TC 18-Petitioner

THE 4TH GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT
COMPETITION, 2023
TC-– 18
TC 18
THE SUPREME COURT OF HELIOPOLIS
WRIT PETITION NO 47 of 2023
(Art. 32 of the Constitution of India read with Order XXXVIII, Rule 7, of the Supreme
Court Rules, 2013)
Special Leave Petition No. 3478 of 2023
(Art. 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950 read with Order XXI, Rule 1, of the
Supreme Court Rules, 2013)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Athena Inc. … Petitioner
v.
Television Watchdog … Respondent
Written Submissions on behalf of the Petitioners
Counsel for the Petitione
2|Page
COMPETITION, 2023
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS.........................................................................................................I
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS..............................................................................................I
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES..................................................................................................II
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION....................................................................................IV
STATEMENT OF FACTS.....................................................................................................V
STATEMENT OF ISSUES...................................................................................................VI
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.........................................................................................VII
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED..................................................................................................1
1. THAT REGULATION 9 OF THE TELEVISION BROADCASTING

REGULATIONS, 2008 ISSUED BY THE TELEVISION WATCHDOG IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL......................................................................................................1
1.1. THE REGULATION 9 VIOLATES FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION

PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 19(1)(A) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF HELIOPOLIS...............1
1.2. REGULATION 9 DOES NOT COME WITHIN AMBIT OF REASONABLE

RESTRICTIONS AS ENSHRINED UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(A) IN 19(2)..................................6
1.3. REGULATION 9 VIOLATES FREEDOM OF TRADE AND BUSINESS UNDER ARTICLE

19(1) (G) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF HELIOPOLIS............................................................8
1.4. REGULATION 9 VIOLATES ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF HELIOPOLIS,

WHICH PROVIDES EQUALITY.............................................................................................9
1.4.1 Regulation 9 provides for common benchmark of ten minutes per hour
without consideration for kind of channel..................................................................9
1.4.2. Regulation 9 provides for common benchmark of ten minutes per hour
without consideration for time of day.......................................................................10
2. WHETHER THE JUDGMENT OF HIGH COURT OF MEMPHIS HOLDING

REGULATION 9 AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL IS CONFINED TO THE
TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF STATE OF MEMPHIS? OR, SINCE REGULATION 9
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER(S)

COMPETITION, 2023
IS A FEDERAL SUBJECT, CAN THE JUDGMENT BE APPLIED THROUGHOUT

THE COUNTRY OF HELIOPOLIS?..............................................................................11
2.1 THAT THE JUDGMENT OF HIGH COURT OF MEMPHIS HOLDING REGULATION 9 AS

UNCONSTITUTIONAL IS NOT CONFINED TO THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF THE STATE
OF MEMPHIS.....................................................................................................................11
2.1.1 Whether the Telecom Regulatory Body can define the jurisdiction of a High
Court.............................................................................................................................11
2.2 WHETHER THE JUDGEMENT PASSED BY A HIGH COURT IN A WRIT PETITON

QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY OF A CENTRAL ACT IS APPLICABLE THROUGHOUT THE
TERRITORY OF THE COUNTRY.........................................................................................12
3. TELECOM WATCHDOG DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO REGULATE

DURATION OF ADVERTISEMENTS IN PUBLIC INTEREST................................14
3.1 REGULATION 9 VIOLATES ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF HELIOPOLIS,

WHICH PROVIDES FOR EQUALITY...................................................................................16
3.1.1. Regulation 9 provides for common benchmark of ten minutes per hour
without consideration for kind of channel................................................................17
3.1.2 Regulation 9 provides for common benchmark of ten minutes per hour
without consideration for time of day.......................................................................17
PRAYER...............................................................................................................................XII

COMPETITION, 2023
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviation Full Form
&; And
Art. Article
Anr. Another
Art. Article
Ors. Others
¶/¶¶ Paragraph
S. Section
SLP Special Leave Petition
v. Versus

COMPETITION, 2023
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Statutes
Constitution of Heliopolis, Art. 19.............................................................................................4

Constitution of Heliopolis, Art. 19(6)........................................................................................4
Constitution of Heliopolis, Art. 32..........................................................................................IV
Constitution of Heliopolis, Art.19(1)(a), 14...............................................................................5
Constitution of Heliopolis, Art.19(2).........................................................................................5
S. 11(1)(b)(v) of the TRAI Act..................................................................................................8
The Television Broadcasting Regulations Act, 2006.................................................................1
Constitution of India, 1950
The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995
The Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994
Standards of quality of service (Duration of advertisement in television channels)
Regulations, 2012
The Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India Act, 2008
Books
M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, (8TH EDN. 2010) VOL I & II
DURGA DAS BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, (8TH EDN. 2012)
H.M. SEERVAI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, (4TH EDN.)
BRYAN A. GARNER, BLACK LAW DICTIONARY, (8TH EDN. 2004)
DURGA DAS BASU, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA, (8TH EDN. 2011)
M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTION LAW, (6TH EDN. 2013)
V.N. SHUKLA, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, (13TH EDN. 2016)
Cases
Amritsar V. Hazara Singh, (1975) 1 SCC 794.........................................................................13

Benett Coleman and Company vs Union of India AIR 1973 SC 105........................................4
Cellular Operators Association of India v TRAI., AIR 2016 SC 2336....................................15
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Godavari Devi, [1978] 113 ITR 589 (Bom)........................12
Express Newspaper (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, 1959 SCR 12...................................................4

COMPETITION, 2023
Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. v. Shashi Prabha Shukla, (2018) 12 SCC 85, para 33........................10
Kusum Ingots v. Union of India, (2004) 6 SCC 254...............................................................13
Ministry of information and broadcasting, Government of India v. Cricket association
Bengal., (1995) 2 SCC 161.....................................................................................................3
Modern Dental College and Research Centre and Ors v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.,
(2016) 7 SCC 353, para 60....................................................................................................7
Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. V/s Commissioner of Income Tax, (2019)
SCC.......................................................................................................................................14
Prithi Pal Singh Bedi v. Union of India, (1982) 3 SCC 140....................................................14
Regina v. North and East Devon Health Authority, Ex parte Coughlan, [2001] QB 213.......16
Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 305..................................................5, 6
State of Kerala V. Vasudevan Nair,1975 Cri LJ 97.................................................................13
State of Madras v V G Row., AIR 1952 SC 196, para 23.......................................................15
State of Madras v. V.G Row., AIR 1952 SC 196......................................................................8
Tata Press Ltd. v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., (1995) 5 SCC 139................................2
Textile Technical Tradesmen Association v. Union of India, 2010 SCC OnLine Mad 6515. 13
Other Authorities
TRAI’s Quantitative Advertisement Regulation: Ensuring a Quality Viewing Experience or

