INTERNAL ASSIGNMENT MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY, 2022

______________________________________________________________________________
[TABLE OF CONTENTS]

ABBREVIATIONS_________________________________________________________3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES _________________________________________________4
BOOKS__________________________________________________________________ 4
CASE LAWS_____________________________________________________________ 5
STATUTES_______________________________________________________________ 5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION__________________________________________ 6
STATEMENT OF FACTS__________________________________________________ 7
STATEMENT OF ISSUES_________________________________________________ 8
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS____________________________________________ 9
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED_______________________________________________

1.Whether the statement made by the petitioner was defamatory in nature or

not?
2.Whether the university has violated the petitioner's right by not giving him
a chance of fair hearing?

PRAYER_______________________________________________________________ 13

[MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELLANT]

 INTERNAL ASSIGNMENT MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY, 2022

______________________________________________________________________________
[ABBREAVIATIONS]

______________________________ABBREAVIATIONS_____________________________

COI Constitution of India,1950

Art Article

______________________________________________________________________________
[INDEX OF AUTHORITIES]

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

BOOKS

1. Constitutional Law Of India by Dr.J.N. Pandey 59th edition(central

law agency)

2. D.D.Basu Introduction To Constitution of India 26 th edition(lexis

nexis)

[MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELLANT]

 INTERNAL ASSIGNMENT MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY, 2022

3. V N Shukla’s Constitution of India by Mahendra P Singh 14 th

edition

______________________________________________________________________________
CASE LAWS

1. Archana Nair v Pio, Jawahar Lal Nehru University

2. Baldev Singh Gandhi vs State Of Punjab And Others 14

February, 2002

3. Huth vs Huth

4. Tv today vs News Laundry

STATUTES

1. Constitution of India,1950

______________________________________________________________________________
[STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION]

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

[MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELLANT]

 INTERNAL ASSIGNMENT MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY, 2022

The supreme court has the jurisdiction to this case under article 32 of COI Article
136 of The Constitution Of India 1950
136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court.
(1) 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.
(2) Nothing in clause ( 1 ) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or
order passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law
relating to the Armed Forces

______________________________________________________________________________
[STATEMENT OF FACTS]

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. In the state of Gokuldham, there is a district named Dholakpur. In that district a university named that
is Hogwarts.

2. When in the University, the class name comparative mythology was going on by Mr. Krishnan Iyer to
which a student named Jethalal Champaklal Gada was recording a reel in the class where he criticises by
saying "he is a very bad teacher but considers himself a sainist (scientist)".

[MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELLANT]

 INTERNAL ASSIGNMENT MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY, 2022

3. To which Krishnan Iyer later filed a complaint stating it is a breach of his privacy and affecting his life
because of defamation done by Jethalal.

4. To which Jethalal replied in stating he was exercising his right of freedom and expression and it is not
a defamation because he was stating the truth with its best knowledge.

5. Meanwhile, during this event Jetha Lal Gada was suspended from the University.

Meanwhile, Jethalal's father Champaklal JayantiLal Gada filed a leave petition in High Court of
Indraprastha against University stating same complain as of Jethalal Gada and along another issue saying
the university that it is discriminating with a particular student affecting his fundamental rights.

6. Hence, the matter is in the Supreme Court of Indraprastha.

_________________________________________________________________________
[STATEMENT OF ISSUES]

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1.Whether the statement made by the petitioner was defamatory in nature or not?

2.Whether the university has violated the petitioner's right by not giving him a chance of
fair hearing?

[MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELLANT]

 INTERNAL ASSIGNMENT MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY, 2022

______________________________________________________________________________
[SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS]

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1.Whether the statement made by the petitioner was defamatory in nature or not?

The counsel on behalf of the petitioner humbly submits that the statement made by the petitioner
was not defamatory at all. As far as the teacher was concerned, it was just a fair comment, in
which he was stating the truth to the best of his knowledge.
2.Whether the university has violated the petitioner's right by not giving him a chance of
fair hearing?

The counsel on behalf of the petitioner humbly submits that the university committed gross
injustice to the petitioner without hearing the petitioner's account and taking harsh, unfair action
in the absence any reasonable cause and suspending him from the university without any
evidences.

[MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELLANT]

 INTERNAL ASSIGNMENT MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY, 2022

______________________________________________________________________________
[ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1.Whether the statement made by the petitioner was defamatory in nature or not?
If an accusation of defamation is made, it is presumed false until the accuser proves that
it is true. There is a civil as well as a criminal aspect to defamation by nature.
Civil law defamation - A defamatory content harms a party's reputation, causing them
hatred, hostility, or ridicule.
Criminal defamation - The purpose of the allegation must be malicious, i.e., to defame.
The reputation of the affected party must be established beyond reasonable doubt with
clear evidence. It is, however, not fair to accuse the Petitioner of defamation in the above
stated facts. This is because the Petitioner made the assertion in good faith for the
protection of his or another's interests. Statements made in good faith to protect one's
interests or those of another or for the public good are not defamatory. Just a fair
comment or criticism.
In common law, a person can criticize and comment on matters of public interest without
being held liable for defamation provided that the comment is an honest expression of
opinion.

[MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELLANT]

 INTERNAL ASSIGNMENT MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY, 2022

As a result of the facts outlined above, it is clear that the students weren't happy, and they
weren't satisfied with the defendant's method of teaching. The university also didn't take
any action despite repeated complaints. Due to these circumstances, the petitioner had no
choice but to make the defendants realize their mistakes. In view of the fact that he could
not voice his grievances concerning his right to freedom of speech and expression under
Art 19(1)(a)
so, he was bound to record a reel during the class and made fair criticism upon the sub-
standard teaching of the defendant.
In the case of Archana Nair v Pio, Jawahar Lal Nehru University

It was held that if research-based criticism is made, there is no defamation. Fair comment
is a universally accepted defence to the charge of defamation and that’s part of freedom
speech and expression.

Baldev Singh Gandhi vs State Of Punjab And Others on 14 February, 2002

In this case it was held that Art.19(1)(a) of the Constitution which includes fair criticism
of the law or any executive action. Freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed in
our democratic republic both in legislature as well as in local bodies and, therefore, a
legislator or a municipal councillor legitimately can express his views in regard to what
he thinks to be in public interest. A legitimate exercise of right of speech and expression
including a fair criticism is not to be throttled.

However, even though the reel was a proof that the defendant was not teaching correctly
during class, even though he considers himself as a sainist(scientist).

Furthermore, it is to be noted that the counsel on behalf of the respondent intends to

establish the breach of privacy made by the petitioner to the teacher. It fails, however, to
acknowledge that the chain of events leading to the petitioner's recording of the reel is in
fact justified by law. This is because the recorded reel was kept by him alone and was not
shared. Therefore, there was no breach of privacy.

[MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELLANT]

 INTERNAL ASSIGNMENT MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY, 2022

In the case of Huth vs Huth

It was held that it is defamation only if more than two persons are
involved. If a third person wrongfully reads a letter meant for the plaintiff the defendant
is not liable. It is no publication as it is not authorised.
In this case, there was no secret information from which the reel was made. It was not
even shared with anyone, so since no third parties were involved, there was neither a
breach of privacy nor defamation.

In the case of Tv today vs News Laundry

It was held that right to publish and circulate
one’s ideas, opinions, views, criticism was a part of freedom of speech, article 19(1),
just that it should be fair and based on true facts. In that case it won’t be regarded as
leading to defamation.
Consequently, even if Jethalal had shared the reel criticizing Krishnan Iyer, it would have
been fair to him to do so. He was exercising his freedom of speech, although it would
have violated his right to privacy. Because through his criticism he was trying to bring
the issue to public attention, implicitly supporting the public interest, the action would
have been justified.

______________________________________________________________________________
[ARGUMENTS ADVANCED]

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

2.Whether the university has violated the petitioner's right by not giving him a chance of
fair hearing?

In this country, every citizen has the right to make accurate and true statements. However, that
doesn't mean the person would be denied his fundamental rights and treated unfairly for his
criticism. This case was initially ignored by the university despite several complaints against the
defendant. Nevertheless, when the petitioner attempted to rectify the situation by exercising his
right to freedom of speech and expression, the university did not give the petitioner a fair chance

[MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELLANT]

 INTERNAL ASSIGNMENT MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY, 2022

to clarify his position and without any valid reason suspended him while the case was pending.
Therefore, the university's actions violate art 14, i.e., equality before the law.

It also contravenes the principle of natural justice i.e.

Audi alteram partem (or audiatur et altera pars) is a Latin phrase meaning "listen to the other
side", or "let the other side be heard as well". It is the principle that no person should be judged
without a fair hearing in which each party is given the opportunity to respond to the evidence
against them.

"Audi alteram partem" is considered to be a principle of fundamental justice or equity or the

principle of natural justice in most legal systems. This principle includes the rights of a party or
its lawyers to confront the witnesses against them, to have a fair opportunity to challenge the
evidence presented by the other party, to summon one's own witnesses and to present evidence,
and to have counsel, if necessary at public expense, in order to make one's case properly.

In the case of Ram Niwas Bansal vs State Bank of Patiala & Another on 22 May, 1998

It was held that the maxim Audi Alteram Partem means hear the other side; hear both sides. In
other words, the authority hearing the matter must be afforded hearing to the party who is likely
to be affected by its decision. The right to be heard has been accepted by all civilized countries
as part of due process of law where questions affecting rights, privileges or claims of the persons
are considered or adjudicated.

In addition, the university's suspension decision infringed upon the student's right to personal
liberty under Art 21. Educational platforms play a key role in the social determinants of health
due to their inclusion and academic attainment. It is more likely that students who have been
suspended from educational institutions will disengage from them. As a result, they will not be
able to benefit from social inclusion and academic achievement. Since the petitioner was
suspended from the university, he was in a state of mental trauma.

[MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELLANT]

 INTERNAL ASSIGNMENT MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY, 2022

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

The Supreme Court broadened the definition of personal liberty to give it the best possible scope
in the Maneka Gandhi case. The Court ruled that the term “personal liberty” in Article 21 has the
broadest meaning and encompasses a wide range of rights that contribute to a man’s personal
liberty, some of which have been elevated to the level of unique fundamental rights and given
extra protection under Article 19.

[MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELLANT]

 INTERNAL ASSIGNMENT MADHUSUDAN LAW UNIVERSITY, 2022

______________________________________________________________________________
[PRAYER]
PRAYER

[MEMORIAL FOR THE APPELLANT]