is not the case here), the law looks at the tendency and
consequences of the publication rather than motive and intention of the publisher. Even
if we assume the petitioner has actuated by the best of motive 1 and didn‟t intend2 to refer
to the respondent while publishing the news, malice can be attributed to it no matter how good
their intentions were3. The petitioner can‟t take excuses about the defamatory publication
being made by accident, by mistake4 or in jest5 and honest belief. A person may become
liable for defamation without any intention or fault on his part6. Here, in this case even if
we neglect the intention part and accept that it was an unintentional mistake, the tendency
of this false publication was seriously defamatory and the consequences suffered thereby are
unfathomable. Thus, the petitioner is liable for the defamation caused irrespective of their
intention, motive or mistake.
The publication thus made referred to the respondent in this case. “It is not necessary for
this purpose that the person should be described by his own name. It is sufficient if he is
described by the initial letters of his name or even by a fictitious name, provided he can
satisfy the court that he was the person referred to.”7 Here, the respondent was referred
to by his picture along with a phonetically similar sounding name. And it is sufficient a
defence as long as those who know the plaintiff can make out that he is the person meant 8.
The person charged with libel cannot defend himself by showing that he intended not to
defame the plaintiff. If in fact he did both.9 The intention is immaterial, and if it is deemed
by reasonable person to refer to the respondent, the action is can be maintained.10
The publication should be in a permanent form in order to constitute a libel. It is said
in „Gatley on Libel and Slander‟ that, “if the publication is made in a permanent form or is
broadcast or is part of a theatrical performance, it is libel11.” And the broadcaster will be
responsible for any material that is broadcasted even where the broadcaster has no real
control over the person who makes the defamatory statement12. Also they may incur liability
for completely unexpected and enforceable defamatory publication13. Thus, it can be inferred
from the above that even broadcast is considered to be a permanent form of publication and
where „consent‟ of the claimant is there. And lastly, there are defences of „offer to amends‟ and
„apology‟. Offer to amends and apologies were never accepted by the judge therefore it
cannot be accepted as a defence.

Assessing by the above arguments, respondent should be properly compensated. The assessment
does not depend on any legal rule but the following factors should be considered14:

A. The conduct of the plaintiff (respondent in this case)-

There has been no indication that there has been any bad conduct on the part of the
plaintiff and neither is there any evidence to suggest or imply so.
B. His position and standing- Higher the plaintiff‟s position, heavier the damages. This is
so as “such persons are more vulnerable to defamation in so far as they are more
well known, often hold public positions of considerable responsibility and trust and
come into wider contact with more people and may have a wider circle of friends.” The
respondent, being a former Chairman of Press Board of India, was a very familiar name in the
media circle. Also, being a retired Supreme Court Judge, he was considered a responsible
 person and would have had a good reputation. The reputation of such a magnitude needs
to be compensated with proportional damages.
C. The nature of the libel – The publication, being the one related to a high profile corruption
scandal and that too showing the wrong picture of an innocent party along with other corrupt
individuals at prime time is extremely defamatory in nature and needs to be compensated
accordingly.
D. The mode and extent of publication- Picture of the respondent was shown for a full 15
seconds on a very popular and a leading 24-hours English television channel for a full 15
seconds at the prime time i.e. 6:30 P.M., where millions of people are watching a large scale
corruption scandal. The extent of defamation caused is unfathomable. The damage caused to
the reputation in such circumstances needs to be substantiated with compensatory damages.
The reason being that the media in its ordinary course of nature publishes news for profit. So,
the amount of profit that the petitioners must have made by defaming respondents in a
publication of such a magnitude The absence or refusal of any retraction or apology – though
there had been an apology but the same was never accepted which negates the whole defence
altogether. Also, mere apologies cannot restore respondent‟s damaged reputation and
adequately compensate him.