Regulatory Overreach? – NUJS Law Review
Schrödinger's Constitutional Cat: Limits of the High Court's Declaration of
Unconstitutionality on JSTOR
Divided Laws in a Unified Nation: Territorial Application of High Court Decisions
Abhyudaya & Prithwijit (ssrn.com)

COMPETITION, 2023
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Petitioner humbly submits to the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Heliopolis
in pursuance of Article 32 of the Constitution of Heliopolis read with Order XXXVIII, Rule
7, of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 on account of violation of Fundamental Rights of the
petitioner and to Challenge the validity of Directive No. 1 of 2023 issued by the Television
Watchdog
Art. 32 of the Constitution of Heliopolis reads as:
“32. Right to Constitutional Remedies—
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of
the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including
writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and
certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights
conferred by this Part.
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2),
Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its
jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided
for by this Constitution.”1
The present memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments in the instant case.
1
Constitution of Heliopolis, Art. 32

COMPETITION, 2023
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Athena Inc. (hereinafter “Petitioner”) is a news broadcasting company which began

its broadcasting operation in 2003, having its registered office in New Memphis, the
capital of Memphis.
2. Petitioner offers cheap subscription (free in villages) to its viewers and earns 90%
revenue from the advertisements broadcasted during the news break.
3. Television Watchdog (hereinafter “Respondent”) is a regulator formed under the

Television Broadcasting Regulations Act, 2006 (hereinafter “Act”), published
Television Broadcasting Regulations, 2008 (hereinafter “Regulations”).
4. Aggrieved by regulation 9 of regulations (hereinafter “The Regulation”), Petitioner

filed a writ petition in High Court of Memphis to declare The Regulation which
mentions “restrictions on duration of advertisements” as unconstitutional.
5. A similar petition is pending before the High Court of Thinis, when High Court of
Memphis ruled in Favour of Petitioner and declared The Regulation as
unconstitutional (The Judgment).
6. Respondent issued Directive No. 1 of 2023 (hereinafter “directions”) to strictly adhere

to The Regulation in jurisdictions other than state of Memphis citing the reason that
the Judgment does not apply to other jurisdictions.
7. Petitioner has filed a writ petition before Supreme Court of Heliopolis challenging the
validity of directions and Respondent has filed a Special Leave Petition against The
Judgment before the same. Supreme Court has clubbed the cases and is up for final
hearing.

COMPETITION, 2023
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1. Whether Regulation 9 of the Television Broadcasting Regulations, 2008 is

violative of the provisions of the Constitution and is thus, unconstitutional?
2. Is the judgment of the High Court of Memphis holding Regulation 9 as

unconstitutional confined to the territorial limits of the State of Memphis? Or,
since Regulation 9 is a federal subject, can the judgment be applied throughout
the country of Heliopolis?
3. Whether Telecom Watchdog has the power to regulate duration of

advertisements in public interest?

COMPETITION, 2023
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. REGULATION 9 VIOLATES FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION

PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 19(1)(a) AND FREEDOM OF TRADE AND
COMMERCE UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(g) FREEDOM TO PRACTICE AND
PROFESSION OR CARRY OUT ANY OCCUPATION TRADE OR BUSINESS OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF HELIOPOLIS.
Freedom of speech and expression has been guaranteed under article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution of Heliopolis. Regulation 9 hits at the heart of freedom of speech and
expression. It arbitrarily decides the duration of time for which advertisement can be shown.
It is arbitrary and lacks any basis in law. Freedom of speech and expression is a guaranteed
part of the fundamental rights that are enshrined in the Constitution of Heliopolis, it is already
established that article 19(1)(a) is a paramount fundamental right that has been granted to the
citizens of this country. It allows for the propagation of ideas and expression. It also allows
for a proper political discourse to take place through exchange of ideas and information
which is the part of a healthy democratic society by suspending the amount of time that
advertisement can be shown regulation 9 clearly aim aims at reducing the revenue that the
petitioner can earn petitioner provides free and reliable news in rural areas. By limiting the
number of advertisements that can be shown. The regulatory body has indirectly and because
of the regulation also significantly reduced the amount of revenue that a media house can
earn. It is essential for the sustenance of the petitioner to earn revenue.
2. JUDGMENT OF HIGH COURT OF MEMPHIS HOLDING REGULATION 9 AS

UNCONSTITUTIONAL IS NOT CONFINED TO THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF
THE STATE OF MEMPHIS
The Judgement of High Court of Memphis which held Regulation 9 as unconstitutional is not
confined to the territorial limits of state of Memphis. The High Court is a constitutional body
that drives its power directly from the Constitution of India. On the other hand, the telecom
watchdog is a statutory body that is a creation of an act of Parliament. It is an established
constitutional principle that Constitution of Heliopolis is supreme. It is a basic argument of
jurisprudence that a statutory body cannot impose restrictions on the jurisdiction of a High
Court. It can only be decided by the Supreme Court and the High Court itself as they are the

COMPETITION, 2023
sole interpreter of the constitution. If any judgement of the High Court and act enacted by the
Parliament is declared unconstitutional and stays inoperative throughout the country it has
been held by the Supreme Court that if a validity of a Central act is challenged in the High
Court by issuing which can invalidate the law in question and clear it as unconstitutional.
Such law shall remain invalid across the territory of the country. The cause of action in the
present case is not restricted only to the state of Memphis, but it arises in all states. Thus, the
decision of the High Court of Memphis cannot be restricted to only one state, rather it applies
to the whole of Heliopolis.
3. WHETHER TELECOM WATCHDOG HAS THE POWER TO REGULATE

DURATION OF ADVERTISEMENT IN PUBLIC INTEREST?
The telecom watchdog does not have the power to regulate the duration of advertisement in
public interest. The decision to regulate the duration of advertisement in public interest is
dependent upon the principle of proportionality. The telecom watchdog has not followed the
principle of proportionality as it is devoid of transparency. It is unconstitutional as it violates
Article 14 of the Constitution of Heliopolis. Transparency, reasonableness and credible nexus
must be proven between the restriction imposed and the effect it has. There has been no
consultation with the stakeholders before imposition of regulations and restrictions. No
reasoning whatsoever has been provided before imposing the said regulation and restriction.
It is also to be noted that reasonable restrictions that have been imposed here have an
extremely severe effect on the petitioner. It has the potential to threaten its economic survival
and its ability to provide free and fair news, which is the crux and purpose of the petitioner's
existence and operation. There has been no transparency, lack of reasoning in adequate public
consultation and a consultation with stakeholders before in enacting such regulation. Hence,
Regulation 9 should be declared as violative of the provisions of the constitution of
Heliopolis.

