BACHELOR OF LAW (BA, LL.

B)

( SCHOOL OF LEGAL STUDIES, BABU BANARASI DAS UNIVERSITY)

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDICA

EXTRAORDINARY WRIT JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION(CIVIL)NO.___ OF 2022

(IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 32)

Inflix and Inzon…………………………………..petitioner no 1

Union of Indica &ors……………………………Respondent1

(CLUBBED WITH PETITION)

1. M/s Johri Cine Film Limited ……………………petitioner 2

2 Blockbuster film and Amit Diwan ……………….petitioner3

3. Association of film producers………………………petitioner4

1. State of Bambil…………………………………………respondent 2

2 State of Awadh …………………………………………….respondent3

3. State of Deli and Hind Swaraj………………………………..respondent 4

UNDER THE ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDICA, 1950

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

COUNCIL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

SUBMITTED BY : RAKSHITA SENGAR

1180992039

BA.LLB IXth SEMESTER

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 1

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABREVATION

INDEX OF AUTHORIIES

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

STATEMNETS OF FACTS

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1whether the petitions are maintainable in the supreme court of Indica?

2. Whether the notice is served to JCFL and Inflix is lawful or not?

3. Whether the FIR is liable to be quashed or not?

4. Whether the It rules are constitutionally valid

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 2

 LIST OF ABBREVATIONS

& AND

$ SECTION

AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

Anr Another

ART. Article

C.BF.C central board of film certificate

Ass Assistance

Cl clause

Consti constitution

Cpc civil procedure code

Crpc the code of criminal procedure

FIR First information report

Govt government

JCFL M/S JOHRI CINE FILMS LIMITED

No. Number

U/s under section

U/a under article

SCC Supreme court cases

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 3

 INDEX OF AUTHORITY

1. Daryao Singh vs. state of up AIR 1961

2. Fertilizer crop kangar union v. union of India AIR 1981SC 344
3. Santokh Singh v. Delhi admiration, AIR 1973 SC 109
4. Sunil rathee v state of Haryana2020
5. Rv.bolton (1841)
6. Ajay Kumar Das v. state of Jharkhand (2011)12 SC 319
7. Smt Ujjam Bai v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1962 SC.1621
8. Heller v. doe
9. State of Gujarat v Mirzapur Moti and khureshi Kasab jamat
10. Krishna swami v. union of India and ors (1992)4SCC 605
11. Gurudevdatta vksss Marayadit &ORS V. state of Maharashtra &ORS
(2001)4SCC534
12. Kurukshetra university vs. Ans state of Haryana &ors (1977)4 SCC451
13. Satyavir Singh union of india &ors(1985)&SCC,252
14. The state of Punjab and Ors vs. shubhash trading company and ors (1976)1(SCC)
15. GOGULNATH V. STATE OF PUNJAB
16. state of bihar v. smt.shailabala devi AIR ,1952SC329
17. Manohar lal Sharma v union of India and ors AIR 2021,SC,5396
18. gokalnathand ors State of Punjab
19. CHARAN LAL SHAHU V. UNION OF INDIA,(1990)1SCC613
20. NARENDRA KUMAR &ORS V. UNION OF INDICA &ORS AIR 1960SC430
21. KINGSELY INTERNATIONAL PICTURE COPERATION V.S REGENTS OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE NEW YORK ,360US 684(1959)

Statute

 Cinematograph act,1952 section 16,no 37 , acts of parliament

 Cinematograph act 1952 section2(c), no ,37,acts of parliament,1952(india)
 Cinematograph act ,1952section2(dd),no 37, acts of parliament1952(india)
 Cinematograph act ,1952,section5A, no ,37, acts of parliament ,1952(india)
 Cinematograph act1952, section 7 (1)(a)(i), no 37, acts of parliament,1952
 Cinematograph act,1952section 7, no 37,acts of parliament.(1957)
 Copyright act ,1957section 52A (2)(a), no. 14 act of parliament 1973
 The code of criminal procedure ,1973 section 482, no 2 ,acts of parliament(1973)
 The Indian penal code 1806section 505(1)(b), no 45act of parliament,1860
 The information technology act 2000,section 69A , NO 21 ,act of parliament
,2000 india
 The information technology act 2000section 87 ,no 21 act of parliament 2000

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 4

 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
 INDIA CONSTI ,ART,139A
 INDIA CONST,ART 19, CL.2
 INDIA CONSTI.ART 19,CL6
 INDIA CONST,ART32

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 5

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The plaintiffs have approached the Hon’ble Supreme court of Indica under Article 32 of the
constitution of indica. The counsel for the Defendant humbly reserves the right to challenge
the jurisdiction of this hon’ble court

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 6

 STATEMENTS OF FACTS

1.Indica is sovereign, socialist, secular, republic and democratic and as well as culturally,
linguistically and ethnically manifold country situated in south Asian region. The laws of
indica and the constitution of indica are Pari Materia. Part III of constitution of indica provide
certain basic freedom and fundamental rights and promote cultural and linguistic minorities.