The defamation done by the petitioner fulfils all the essentials of defamation and damages as
well as negates each of the defences. It is hereby established that the respondents were severely
defamed and the damages provided are absolutely proportional when we gauge the amount of
defamation caused on the national television and the reputation enjoyed by the respondent before that.
Also, the pre-condition imposed by the High court is reasonable enough when we look into the
intensity of the wrong committed. The court wants to be sure enough whether petitioners will pay the
damages in case they lose the current case as well. And even in case they win the case the whole
amount will be returned as it is. So there is no question of grave injustice being done against the
petitioner, it is just a matter of security that the court is imposing it the damages as a whole.

2) WHETHER TTBC, A CORPORATION CAN HAVE CRIMINAL LIABILITY IMPOSED

UPON IT?

"Corporate crime is the conduct of a corporation or of its employees acting on behalf of the
corporation, which is prescribed and punished by law."- J. Braithwaite

Corporations have a separate legal entity and they are treated as a separate personality in law.
And therefore, separate liability can be imposed on corporations from any criminal liability
which may be imposed on the individual members for any wrongdoing. The legal maxim
upon which the basic rule of criminal liability stands is 'actus non facit reum nisi mens
sit rea means' which basically means that act is not wrongful unless it is done with a
wrongful state of mind. The companies are criminally liable only for the offences that
happens during the course of business operation and for which the company bears
responsibility. A company can be involved in offences such as failure to ensure safety
mechanism and any other offence of omission. An intention does not play a role in
deciding cases against corporation therefore, it can be held liable for an offence which
does not involve any intention.

Doctrine of Vicarious liability:

In Vicarious liability, the accused is blamed for the offence of another. This doctrine is
based on the principle of Respondeat Superior which means let the master answer.
This doctrine is applicable in criminal as well wherein corporate may be held liable and
punishment can be fine and seizure of property. Similarly, in the case of Ranger vs.
The great western railway company, it was held that the company is held vicariously
liable for the acts committed by its employee if it is done in the course of its employment.
For vicarious liability, the act and intent of the employee must be imputed to the company
and the employee should act within the course of employment.

3) Whether TTBC can be held liable for the offence of defamation as enshrined under
Section 499 of the IPC,1860

The doctrine of proportionality in the case of om kumar case clearly declared that idea of
proportionality applies to the judicial review of article 21 of indian constitution. In the present case,
there is a violation of a fundamental right to reputation is inclusively covered under article 21 of the
indian constitution also affirmed the proportionality test in KS puttaswamy v Union of India in which
it was decided that while determining the proportionality of legislation, the constraints imposed by
the citizens basic rights must be considered when considering the proportionality of measures, it is
important to consider not only the physical constraints but also the terror that these instill in the
minds of general public

4) THE SUPREME COURT IS COMPETENT TO HEAR THE MATTER OF PENDING

CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS UNDER ARTICLE 136

Article 13615 vests in the Supreme Court a plenary jurisdiction in the matter of entertaining
and hearing of appeals by granting special leave against any kind of judgment or order.
Article 136(1) says that
“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.16”
The article specifically states that special leave to appeal can be granted only against any
“judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order.17” Further, the court would not grant
special leave on grounds which not sustain the appeal itself.18
In the present case, firstly, the criminal proceedings are still pending before a competent court.
No judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order has been passed by the competent court.
Secondly, nothing has been specifically mentioned under any clause of Article 136 regarding
hearing of the case of pending proceedings under SLP. Lastly, no special appeal can be granted
in a case where no appeal can be filed. Here in the present case, since the proceedings are „sub –
judice‟ i.e. going on in a competent court, no question of filing another appeal arises.
Hence, the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the matter of pending criminal
proceedings under Special Leave Petition under Article 136. Since the Supreme Court is not
competent to hear the matter, hence the respondent need not prove intention of the employee or
liability of the corporation.
 PRAYER

Therefore, in light of the Issues Raised, Authorities Cited and Arguments Advanced, it is
most humbly and respectfully requested that the Hon'ble Supreme court of India be
pleased to:

1. UPHOLD the decision of the High Court .

2. Dismiss this special leave petition

AND/OR

Pass any other order it may deem fit, in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good conscience.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.