COMPETITION, 2023
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. REGULATION 9 OF THE TELEVISION BROADCASTING REGULATIONS, 2008

ISSUED BY THE TELEVISION WATCHDOG IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
1.1. Regulation 9 VIOLATES FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION PROVIDED FOR IN
ARTICLE 19(1)(A) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF HELIOPOLIS.
The counsel for the petitioner humbly submits that television Watchdog is empowered to
make regulations under the television broadcasting regulations Act, 2006. 2 The statute under
section 19(1) of the Television Broadcasting Regulations Act, enables the television
watchdog to carry out provisions of the act. The Regulation 9 puts restrictions on the duration
of advertisements, which reads as "no program shall carry advertisements exceeding 10
minutes per hour, which may include up to 8 minutes per hour of commercial advertisement,
and up to 2 minutes per hour of a channel’s self-promotional programs". According to this
regulation, no program at all is allowed to carry advertisements exceeding 10 minutes per
hour. Regulation 9 Was bought by the television watchdog in order to ensure the quality of
viewing experience of the consumers as multiple representations were made by the public to
the television watchdog with regards to the increase in advertisement during the content
feeds. So, it can be said that this regulation is bought into force by the television watchdog in
public interest. However, the restrictions provided under article 19(2) of the constitution of
Heliopolis does not include public interest as a ground for reasonable restriction.
Athena Inc. is a news broadcasting company that is primarily focused on providing free,
independent, and reliable news across the country. Around 90% of the revenue which the
petitioner generates is through advertisements broadcast during the news breaks. The
petitioner provides free news in rural areas where most of its viewers reside.
The petitioner humbly submits that Regulation 9 is detrimental to the interests of

broadcasting companies and serves as a hurdle in the survival of Broadcasters as their
revenue suffers due to drop in the advertisements as suggested by the said regulation. It
directly affects the revenue of the petitioner which in turn affects the ability of the petitioner
to provide free, fair, and reliable news across the country. Advertising is cornerstone of our
economic system. Low prices for customers depend upon the volume of advertisement which
2
The Television Broadcasting Regulations Act, 2006

COMPETITION, 2023
is proportional to the duration of advertisement for a news channel. The reference for this
argument can be derived from the following para in the Tata Press vs MTNL: -
“Advertising is considered to be the cornerstone of our economic system. Low prices for
consumers are dependent upon mass production, mass production is dependent upon volume
sales, and volume sales are dependent upon advertising.”3
In Tata Press Ltd. v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.,4 , the Supreme Court invoked three
reasons for protecting commercial speech. Advertisements, it held, were an important source
of revenue for newspapers. And a free and independent media (reliant upon the revenue that
would keep it independent), in turn, was the lifeblood of democracy). 5 Second,
advertisements were necessary for ensuring low prices in a market economy 6. And third
Advertisements ensured a free flow of information, which would enable consumers to make
an informed choice about products7.
The counsel humbly submits that in the present case, the petitioner has a reputation for being
one of the most independent and reliable news broadcasters in the country. Regulation 9
infringes upon the revenue stream of the petitioner; it would become impossible for the
petitioner to sustain itself and provide its services to the people of this country for free.
Regulation 9 restricts the free flow of information by bringing restriction upon the petitioner
and severely limiting its functioning. Advertisements, whether it be in any medium, ensure a
free flow of information by providing customers with the info of the products advertised,
Broadcasters showing advertisements between their content feeds ensures such information
reaches the consumer which in turn enables consumers to make an informed choice about
products
It can be inferred that such a regulation will have a detrimental effect on the freedom of
speech and expression that is being guaranteed under Article 19. Limiting the duration of
advertisements will have a domino effect on the revenue that is necessary for the survival and
functioning of petitioner. The result of regulation 9 would compel the broadcasting
companies like Athena inc. to charge subscription fees in rural areas where it was
broadcasting for free.
3
Tata Press Ltd. v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., (1995) 5 SCC 139
4
ibid
5
ibid, Para 19
6
ibid para 22
7
ibid, para23

COMPETITION, 2023
Freedom of speech goes to the heart of the natural rights of an organized, democratic and
freedom-loving society to impart and acquire information about common interests. As the
petitioner has the right to inform the people of this country, the people also enjoy a right to
stay informed. This regulation affects not only the rights of petitioner but also impairs and
infringes upon a citizen's right to stay informed.
The right to participate in the affairs of the country is meaningless unless the citizens are
well informed on all sides of the issues, in respect of which they are called upon to express
their views. One-sided information, disinformation, misinformation, and non-information all
equally create an uninformed citizenry which makes democracy a farce when medium of
information is monopolized either by a partisan central authority or by private individuals or
oligarchic organisations. This is particularly so in a country like ours where about 65 per
cent of the population is illiterate and hardly 1-1/2 per cent of the population has access to
the print media which is not subject to pre censorship. When, therefore, the electronic media
is controlled by one central agency or a few private agencies of the rich, there is a need to
have a central agency, as stated earlier, representing all sections of society. Hence having a
representative central agency to ensure the viewers' right to be informed adequately and
truthfully is a part of the right of the viewers under Article 19 (1) (a). 8
The right to freedom of speech and expression also includes the right to educate, to inform
and to entertain and the right to be educated, informed, and entertained. The former is the
right of the telecaster and the latter that of the viewers. 9
This petitioner has earned a reputation of being one of the most independent and reliable
news broadcasters of the country10. Thus, this regulation has the potential to become a tool to
crush dissent by infringing upon freedom of speech and expression. This regulation is
inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution. It is also imperative to point out that in a
democracy the power of states and their ability to impose restrictions is limited. These limits
are defined and must follow the rule of reason, logic, and proportionality. This regulation is
neither reasonable nor proportionate to the logic stated by the respondent.
8
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India v. Cricket Association Bengal., (1995) 2 SCC
161
9
ibid, para 78
10
Fact on record, para 5