2.there was annunciation of cinematographic act occur by perceiving a huge prospective and
impact of film industry .in 1952, the parliament had enacted the cinematograph act,1952
which inter alia constituted the central board of film certificate as nodal authority for
certification of cinematograph films. If you display the film in public which are of obscene or
public violence here is certification is necessary.

3. Till 2014 the Indian film industry grow immensely by seeing all these types of interest
they start producing serial and other content for the television. around this time the
telecommunication announced the launched of spectrum to enable 4 g services by seeing all
these type of participant and all private company and other companies also getting the benefit
the overall number of users of the smartphones and 4G services increased

4.Because of the 4 g services and improvement in the internet services the development of
new media viz. digital media application were mushroomed across the country the exposure
of OTT platform occurs these platforms are such as Inflix, Inzon, etc. which allowed the
streaming of audio-visual content on its platform for its subscribers in lieu of payment.

5.Large no of film producers of the film industry started developing and producing their
content in the OTT platform in the nature of web series, short movies, anthology series and
features films with intents to exhibits and telecast it on Ott. Simultaneously, the OTT
platform were also keen interest in hosting the indicant contents as it allowed them to tap in
to a Indica market, which had 50 million viewers. Notably, the content released in the OTT
platform does not need the certification from the central board of film certification.

6.M/s Johri Cine Film limited (JCFL) is the film production company in Indica. they had
produced so many films .in 2018, JCFL expressed its intent to foray in to production of
content of OTT platform. JCFL hereinafter announced a Rs 30 million deals with the Inflix
and Inzon to develop the web series/ feature film for the platform. pursuant thereto, JCFL
therefore produce a web series titled named is Indica Games which was scheduled to be
released on Inflix on 5 may. On 1 may the CBFC issued a notice to JCFL and Inflix directing
them to cease and desist from releasing the web series unless the certificate has been issued
by the CBFC

7. When the JCFL and Inflix did not listen and released the web series on the scheduled time
CBFC impose a penalty under section 7 of the cinematography act to retract the said notice,
JCFL and Inflix on 15 may 2022 filed a writ petition under article 226 of constitution before
the bombil high court.

8.Meanwhile another production name blockbuster films released a political drama named as
political heist on Inzon. There was huge uproar against the releases of the said films, with

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 7

widespread protests by certain section of the society. On May 6 2022 this protest turns in to
violent resulting in damaging to public property and injuries to the large no of protesters... Mr
Gaikwad lodged a FIR against the blockbuster and managing director Name as amit Diwan.

On 16 may 2022, Inzon issued a press releasing declaring that it had collected approximately
1000 complaints and grievance an internal committee was constituted by Inzon to
examine the complaints and grievance received committee said that no sentiments got
hurts and no violation occur so it shall not be censored or blocked. Blockbuster and
Amit diwan filed a writ petition before the Awadh high court under section 482 of the
CRPC for quashing the FIR

9. Owing the public outrage and uproar against the political heist on 1june 2022 the
government of Indica issued an information technology (intermediaries guideline and
digital media and ethics code). The it rules straight affect the manner of content in
which manner it is presented/hosted on the OTT platform. The rules were met with
staunch opposition by various section of the society various section of the society
believe that this rule violate the freedom of speech and expression

10. accordingly on June 03 2022, Association of film producers filed a separate writ petition
under article 226 of the constitution of indica before the high court of deli challenging
the constitution validity simultaneously the hind swaraj filed an intervention
application supporting the constitutional validity of the said rule.

11. Moreover on June 5 Inflix and Inzon filed a jointly writ petition before the supreme court
of indica u/a 32 of the constitution alleging the OTT platform cannot be regulated by
the ministry of information technology. The said rules were promulgated ultra vires
.on June 10, 2022 the said writ petition was listed before the Supreme Court at which
time the hon’ble Supreme Court of Indica took cognisance of the proceeding pending
before the various high court involving similar question of law

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 8

 ISSUES RAISED

I WHETHER THE APPLICATIONS AND PETITIONS ARE MAINTABLE BEFORE THE

HON’BLE SUPREME COURT?

II. WHETHER THE NOTICE SERVED TO JCFL AND INFLIX IS LAWFUL?

III. WHETHER THE FIR IS NOT LIABLE TO BE QUASHED?

IV.WHETHER IT RULES ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 9

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1WHETHER THE APPLICATIONS AND PETITIONS ARE MAINTABLE BEFORE THE

HON’ BLE SUPREME COURT?

the writ was filed by the Inflix and Inzon that was not maintainable because there is no
violence of fundamental rights of petitioner occurs.