COMPETITION, 2023
The Supreme Court in Express Newspaper (P) Ltd. v. Union of India11 held that when
Freedom of speech, expression and freedom of trade, business are intertwined the state
cannot restrict this latter freedom “by directly and immediately curtailing” the freedom of
speech, since there is no hierarchy of the freedoms under Article 19. 12 The impugned law in
this case was enacted according to state in public interest a ground provided for in 19(6)
therefore it was a valid restriction, but the court ruled otherwise and it was held that the
impugned law directly violated the newspaper’s freedom of speech by placing a restraint on
its right to publish any number of pages it wishes. 13 The counsel for petitioner humbly
submits that in the present case, there exists a nexus between advertisement and generation of
revenue. Athena Inc has advertisement as its major source of revenue which will be curtailed
if regulation 9 is implemented. Thus, advertisement, which falls under the ambit of freedom
of speech and expression and broadcasting of news which falls under the ambit of freedom to
practice any profession or to carry out any occupation trade or business are intertwined. Even
though article 19(6) lays down that the state can impose restriction in the interest of public,
but in the present case, due to the intertwining of fundamental rights of freedom of speech
and freedom to carry out trade, profession and occupation, the state, in the present case
cannot curtail the rights of this petitioner.
In the case of Benett Coleman and Company v Union of India 14 Direct effect test was
propounded. The test in determining the question whether legislation or executive action
infringes fundamental rights is to examine its effects and not its object or subject matter. It
was contended on behalf of the government that the subject matter of newsprint policy was to
regulate and control newsprint and not to control newspapers. The subject matter of the
import policy was rationing and equitable distribution of newsprint. The Supreme Court
rejected this contention and approved the effect test with if the direct effect of the lowest to
embrace the fundamental right. Its object or subject matter will be irrelevant. The direct effect
in the present case was newspaper control as restrictions placed on their growth in
circulation. The government sought to reduce the number of pages by issuing a Newsprint
Control Order which fixed the maximum number of pages (10 pages) which a newspaper
could publish was challenged as violative of fundamental rights guaranteed in Article 19 (1)
11
Express Newspaper (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, 1959 SCR 12
12
Constitution of Heliopolis, Art. 19
13
Constitution of Heliopolis, Art. 19(6)
14
Benett Coleman and Company vs Union of India AIR 1973 SC 105

COMPETITION, 2023
(a) and Article 14 of the Constitution.15 The Government defended the measure on the
grounds that it would help small newspapers to grow and to prevent a monopolistic
combination of big newspapers. The Government also sought to justify the reduction in the
page level on the ground that the big dailies devoted high percentage of space to
advertisements and, therefore, the cut in pages would not be felt by them if they adjusted their
advertisement space. The Court held-The newsprint policy is not reasonable restriction within
the ambit of Article 19(2). The newsprint policy abridges petitioner's right of the freedom of
speech and expression.16
In the present case, regulation 9 has a direct effect on the freedom of speech and expression
of the petitioner; it will also reduce the revenue of the petitioner which will force it to close
shop. Hence, Regulation 9 fails the direct effect test and should be held unconstitutional. As
the petitioner supplies the news to the majority of its viewers free, viewers who reside in rural
area. Regulaiton 9 would make it impossible for the petitioner to sustain the capital flow
required to continue its operation and hence it would be forced to close its operation. It can
also be concluded that regulation 9 has a direct effect on the survival of portioner, it infringes
upon the freedom of speech and expression and hence should be held unconstitutional.
The question as regards to freedom of Press again came before the court for consideration in
Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India 17 the Daily Newspapers (Price and Control) Order,
1960, which fixed a minimum price and the number of pages which could be published by a
newspaper was challenged. The State justified the law as a reasonable restriction on a business
activity of a newspaper in the interests of the general public. It was held by the court that the right of
freedom of speech and expression cannot be taken away with the object of placing restrictions on the
business activity of a citizen. Freedom of speech can only be restricted on the grounds mentioned in
clause (2) of Article 19. It cannot, like the freedom to carry on business, be curtailed in the interests of
the general public. An important aspect of this case was that Court assumed that every
newspaper develops a business plan for carrying out its activities for a period of time This
plan is influenced by factors such as place of publication, Number of pages, labor conditions,
price of raw material and the availability/expected revenue from of advertisements. 18
This
15
Constitution of Heliopolis, Art.19(1)(a), 14
16
Constitution of Heliopolis, Art.19(2)
17
Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 305
18
ibid, ¶25

COMPETITION, 2023
case is very similar to the case at hand as here also there were no prior regulations and to
sustain their business the broadcasters must have made plans as to the type of content,
duration of advertisements etc. but the said regulations deter those plans. Also, Regulation 9
is also bought in order to serve the interest of general contrary to the restrictions that are
provided for in 19(2) for restricting freedom of press hence it is humbly submitted before the
court that regulation 9 is unconstitutional.
1.2. REGULATION 9 DOES NOT COME WITHIN THE AMBIT OF REASONABLE
RESTRICTIONS AS ENSHRINED UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(A) IN 19(2).
Freedom of Speech and expression can be limited only based on a rock-solid reason backed
by public interest. However, the directive issued by the telecom watchdog is neither
reasonable nor proportionate. If such regulation stands then it would be the subversion of the
fundamental right that has been guaranteed to us. Under the garb of regulation, the
watchdog’s decision is not proportionate. It fails the test of proportionality as enshrined
under-
Another significant feature which can be noticed from the reading of the aforesaid clause is
that the State is empowered to make any law relating to the professional or technical
qualifications necessary for practicing any profession or carrying on any occupation or
trade or business. Thus, while examining as to whether the impugned provisions of the
statute and rules amount to reasonable restrictions and are brought out in the interest of the
general public, the exercise that is required to be undertaken is the balancing of fundamental
right to carry on occupation on the one hand and the restrictions imposed on the other hand.
This is what is known as the "doctrine of proportionality".
Jurisprudentially, "proportionality" can be defined as the set of rules determining the

necessary and sufficient conditions for limitation of a constitutionally protected right by a
law to be constitutionally permissible.
According to Aharon Barak (former Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Israel), there are four
sub-components of proportionality which need to be satisfied, a limitation of a constitutional
right will be constitutionally permissible if:
(i) it is designated for a proper purpose;

COMPETITION, 2023
(In the measures undertaken to effectuate such a limitation are rationally connected to the
fulfilment of that purpose;
(ii) the measures undertaken are necessary in that there are no alternative measures that
may similarly achieve that same purpose with a lesser degree of limitation; and finally(iv)
there needs to be a proper relation ("proportionality stricto sensu" or "balancing) between
the importance of achieving the proper purpose and the social importance of preventing the
limitation on the constitutional right.19
The aforementioned test of proportionality has not been followed by the Telecom Watchdog
in the present petition. The regulation in its entirety is quite vague. The purpose of regulation
9 is not consistent with the effect it is having on the petitioner. It is in no way protecting the
interest of news viewers. By restricting the duration of advertisement to 10 minutes, the
regulator has imposed limitation on the amount of revenue that the petitioner can make. An
impact on revenue will cripple the petitioner's ability to provide reliable and free news to its
viewers. The viewers enjoy the right to get access to reliable news. Media being the fourth
pillar of democracy cannot be restricted or controlled under the garb of regulation. The effect
of having a restriction of 10 minutes for showing advertisement will disable the functioning
of petitioner by bringing abruption on their revenue stream effectively rendering them
incapable of maintaining their news channel. Media is a labor-intensive industry where
journalists, technicians, support staff, visual effects, computer generated imagery, logistics,
transportation, and camera operators are employed. It takes a significant amount of money to
maintain such infrastructure. As the petitioner provides its services for free in rural areas
(where almost 90% of its revenue comes from)20. This regulation will financially choke the
petitioner from continuing its function.
The regulator has claimed that it has in the public interest limited the duration of
advertisement. It is found on an abstract and arbitrary reasoning, and it has not come up with
any proper reasoning as to why it was necessary for the duration to be regulated. It has also
not been reasonable in imposing such regulation. Use of abstract and vague reason has been
prohibited by the Supreme Court, which has held that abstract standard cannot be used for
imposing restrictions. It can be interpreted from the following para-
19
Modern Dental College and Research Centre and Ors v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., (2016) 7 SCC
353, para 60
20
Moot Clarification no 17

COMPETITION, 2023
To define the scope of the judicial review under CI. (5) of Art. 19 where the phrase "imposing
reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right" also occurs, and four "out of the five
Judges participating in the decision expressed the view (the other Judge leaving the question
open) that both the substantive and the procedural aspects of the impugned restrictive law
should be examined from the point of view of reasonableness; that is to say, the Court should
consider not only factors such as the duration and the extent of the restrictions, but also the
circumstances under which and the manner in which their imposition has been authorized. It
is important in this context to bear in mind that the test of reasonableness, wherever
prescribed, should be applied to each individual statute impugned, and no abstract standard,
or general pattern of reasonableness can be laid down as applicable to all cases. The nature
of the right alleged to have been infringed, the underlying purpose of the restrictions
imposed, the extent and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied thereby, the disproportion
of the imposition, the prevailing conditions at the time, should all enter into the judicial
verdict. 21
1.3. REGULATION 9 VIOLATES FREEDOM OF TRADE AND BUSINESS UNDER ARTICLE
19(1) (G) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF HELIOPOLIS.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that Regulation 9 issued by the Television
watchdog does not satisfy the four-prong test as laid down by the court in various cases as.
Firstly, there was no need for a regulation regarding the increase in advertisements on TV
channels. The television watchdog, being the regulatory body under S. 11(1)(b)(v) of the
TRAI Act must discharge the functions of ensuring the Quality of service and laying down
standards of service.22 Television watchdog while discharging those functions did not
consider the fact that imposing restrictions on advertisement severely restricted the revenue
of the petitioner. It also didn’t account that majority of the viewers watch the news for free
Secondly, the regulation imposes a limit of 10 minutes of advertisements per hour. Which
effectively means that broadcasters are allowed to show advertisements for only an
exceedingly small portion of time. This would mean that revenue goes down significantly
which will also indirectly degrade the quality of the services that are provided by
broadcasters to the consumers. Hence it can be said that it was not a rational step by the
television watchdog to impose a limitation of the duration of advertisements per hour.
21
State of Madras v. V.G Row., AIR 1952 SC 196
22
S. 11(1)(b)(v) of the TRAI Act

COMPETITION, 2023
Thirdly, the regulation has a disproportionate effect on the rights of the Broadcasters as the
regulation limits advertisement. The broadcaster provides free services to people of rural
areas. Advertisements are broadcast in between content feeds to generate income and profit.
If advertisement duration is restricted, then the profit potential and opportunity of the
petitioner is restricted thereby threatening its survival. The only thing that the Regulation
achieves is striking a death kneel on the survival of broadcaster by severely reducing the
quantity of advertisements. Regulation 9 violates Article 19(1)(g) by restricting duration of
the advertisements which force the petitioner to shut shop and sufferheavy economic
damages.
1.4. REGULATION 9 VIOLATES ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF HELIOPOLIS,

WHICH PROVIDES EQUALITY.
It is humbly submitted before the honorable Supreme Court that Regulation 9 of the Act
violates Article 14 of the Constitution of Heliopolis.
Article 14 of the Constitution of Heliopolis Declares that “the State shall not deny to any
person equality before the law or equal protection of laws within the territory of Heliopolis”.
Equality before the law is a negative concept, implying the absence of any special privilege in
favor of individuals and the equal subject of all classes to the ordinary law, whereas equal
protection of law is a more positive concept implying equality of treatment and equal
circumstances. The rule is that like should be treated alike and not that unlike should be
treated alike. It is therefore submitted before the Honorable Court that. Regulation 9 violates
Article 14 as Firstly; it sets a common benchmark of 10 minutes per hour without any
consideration for the kind of channel. Secondly, Regulation 9 provides for a common
benchmark of 12 minutes per hour without consideration for the time of the day.
1.4.1 Regulation 9 provides for common benchmark of ten minutes per hour without
consideration for kind of channel
The rule under Article 14 states that like should be treated alike and not that unlike should be
treated alike. In the present case unequals are treated equally as the petitioners here are news
broadcasters and the set limit imposed by the Television watchdog is imposed irrespective of
the type of the channel, whether treating free to air, pay, news, sports, music are subject to
regulation providing for 10 minutes for advertisements.

COMPETITION, 2023
The Petitioner humbly submits that not making a distinction between the channels according
to the type of content they publish, and the subscription type they follow is arbitrary and
violative of Art 14 of the Constitution of Heliopolis. Different channels have different
revenue models and all of them can't be subjected to the same regulations and if such
regulation is implemented it would be detrimental to the interests of the channels that have a
revenue model whereby, they are hugely dependent on advertisements for their fiscal
survival. The petitioners in the present case earn 90% of their revenue proceeds from
advertisements and imposing a limit of 10 minutes puts their survival in question.
1.4.2. Regulation 9 provides for common benchmark of ten minutes per hour without
consideration for time of day
The Counsel for petitioners would like to reiterate the fact that the rule under article 14 is that
like should be treated alike and not that unlike should be treated alike Different hours of the
day have different viewership and hence imposing a common limit of 10 minutes for
advertisements each hour throughout the day amounts to violation of Article 14.
In the judgement of Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. v. Shashi Prabha Shukla,23it can be interpreted
that the regulation must be objective, transparent and non-binary. There was no consultation
between the stake holders, nor did the respondent try to gauge the economic impact of the
regulation. There was a complete lack of transparency as to why the regulation was issued.
Only abstract and vague reasons were given. Hence it would be pertinent to hold this
regulation as unconstitutional.
Jurisprudentially thus, as could be gleaned from the above legal enunciations, a public
authority in its dealings must be fair, objective, non-arbitrary, transparent and non-
discriminatory. The discretion vested in such an authority, which is a concomitant of its
power, is coupled with duty and can never be unregulated or unbridled. Any decision or
action contrary to these functional precepts would be at the pain of invalidation thereof. The
State and its instrumentalities, be it a public authority, either as an individual or a collective
must essentially abide by this inalienable and non-negotiable prescriptions and cannot act in
breach of the trust reposed by the polity and on extraneous considerations. In exercise of
uncontrolled discretion and power, it cannot resort to any act to fritter, squander and
emasculate any public property, be it by way of State largesse or contracts, etc. Such
23
Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. v. Shashi Prabha Shukla, (2018) 12 SCC 85, para 33