Second thing is that drawn out of cases from profuse high courts to the supreme courts that
was not upright in law that also says that applications and petitions are not maintainable.

The writ was filed by the JCFL and Inflix it is also not be maintainable because the parties
who had approach to the court on that party’s government had imposes some restrictions and
penalties on the parties that restriction that was imposes on the parties that will be good for
the society but the parties does not follow those restrictions that means the parties itself does
not came with clean hands

The need for taking cognizance of the FIR does not arise

The writ that was filed by association group that is also not maintainable because their
fundamental rights are not violated. The hind swaraj that filed an application that was filed in
good faith for the keeping in mind of society’s sentiments.

II WHETHER THE NOTICE SERVED TO INFLIX AND JCFL IS LAWFUL?

Yes, the notice served to Inflix and JCFL is lawful because they streamed that type of content
on the OTT platform that was against the good positive society or may create the violence in
the society so penalties was imposed on the parties that was valid and fair.

III. WHETHER THE FIR IS NOT LIABLE TO BE QUASHED?

The high court does not hold native jurisdiction and also it violates the principle of nemo
judex causa sua. secondly this FIR is valid because of the political heist web series because of
that web series the violation occurs in the society that also hamper the cultural of the society
and mental peace of the people that is living in the society.

IV. WHETHER THE IT RULES ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID?

In consonance section 87 of this act the government have the power to certify in the provision
that was beneficial for the society as well.

It is relent or evident that government can urge the restriction on article 19 (1)(a) as
mentioned in article 19(2) in this restriction is impose by the government for protecting the
public welfare or we can say which proceed the test of legalized and approved aim of the
state their necessity as well protect the personality of the people and safeguard the people
from wrong thing which make a people a negative person or violative person.

In this doctrine of parens patrae play an important role.

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 10

There is various other act is imposed that talks about the welfare of the society and in the
society the people are living delegated legislation under the parent act is valid as section 16 of
cinematographic act 1952 and section 69 A ,84 and 87 of the it acts 2000empower the central
govt. to regulate

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 11

 ARGUMENT ADVANCED

1.THE APPLCIATION AND PETATIONS IS FILED BY INFLIX AND INZON,

BLOCKBUSTER FILMS AND Mr AMIT DIWAN AND ASSOCIATION OF FILMS
PRODUCERS ARE NOT MAINTABLE THE HIND SWARAJ FILED An
INTERVENTION APPLICATION THAT WAS MAINTABLE.

Inflix and Inzon filed a writ petition under the hon’ble Supreme Court under section 32 by
saying that violation of fundamental occurs with them. No violation occurs and these rules
are promoted without any jurisdiction. the hon’ble Supreme court of Indica grasp cognizance
of proceeding which was not concluded or we can say unsettled before the abundant high
court by relaying the following writ petitions and application u/a 139Aof constitution. In
CRPC u/s 406 also talks about the transfer of cases and in CPC u/s 25 it also talks about the
transfer of cases.

The writ of mandamus which was filed on 15 may, 2022 by Inflix and JCFL before the
hon’ble high court of bombil u/s 226 looking for quashing of notice which was issued by the
CBFC for the welfare of the society.

Second the petition is filed by the blockbuster and Amit diwan u/s 482 before the hon’ble
Awadh high court for quashing of FIR which was lodged by the MHP leader Mr. Supriyo
Gaikwad.

There was writ of probation is filed by the association of films producers before the hon’ble
high court of deli u/s 226 that challenging the constitutional validity of the rule that writ was
filed on June 03 2022.

There was intervention application is filed by the hind swaraj before the hon’ble high court of
deli under order 1 rule 8A of CPC bracing the constitutional validity of the rule that
application is filed on 03,2022.

In this various act and laws are made in welfare for women and children that also tell whether
OTT platform need certification or various restriction should be made for content which are
shown to the OTT platform so that the society as well as people feel safe

I.WRIT PETATIONS ARE NOT MAINTABLE WHICH WAS FILED BY INZON AND
INFLIX

These petitions submissively conform that this writ is filed by the Inflix and Inzon that was
not maintainable under article 32 of the constitution of Indica. This article talks about the
constitutional remedies it is the fundamental rights individual have right to seek to the
supreme court for the enforcement of the other fundamental rights but in this writ, there is no
violence of fundamental right occur and no exhaustion of alternate remedy is a stake for
entertaining a writ in to article 32. In the case of DARYAO SINGH1 the supreme court said
that nature of proceeding should be appropriate and clear. when the person has clear

1
Daryao Singh vs state of up AIR 1961

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 12

proceeding then he should approach to the court then only he will get the constitutional
remedies. “The violation of fundamental right is the sine qua non of the exercise of rights
which was conferred by Article 32 2. In the immediate case, the petitioners have not been
successful in prima facie creating a causal link between the violation of fundamental rights
and the proclamation that was impose on the OTT platform that it cannot be modulated by
ministry of information technology and the it rule 2022 circulated by the ministry that was
abide with lack of jurisdiction even if the such rights have been secured ,the same is not
impeded with law .the existence of an alternate remedy in the form of Article 226 must act as
support for entering the writ in the sudden case the petitioners had directly approach to the
supreme court of indica under article 32 of the constitution . In SANTOKH SINGH V.
DELHI ADMINISRTATION,3 the case of the three judges’ bench in that apex court said
according to the law u/a 19 (1)(a)4 of the constitution talks about the freedom of speech and
expression that is subject to reasonable restriction u/a 19(2) anything that violate the region
able restriction given u/a 19 (2) that does not mean that it violates the fundamental rights of
the petitioner. The OTT platform have the massive following of viewer and on that platform
the content which have been display because of that content the environment of society
become violative and also that content create the danger for the people specially youth.
Hence there is no violation of fundamental rights of the petitioners

Hence the respondent humbly submitted that writ petition is not maintainable.

B. The withdrawal or cancellation of cases from several high court to the supreme court
was not good in law

Under Article 139 A of the constitution stated that this article empower the supreme court to
transfer or withdraw cases pending before the high court and tries such cases by itself or to
transfer the cases to itself under article139A of the constitution it stated that if the case
implying the same or the eventually the same question of law before the one or more high
court the supreme court may dispose the case by itself .the withdrawal and transfer of case is
possible when the court is satisfied on its own motion or application that is made by the
attorney general or by the intended parties to the case such case involve substantial question
of general importance article 139 A was introduced through the amendment to the
constitution that amendment was 42 amendment the case which have same substantive
question of law that was withdrawn by the supreme court to the apex court

The supreme court should satisfy the substantial question of general importance are present

In the case of Sunil rathee and ors v. state of Haryana5 the supreme court observed that the
question of laws lies on the apex court on the basis of application that was lies that various
case pending in the court or the application is made by the attorney general on that
application the hon’ble court should decide their decrition with using their mind with good
facts and statement. the withdrawal of cases should be filed in good faith not to thwart or
2
Fertilizer crop kangar union v. union of India AIR 1981SC 344
3
Santokh Singh v. Delhi admistration, AIR 1973 SC 109
4
Constitution of indica u/a 19
5
Sunil rathee v state of Haryana2020

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 13

stifle the process of law. In the present case the writ was filed by Inflix and Inzon question
the jurisdiction of the jurisdiction of information technology. the mandamus writ that was
filed for the quashing of notice issued by CBFC. other petition is filed to quash an FIR filed
after the public unrest, the association of film production challenges the constitutional
validity of the rule that all the petitions that was filed that was unrelated question of law

The writ petition is filed by JCFL and Inflix is not maintainable

Under section 52 A (2)6a of the copy right act 1957 in that it is prepared that no
cinematography film should be published without displaying the copy of the certificate that
was granted by the Board of film certification u/s 5A of the cinematographic act 1952

It is not main table that when substitute and equally efficacious remedy is open to the litigant
why then there is need of special jurisdiction of the high court to issue a prerogative writ
where such remedy is exist. the alternate remedy in this case for the litigant is to approach the
film certificate tribunal. It is state in the case rex Bolton 7The court had sated that
jurisdiction of the quasi-judicial body does not cease on that case where there is wrongful
decision had come .in this case the JCFL and Inflix had filed the petition under article 226
before the high court for quashing the notice which was given by the CBFC they did not even
the follow the instruction of CBFC or the law CBFC sent the notice before the release of web
series named INDICA GAMES8 they had said they have to issue a certificate or not release
the web series but the JCFL and Inflix did not listen of legal notice and release the web
series they both had done a wrongful act by not listening the CBFC they even do not have
clean hands the JCFL and Inflix realise the web series on 05 may 20229 which was
scheduled. That was a wrongful act.

ii. the require for taking cognizance of the petition seeking quashing of FIR does not
arise

It is submissible submitted that the petition for quashing of FIR filed before the Awadh high
court does not arise or not maintainable because immediate case does not entail the
exceptional or infrequent causes to warrant the exercise of high court and also it does not
alternate remedy. Basically this section 482 10of CRPC state that it preserve the inherit power
of high court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court and to secure the justice thought
the court has very wide power ,but there is rule of practice this power is used in exceptional
case this power has used very rarely inherit power should not be implemented to stifle a
legitimate prosecution in the case Ajay Kumar das v state of Jharkhand 11in this inherit
power does not confer arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or
caprice if in case the court give the power to quash the FIR they have to keep in mind that
those petitioners who had lodged a for quashing of FIR they had hurted the sentiments of the