COMPETITION, 2023
outrages would clearly be unconstitutional and extinctive of the rule of law which forms the
bedrock of the constitutional order.
2. WHETHER THE JUDGMENT OF HIGH COURT OF MEMPHIS HOLDING

REGULATION 9 AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL IS CONFINED TO THE
TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF STATE OF MEMPHIS? OR, SINCE REGULATION 9
IS A FEDERAL SUBJECT, CAN THE JUDGMENT BE APPLIED THROUGHOUT
THE COUNTRY OF HELIOPOLIS?
2.1 THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT OF MEMPHIS HOLDING REGULATION 9 AS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL IS NOT CONFINED TO THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF THE STATE OF
MEMPHIS.
2.1.1 Whether the Television Watchdog can define the jurisdiction of a High
Court.
The Telecom watchdog has issued a direction (Directive No:1 of 2023) to the petitioner and
other broadcasters to strictly adhere to the regulation 9 in other jurisdictions except State of
Memphis where the High Court had declared regulation 9 as unconstitutional. The
elementary argument that the counsel seeks to address is whether a regulatory body that has
been created by an act of parliament can decide and determine the limits on the jurisdiction of
a High Court.
The watchdog is a statutory body that has been created by an act of Parliament. It is to be
noted that the High Court is a constitutional body that has been formed by the constitution.
The question that needs to be raised is whether a regulatory body that has been created by an
act of parliament has the power to determine the limits of a constitutional body which derives
its power directly from the constitution.
The legal position regarding such issues is clear. In the present constitutional mechanism, the
constitution reigns supreme with all other branches of state being bound to act under the
ambit of the constitution. The powers of a High Court are defined by the constitution and any
disputes regarding the limits of the jurisdiction of the High Court can only be addressed by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The regulatory body, i.e., the respondent did not approach the
Supreme Court. Instead, it issued a directive of its own defining where the order of the High
Court will apply. Nowhere in the law of the land has it been provided that a statutory body

COMPETITION, 2023
can impose limits upon the jurisdiction of a constitutional body. Any issue regarding the
determination of jurisdiction of High Court can be dealt only by Hon’ble Supreme Court.
It would be extremely bad in law to accept the directive issued by the respondent as it goes
against the constitutional framework of the country where any substantial question of law can
only be entertained by the Supreme Court or the High Court. The determination of
jurisdiction of High Court will lead to substantial question of law that could be dealt by the
Supreme Court and not the Telecom Watchdog. The petitioner holds that telecom watchdog
has no authority to decide the jurisdiction of a high court or where the orders of any high
court could take effect.
By issuing a directive on the limits of jurisdiction of the High Court, the respondent has gone
way beyond the powers granted to it. Hence such direction must be rendered ultra vires to the
Constitution of Heliopolis. It would therefore be pertinent to point out that allowing such a
directive to exist would subvert the constitutional process as well as the rule of law and set a
terrible precedent. Such a directive must be declared as unconstitutional in order to preserve
constitutional sovereignty.
2.2 WHETHER THE JUDGEMENT PASSED BY A HIGH COURT IN A WRIT PETITION
QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY OF A CENTRAL ACT IS APPLICABLE THROUGHOUT THE
TERRITORY OF THE COUNTRY.
The petitioner humbly submits that the judgement of a High Court which deals with the
constitutionality of a Central act is valid throughout the territory of Heliopolis. The first is a
judgment with regards to this question of law was dealt by the Bombay High Court in
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Godavari Devi 24 held that the Madras High Court's
declaration of unconstitutionality of a provision of the Income Tax Act has effect on income
tax assessments in Maharashtra.
Later on in the case of Kusum Ingots v. Union of India 25, it was opined in the form of a
Obiter Dicta by the Supreme Court that an “order passed on a writ petition questioning the
constitutionality of a parliamentary act whether interim or final keeping in the view, the
24
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Godavari Devi, [1978] 113 ITR 589 (Bom)
25
Kusum Ingots v. Union of India, (2004) 6 SCC 254

COMPETITION, 2023
provisions contained in clause 2 of article 226 of the Constitution of India will have effect
throughout the territory of India subject to the course of applicability of the act.”
This reasoning was affirmed by the Madras High Court in Textile Technical Tradesmen v.
Union of India26. Following the obiter dictum of the Supreme Court holding declaration of
unconstitutionality of a central law by the Andhra Pradesh Court has the effect of rendering
the law unconstitutional Throughout the territory of the Country.
What this Effectively means that a declaration of unconstitutionality of statute by any of the
High Courts has the effect of rendering the Statute void for the rest of the country.
Further, it is a well settled law that obiter dicta of the Supreme Court are also binding upon
all other Courts, including the High Court. In Municipal Committee, Amritsar v. Hazara
Singh27, the Hon’ble Supreme Court approved the following observation of the Hon’ble High
Court of Kerala in the matter of: State of Kerala v. Vasudevan Nair28:
“Judicial propriety, dignity and decorum demand that being the highest judicial tribunal in
the country even obiter dictum of the Supreme Court should be accepted as binding.
Declaration of law by that Court even if it be only by the way has to be respected. But all that
does not mean that every statement contained in a judgment of that Court would be attracted
by Article 141. Statements on matters other than law have no binding force”
The binding effect of obiter dicta of the Supreme Court has been reiterated in the recent
decision in Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income
Tax, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that:
“It is, therefore, incorrect to state, as has been stated by the High Court, that the decision in
Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. V/s Reserve Bank of India [(1992) 2
SCC 343] must be read as not having laid down any absolute proposition of law that all
receipts of subscription at the hands of the assessee for these years must be treated as capital
receipts. We reiterate that though the Court’s focus was not directly on this, yet a
pronouncement by this Court, even if it cannot be strictly called the ratio decidendi of the
judgment, would certainly be binding on the High Court”29
26
Textile Technical Tradesmen Association v. Union of India, 2010 SCC OnLine Mad 6515
27
Amritsar V. Hazara Singh, (1975) 1 SCC 794
28
State of Kerala V. Vasudevan Nair,1975 Cri LJ 97
29
Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. V/s Commissioner of Income Tax, (2019) SCC