6
Section 52 (A) of the copy right act
7
Rv.bolton (1841)
8
Moot preposition no 9
9
Moot preposition no 10
10
The code of criminal procedure 1908
11
Ajay Kumar Das v. state of Jharkhand (2011)12 SC 319

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 14

society at large .the inherent power of 482 is given only when there is no other remedy is
given in this case the petitioner are getting the remedy already or seek the remedy under
article 226 of the constitution of indica . presence of alternative remedy like article 226 the
other remedy cannot be given. In the present case there is FIR that was lodged against Amit
diwan that was a criminal complaint .and the charge is applied on them is not subsequent to
the question of law that was raised in other application and petitions.

THE writ petitions filed by association of film producers is not maintainable

The association of film producers challenges the constitution validity of it rule 2022. It has
been framed for the elimination of some point that was mentioned in the it rule act 2021
removal of unambiguous provision of the act 2021 it is well resolve that the fundamental to
freedom of speech and expression u/a 19(1)12 of the constitution of indica is not absolute and
right the state can impose the reasonable restriction under article 19(2)13 in this it rule the
intermediaries to publish the privacy policy for the user and which content should be
mentioned in the online web site that will create the great help for the society and also the it
rule does not agonize from any legal or constitutional infirmity thus it is not maintainable

In the case Smt ujjaim bai v state of Uttar Pradesh14 in this it is established that legal valid
act cannot be said as the violation of fundamental rights of an individual

The doctrine of parens patraie basically it talks about that state have power to intervene
against abusive thing is happening means if the society is suffering abusive then state will act
as a legal guardian of your

In the case of Heller v. doe15 in this state has legitimate interest under the parens patraie
powers to provide the care to the all the citizen

Under article 19(6) of the constitution of indica in that it allows the state to make the law in
favour for public interest or general interest in the case state of Gujrat v. Mirzapur Moti
khureshi Kasab jamat16 the supreme court held the expression in the interest of general
public in article 19(6) is a wide import comprehensive public order, public health, as well as
public security and for the welfare of the society

Moreover, the state witness public untrust and destruction of property therefore it is the
responsibility of state to ensure the trans equality of state should be maintained

The intervention application is filed by the hind swaraj is maintainable

Under Order I rule 8 A read with section 151 of Crpc in the if court feels that if is necessary
of the benefit of public interest then the court empower them to present their case or take part
in pending suit this suit is not concerned with the narrow issue they were concerned with the

12
INDIA CONST ART.19 cl.1
13
INDIA CONST.ART.19 cl.2
14
Smt Ujjam Bai v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1962 SC.1621
15
Heller v.Doe
16
State of Gujrat v Mirzapur Moti and khureshi Kasab jamat

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 15

broad issue. the law commission in its 54th report said that it is recommended with the both
private and as well organization to be permitted to be participating in a suit.

As matter of fact that a proceeding under article 226 is not a civil suit as predicted in the code
of civil procedure since 141 of CPC absolutely provided that code will not apply under article
226 although faired does not bar the high court from framing the rule providing the code will
be applicable .the principle underlying the procedure and provision of the code have been
applicable by the judicial ruling .to determine if the particular parties should be allowed to
conciliate in writ petition it must be learned if there is necessary in order to enable the court
to constructively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the question which is
mentioned in the writ petitions
17
In the case Krishna swami v. union of indica

The court put forward the liberal view of locus standii and promote the induvial in good faith

The supreme court liberalise the locus standi in that court allowed public spirited person can
filed an application in favour of other persons. The hind swaraj is non-governmental
organisation NGO that work for the Indian society 18basically now a day’s westernization is
increasing day by day because of the OTT platform and that our culture is left behind and that
also hurts the sentiments of the society.

2. THE NOTICE SERVED TO THE INLIX ANDJCFL WAS LAWFUL

The notice is obeyed by the CBFC under section 7 is valid of the cinematographic act 1952 is
valid CBFC grasp the authority that films can be released in Indian society after when that
film gets the certification by the central board of film certification.19 u/s 2(dd)20 of the
cinematographic act 1952 in that film is defined and section 2(c) 21define the cinematograph
in that is mentioned that cinematograph include any apparatus for the representation of the
moving picture or series picture that is called motion picture. motion picture is defined as the
chain of picture that was predicted on the screen in rapid succession with the entity shown in
successive position rather change as to produce ocular effect of the continuous picture in
which object move.

Copy right act 1957 also command CBFC certification for public demonstration in the copy
right act 1957 the cinematographic films as any work of visual recording or any medium
produce through a process from which moving image may be produce by any means that
include sound record and visual recording .so it is clear that content which are going to
stream on OTT platform or other digital media that include the disputes and all that will come
under indica games qualified under the definition of the cinematographic act

17
Krishna swami v. union of India and ors (1992)4SCC 605
18
MOT PROP. NO 14
19
CENTRAL BOARD OF FILM CERTIFICATION
20
Cinematographic act 1952sec 2dd, no 37, acts of parliament 1952
21
Cinematography act 1952 sec2(c), no 37, acts of parliament1952

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 16

The preamble of the cinematograph act said that “an act to make the provision for the
certification of cinematograph films for the exhibition and regulation exhibition. Under
section 4 of the cinematographic act said that every person has to desirous before release the
film they have to get the certificate.

In the case of Gurudevdatta vksss marayadit and ors v state of Maharashtra and ors22

The supreme court has used the interpretation clause that the test provides that test provider is
the interpretation of any rule or the statute but if any injustice or ambiguity or hardship or any
inconvenience under all of that if the interpretation occur the literal meaning shall be
discarded then interpretation will be done in that manner in which manner legislature must be
followed

The series that was released on Inflix23 that was forged with the help of cinematographic
mechanism it is also a motion picture used as swift succession of image to invent an optical
effect of continuous picture it is audio visual content fall under the cinematographic act

Enlightened interpretation is given by the supreme court to provide an immense ambit to

avoid for any mischievous activity and wrongful activity which can be done in the society
and as well as for the development in the area of cinematographic work.

Here inclosing to the language strict sense would aggregate to developing inaccurate
interpretation and would not be in favour of the intent of the legislature.

The penalty was imposed on them was valid

Under section 52 A (2)(a) of the copy right24 stated that no person shall publish the video film
in acclaim of any work unless the following particulars are displayed in the video film when
exhibits and on the video cassette or another container therefore if such work is the
cinematograph film is then it is needed to require the certification and copy should be given
by the CBFC.

the draft cinematograph bill 2013 defines exhibition that audio or visual distribution of films
as part thereof or making available a film or part therefore use for the public medium.

The medium is that type of forum where general public have the access to do with or without
the payment of fee or charge. This platform is that type of in which people can access or
watch the films with the access of subscription of fee that would be understood as exhibiting
films come under the draft of bill.

22
Gurudevdatta vksss Marayadit &ORS V. state of Maharashtra &ORS (2001)4SCC534
23
MOOT PROPOSITION 9
24
Copy Right act 1957 under 52 (a) (2)a, no 14, act of parliament ,1957 India

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 17

3. THE FIR IS NOT LIABLE TO BE QUASHED

the FIR is done correctly it hurts the sentiments of the society even though notice was given
to the producers then also they release the films on the OTT platforms which need the
certification from the CBFC they had done an FIR for protecting the cultural of the society
on morally bases we can say that indica is known as full of culture and all but not a day’s
most of the youngsters diverting their mind on the OTT platform and OTT platform has ruin
the future of the youngster by seeing all this youngster behave differently most effect occur
on the children and women .the inherit power u/s 482 25were to be worn sparingly .it can be
conclude that the petitioner have to approach first to the lower court rather going to the high
court. The particular principle has been held in the case in the Kurukshetra university vs.
State of Haryana and ors 26 in that case maintainability of quashing of FIR cannot be
proved as high court doesn’t possess the jurisdiction for hearing the case hence the case
should be directed to the lower court first the quashing of FIR under section 482 of crpc
would interfere the legitimate prosecution .the power to quash the proceeding is practices
when there is no material proceed against the petitions .even if the proclamation in the
complaint is the pramie facie accepted as right . While exercising the power u/s482 the court
should consider that thing also the commission of cognizable offence and forebear from
27
examine and the advantages of the allegations the court should not go direct to the
investigation process.

The committee formed was improper

The supreme court had explained in the maxim of nemo judex causa sua which means no one
could be judge by its own that was explained in the case satyavir Singh vs. union of India
and ors. 28the committee should be formed in such a manner that there should be not any
biasness occur the entire process should in a valid or a in transparent manner

In the instant case, the committee had devised constating of three people, where Mr Johor is
the shareholder in Inflix .other than this in that case there is also personal bai sands pecuniary
benefit is there in the knowledge we can say or in the mind of the Mr.johar that inauspicious
decision with acclaim to the feature film could guide to adverse impact on valuation of Inzon

Mr Johor have it he influencing power they had influence the other committee members
therefore command the decision of the committee therefore it is not transparent.

The board solely transfer their analysis without publishing or give the reason or investigation
performed by them.