COMPETITION, 2023
In Prithi Pal Singh Bedi v. Union of India30 Supreme Court held that when question not
specifically arising for decision but discussed and observations made, such observations even
though obiter entitled to respect by succeeding bench of the Supreme Court.
It is Humbly submitted before the Honorable court that based on these cases it is a clear rule
of law that High court ruling on unconstitutionality of a statute renders the statute
unconstitutional throughout the territory of whole country. Therefore, In the present case the
decision by high court that Regulation 9 is unconstitutional will be operative throughout the
country and the Television watchdog can’t act in contravention of the said judgement by
enforcing the regulation via a directive.
3. TELEVISION WATCHDOG DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO REGULATE THE

DURATION OF ADVERTISEMENTS IN PUBLIC INTEREST.
The petitioner humbly submits that the telecom watchdog does not have the power to regulate
the duration of the advertisement in this case for multiple reasons. The argument of the
respondent that they regulated the duration of advertisement in public interest does not have
any strong basis in law. There is a lack of reasonableness behind restricting the duration of
advertisement by the telecom watchdog through impugned regulation. In the case of State of
Madras v. V G Row, it was stated that-
“It is important in this context to bear in mind that the test of reasonableness, wherever
prescribed, should be applied to each individual statute impugned, and no abstract standard,
or general pattern of reasonableness can be laid down as applicable to all cases. The nature
of the right alleged to have been infringed, the underlying purpose of the restrictions
imposed, the extent and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied thereby, the disproportion
of the imposition, the prevailing conditions at the time, should all enter into the judicial
verdict. In evaluating such elusive factors and forming their own conception of what is
reasonable, in all the circumstances of a given case, it is inevitable that the social philosophy
and the scale of values of the Judges participating in the decision should play an important
part, and the limit to their interference with legislative judgment in such cases can only be
dictated by their sense of responsibility and self-restraint and the sobering reflection that the
Constitution is meant not only for people of their way of thinking but for all, and that the
30
Prithi Pal Singh Bedi v. Union of India, (1982) 3 SCC 140

COMPETITION, 2023
majority of the elected representatives of the people have, in authorizing the imposition of the
restrictions, considered them to be reasonable.”31
In the aforementioned judgement, the Hon’ble supreme court held that the test of
reasonableness has to be applied on a case-to-case basis and not on an abstract standard. The
reasonable standard must be sound and cannot be abstract. It must also be read in the
circumstances of the case. In this case, the petitioner is dependent on revenue coming from its
advertisements. The circumstances clearly indicate that imposing such harsh restrictions on
the duration of advertisements will threaten the survival of petitioner. The petitioner
broadcasts news for free to people who reside in rural areas. It would be impossible for it to
sustain and continue its operation without charging a steep subscription fee that it does not
charge to cater to the needs of rural Heliopolis. This regulation would be inconsistent for its
lack of reason. The petitioner has given very abstract reasons. Respondent has failed to
consult the necessary stake holder, nor has it attempted to understand how the news
broadcasting industry works.
It is also pertinent to note the effect of such regulation. If such regulation sees another ray of
sun, then telemarketing news channels will have to shut show because their entire functioning
depends upon the duration of advertisement they show. If such a regulation stands the test of
law, it would automatically force the closure of multiple media houses as well.
Lack of Transparency in limiting the duration of advertisement. In the case of Cellular

Operators Association of India v TRAI,32 it was held that transparency has to be ensured by
TRAI while exercising its powers and functions including legislative function of enacting
subordinate legislation. This can be interpreted from the following text of the judgement.
“Section 11(4) of the Act requires that the Authority shall ensure transparency while
exercising its powers and discharging its functions.
"Transparency" has not been defined anywhere in the Act. However, we find, in a later
Parliamentary Enactment, namely, the Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India Act,
2008, that Section 13 deals with the functions of the Airports Economic Regulatory
Authority, (which is an Authority which has legislative and administrative functions).
"Transparency" is defined, by subsection (4), as follows: -
31
State of Madras v V G Row., AIR 1952 SC 196, para 23
32
Cellular Operators Association of India v TRAI., AIR 2016 SC 2336

COMPETITION, 2023
"THE AIRPORTS ECONOMIC REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA ACT, 2008
13. Functions of Authority.
(4) The Authority shall ensure transparency while exercising its powers and discharging its
functions, inter alia, -
(a) by holding due consultations with all stakeholders with the airport;
(b) by allowing all stakeholders to make their submissions to the authority; and
(c) by making all decisions of the authority fully documented and explained."
64. This definition of "transparency" provides a good working test of
'transparency' referred to in Section 11(4) of the TRAI Act.
. In fact, a judgment of the Court of Appeal in England, being Regina v. North and East
Devon Health Authority, puts the meaning of "consultation" rather well as follows:33 -
"It is common ground that, whether or not consultation of interested parties and the public is
a legal requirement, if it is embarked upon it must be carried out properly. To be proper,
consultation must be undertaken at a time when proposals are still at a formative stage; it
must include sufficient reasons for particular proposals to allow those consulted to give
intelligent consideration and an intelligent response; adequate time must be given for this
purpose; and the product of consultation must be conscientiously taken into account when
the ultimate decision is taken."
3.1 REGULATION 9 VIOLATES ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF HELIOPOLIS,

WHICH PROVIDES FOR EQUALITY
It is humbly submitted before the honorable Supreme Court that regulation 9 of the Act
violates Article 14 of the Constitution of Heliopolis.
Article 14 of the Constitution of Heliopolis Declares that “the State shall not deny to any
person equality before the law or equal protection of laws within the territory of Heliopolis”.
Is equality before the law is somewhat a negative concept, implying the absence of any
special privilege in favor of individuals and the equal subject of all classes to the ordinary
law, whereas equal protection of law is a more positive. Concept implying equality of
treatment and equal circumstances. The rule is that like should be treated alike and not that
33
Regina v. North and East Devon Health Authority, Ex parte Coughlan, [2001] QB 213