25
The code of criminal procedure code 1973 under 482, no 2,acts of parliament,1973 (India)
26
Kurukshetra university vs. Ans state of Haryana &ors (1977)4 SCC451
27
The code of criminal procedure ,1973,482,no-2 act of parliament ,1973(india)
28
Satyavir Singh union of india &ors(1985)&SCC,252

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 18

The jurisdiction under 482 of crpc is up to the court they have discretionary that if the
petition had come with clean hand then it will be acceptable in this case it had already hurt
the sentiment of the society and does not listen the rules that was given by CBFC

In the case the state of Punjab and ors v. shubash trading company29

In that supreme court held said that the high court have power to acted more investigating at a
stage when the FIR is still under investigation process .so the quashing of FIR by entering in
to factual arena was clasp wholly banned or impressible

The FIR is valid

Under the IPC it is mentioned that any person who has the intention of outraging the religious
sentiments with malice is punishable under section499 30then FIR is valid

there were also in the constitution of indica under article 19(1)right to speech and expression
in that it is said everybody has right to express their opinion but it is not absolute true in the
matter of sovereignty and integrity of indica security of the state public order decency and
morality under section 505 (1)b31 of Incite is stated that any publication which alarm the any
section of the society and challenges or violate the transequallty of the state is liable under
this section .in the case state of bihar v. smt.shailabala devi32 in this case it is explained
that if the freedom of speech and expression favoured or support that content that will create
the violence , and will create the risk of states secuirity .that will comes under article 19 (2)33

There are four conditionsfor quashing the FIR:

I. What was the nature and effect of the offence that will not hamper the society
ii There also seriousness of injury must be seen in the case
iii If the voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and victims and
iv. Most important what was the conduct of the accused person, prior to and the
after the occurance of purported offence and related circumstances
this feature film had created the immeasurable damages to the society as the
protest turned in to the violence that will hurt the sentiments of the society and
destroy the public property they had develop an independent committee that was
not formed according to principal of the natural justice.

Hence FIR is not liable to be quashed

29
The state of Punjab and Ors vs. shubhash trading company and ors (1976)1(SCC)
30
SECTION 499 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE ,1860
31
THE INDIAN PENAL CODE ,1860,505(1)(B), NO 45, ACT OF THE PARLIAMENT,1860
32
AIR ,1952SC329
33
INDIAN CONSTITUTION ARICLE 19 (2)

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 19

4. IT RULES ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID

This it rule2022 has been framed by the govt. of indica that are constituently valid because –

The govt. proceeds in a right and justiciable manner. The imposition of regioniable restriction
occur under article 19(2) Delegated legislation under the parent act is valid govt.action.are
there within doctrine of parens patriae the regulation has been imposed in good in law

The govt.of India acted in a justiciable manner

in this case of Manohar laal Sharma v union of India and ors 34 the court state that require for
equality in law, which promised against the random actions.it was therein noted that compelling
state interest is a reasonable obligatory that to protect or safeguard the interest of the state
provided there exists a riveting reason.

The it rule 2022 came in which govt had keep in mind of the parties they had set a rules and
regulation and up to that level where the film produces as well as sentiments of the society
35
does not hurt in this both indivual and state interest should be protected and it is also
mention individual interest is the best protected and state look after for the general welfare of
the society.

Govt.of Indica had brought the it rule at 2022 because there is public outrage and widespread
of violence protests in the society many different section of the society got hurt

The it rule had set that up to what level privacy must be impose of the that both the
individual as well society interest should be looked by the govt.of Indica

(B)Reasonable restriction can be imposed under article 19(2)

State can impose a regioniable restriction36 of the constitution in two ways where action is
sanctioned by the law and where the restriction have been impose for the interest an integrity
of the society and keeping the mind security and morality In the landmark judgement case
gokalnathand ors State of Punjab37 in that it is stated that regioniable restriction can be
impose to protect the integrity of nation state

The violent protest opposed the peace of indica. there was roar against the film it will further
damage the property so that is why govt. have to stop that chaos therefore restriction imposed
by the government to protect the public interest. The reasonableness of law has to glanced in
context of the cause of the law in question, the mischief sought to be remedied and the
restriction imposed in light of both factors .in the case the government had acted in right or
true manner and brings the law in particular law that restrict the ott platform and digital
indica witnessed extensive protest, damage to the public property and citizen, public unrest

34
AIR 2021,SC,5396
35
MOOT PREPOSITIONNO.12
36
INDIAN CONSTI.ART.19.CL.2
37
GOGULNATH V. STATE OF PUNJAB

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 20

and complaints. The rule issued aimed at providing a code of conduct which aimed at
scrutinising digital content.

Government actions are within the doctrine of parens patrae

In this state have to act as legal parent of that society who had suffered a loss it has acted as
universal constitutional protector. It was held in the case of charan lal sahu v.union of India
38
that the state will act as guardian for the protection of general welfare of its inhabitants

The viewership had seen a huge uprise potential .according to an independent survey, mobile
and internet users had increase up to 50 million

Delegated legislation under the parent act is valid

In the case of NARENDRA KUMAR AND ORS V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHER 39

In this act invoke the power to the central govt. to make the law in the behalf of the society.
They provide the regulation of significant social media intermediaries and online publisher.
That was not in good faith or unreasonable

The new rule has require to set up strongly redressal mechanism for the benefit of both
viewers as well providers .the first level will comprise the regulation by OTT platform itself
by the grievance officer. The second level will be the institution itself self-regulation body is
formed by the company itself .it will comprise the industry by the relevant officer. And third
committee is mad by the inter department that will hear that and give the decision according
that.

This act regulates new rules which set up the guideline that there is the classification on the
basis of viewer’s age group theme, content, tone and target the audience and require the ott
platform to give the due consideration to sovereignty, security, and friendly relation of indica

And they had provided them mechanism of parental lock in their services

Under the section 69(A) of the It act 2000 in that central govt. have the power to block the
content if it goes against the sovereignty ,integrity, and as well as security .its aims to prevent
of incision of any cognizable offence

Under section 16 of the cinematographic act 195240 in this central government have the
power to make the rule and regulation and as well as term and condition and an impose the
restrictions

u/s 8441 of the information technology act in that central government have power to act in a
good faith and not successive can be begin against it. And sec.87 42of the information

38
CHARAN LAL SHAHU V. UNION OF INDIA,(1990)1SCC613
39
NARENDRA KUMAR &ORS V. UNION OF INDICA &ORS AIR 1960SC430
40
CINEMATOGRAPHY ACT 1952$ 16,NO 37 ACTS OF PARLIAMENTS,1952,2000
41
THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT ,2000$84NO 21 ACTS OF PARLIAMENTS2000(INDIA)
42
THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT ,2000$NO21 ACTS OF PARLIAMENT2000(INDIA)

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 21

technology act entitled the govt. to make rule in such a manner which deem to carry out the
provision of this act.

In the current cases the Indian laws are pare materia in front of law of indica, the govt. of
indica has full rights to frame the laws under the above-mentioned statuary provision to put
the ott under scrutiny.

The regulations imposed are good in law

Whether the restriction on ott platform is imposed by the govt. is necessary for the welfare of
society. When the ott platform had come in the society they had started ruining our culture.
Because of the OTTplatform youth‘s mind got disturb .the state can restrict the publication of
information which goes against the morality of society, decency .exchange of free and artistic
ideas is reverse however, content can be confide in the large interest of the society .india is
that country that is known with full of cultural, linguistic, and ethnic diversity that was
always been tactful. these matter are dealt with by the govt .of indica with consent attempt to
censor the content on the ground of morality ,communal harmony or need to protect the
history ,among various reasons .ott platform is that where such type of content is easily
available .in the case Kingsley international pictures cooperation v. regents of the
university of the state of new york43 it is state that reasonable restriction is imposed by the
court on motion picture that represent a relationship that conflict to the moral standard of the
society, was legally valid .standard of morality and security are in different for the state that
depend on the cultural and historical background

The hon’ble in the suo moto writ noticed that the central govt.of can form the laws which is
necessary by restricting hosting the platform from presenting contents which hamper the
security and hurts the sentiments of security .it goes against the decency also

In the case ott platform and digital media content saw a large fid or we can say spike in the
viewership. there is obsession occur between the youth of ott platform the hind swaraj NGO
who is in all favour of cultures and all44 .they had noted that ott platform started spreading the
westernization which goes against the Indian culture and also content that publish on ott
platform that hurt the sentiment of the society by causing chaos and violent protest that is
why regulation should be imposed on them that is necessary.

43
KINGSELY INTERNATIONAL PICTURE COPERATION V.S REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE NEW
YORK ,360US 684(1959)
44
MOOT PREPOSTITION NO 14

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 22

 PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the question presented, arguments advanced and authorities citied
the respondent request the hon’ble Supreme Court to find, adjudge and declare:

1. The notice issued by the CBFC to JCFL and Inflix is valid.

2.JCFL and Inflix are liable to pay penalties

3. The FIR against Blockbuster Films and Mr. Amit Diwan shall not be quashed.

4. The It Rules are constitutionally valid

5the ministry of information technology can regulate the ott platform

And pass any such order as the Hon’ble court may deemed fit in the light of equity ,justice,
and good conscience .

MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT Page 23