COMPETITION, 2023
unlike should be treated alike. It is therefore submitted before the Honorable Court that
Regulation 9 violates Article 14 -
Firstly, it sets a common benchmark of 10 minutes per hour without any due consideration
for the kind of broadcaster.
Secondly, Regulation 9 provides for a common benchmark of 10 minutes per hour without
consideration for the time of the day.
3.1.1. Regulation 9 provides for common benchmark of ten minutes per hour without
consideration for kind of channel
The rule under Article 14 is that like should be treated alike and not that unlike should be
treated alike. In the present case the petitioners are news broadcasters and the set limit
imposed by the Television watchdog is imposed irrespective of the type of the channel,
whether it be sports, news, entertainment, finance Channel. All the channels are expected to
follow the same limit, i.e., 10 minutes for advertisements. The Counsel for the Petitioner
humbly submits that not making a distinction between the channels according to the type of
content they publish is arbitrary and violative of Art 14 of the Constitution of Heliopolis.
Different channels have different revenue models and all of them can't be subjected to the
same regulations. If such regulation is implemented, it would be detrimental to the interests
of the channels that have a revenue model whereby they are hugely dependent on
advertisements for their fiscal survival. The petitioners in the present case on 90% of their
revenue proceeds from advertisements and imposing a limit of 10 minutes puts their survival
in question.
3.1.2 Regulation 9 provides for common benchmark of ten minutes per hour without
consideration for time of day
The Council for petitioners would like to reiterate the fact that the rule under article 14 is that
like should be treated alike and not that unlike should be treated alike Different hours of the
day have different. Viewership and hence imposing a common limit of 10 minutes for
advertisements each and every hour throughout the day amounts to a violation of Article 14.
The respondent did not attempt to create any differentiation when it could have. There are
three main kinds of television channel which exist in Heliopolis.
a) General Entertainment Channels (GECs)

COMPETITION, 2023
b) Music Channels
c) News Channels
These channels not only differ in content but also differ in their advertising patterns. The
content broadcast by the general entertainment channels is more static, orderly and structured.
These channels generally broadcast entertainment shows, movies, music etc. The advertising
window on such channels is fixed to strike a balance between generating revenue and the
viewership experience. These channels do not have advertisements as their only source of
revenue. They charge subscription fees, which are amongst the highest.
Whereas the content broadcast by news channels is more dynamic and changes on a day-to-
day basis. If important news is being broadcast by a news channel, it may choose not to carry
any advertisements during that clock hour. The broadcaster, at times, is compelled not to
show advertisements due to the gravity of the news being broadcast. One may consider the
day of counting of votes where citizens are glued to the TV screen of a news channel to see
whether the candidate they chose has been elected or not. The news channels on days like
these have a limited scope of taking a break and broadcasting advertisements. Thus, in order
to fulfill their commitments to the advertisers, the news broadcaster may choose to air
advertisements at the next hour. But regulation 9 has blanketly stated that no programmes
should carry advertisements exceeding 10 minutes per hour.
These news channels need extensive capital to broadcast news. The capital is generated
through advertising. Advertisement also enables news broadcasters to provide quality news
by giving them financial power thereby reducing the chances of manipulation. With ever
changing times and increasing informational needs of citizens in this country it is necessary
to generate enough capital to gather information and provide it to people at their convenience.
The watchdog here, by way of regulation 9 is treating unequal as equal by not creating a
criterion for different channels which differ in content and importance.

COMPETITION, 2023
PRAYER
Wherefore, in the light of facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Supreme Court may be
pleased to adjudge and declare:
1. Declare that regulation 9 of the television broadcasting regulations, 2008 is violative

of provisions of the constitution of Heliopolis and is thus, unconstitutional.
2. Declare that broadcasting being a federal subject, judgement of high court of
Memphis can be applied throughout the country of Heliopolis
3. Declare that Television watchdog has no power to regulate duration of advertisement
in public interest.
AND/OR
Pass any other order or grant any other relief in the favour of the petitioner which this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.
For This Act of Kindness, The Petitioners shall duty bound forever pray.
Date:
Place: Republic of Heliopolis
Sd/-
Counsel(s) for the Petitioners

TC 18-Petitioner

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TC 18-Petitioner

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE 4TH GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT

THE SUPREME COURT OF HELIOPOLIS

WRIT PETITION NO 47 of 2023

Special Leave Petition No. 3478 of 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

Athena Inc. … Petitioner

Television Watchdog … Respondent

Written Submissions on behalf of the Petitioners

Counsel for the Petitione

1. THAT REGULATION 9 OF THE TELEVISION BROADCASTING

1.1. THE REGULATION 9 VIOLATES FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION

1.2. REGULATION 9 DOES NOT COME WITHIN AMBIT OF REASONABLE

1.3. REGULATION 9 VIOLATES FREEDOM OF TRADE AND BUSINESS UNDER ARTICLE

1.4. REGULATION 9 VIOLATES ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF HELIOPOLIS,

2. WHETHER THE JUDGMENT OF HIGH COURT OF MEMPHIS HOLDING

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER(S)

IS A FEDERAL SUBJECT, CAN THE JUDGMENT BE APPLIED THROUGHOUT

2.1 THAT THE JUDGMENT OF HIGH COURT OF MEMPHIS HOLDING REGULATION 9 AS

2.2 WHETHER THE JUDGEMENT PASSED BY A HIGH COURT IN A WRIT PETITON

TERRITORY OF THE COUNTRY.........................................................................................12

3. TELECOM WATCHDOG DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO REGULATE

3.1 REGULATION 9 VIOLATES ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF HELIOPOLIS,

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER(S)

Abbreviation Full Form

SLP Special Leave Petition

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER(S)

Constitution of Heliopolis, Art. 19.............................................................................................4

Amritsar V. Hazara Singh, (1975) 1 SCC 794.........................................................................13

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER(S)

TRAI’s Quantitative Advertisement Regulation: Ensuring a Quality Viewing Experience or

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER(S)

Art. 32 of the Constitution of Heliopolis reads as:

“32. Right to Constitutional Remedies—

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER(S)

1. Athena Inc. (hereinafter “Petitioner”) is a news broadcasting company which began

3. Television Watchdog (hereinafter “Respondent”) is a regulator formed under the

4. Aggrieved by regulation 9 of regulations (hereinafter “The Regulation”), Petitioner

6. Respondent issued Directive No. 1 of 2023 (hereinafter “directions”) to strictly adhere

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER(S)

1. Whether Regulation 9 of the Television Broadcasting Regulations, 2008 is

2. Is the judgment of the High Court of Memphis holding Regulation 9 as

3. Whether Telecom Watchdog has the power to regulate duration of

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER(S)

1. REGULATION 9 VIOLATES FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION

2. JUDGMENT OF HIGH COURT OF MEMPHIS HOLDING REGULATION 9 AS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER(S)

3. WHETHER TELECOM WATCHDOG HAS THE POWER TO REGULATE

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER(S)

1. REGULATION 9 OF THE TELEVISION BROADCASTING REGULATIONS, 2008

1.1. Regulation 9 VIOLATES FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION PROVIDED FOR IN

ARTICLE 19(1)(A) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF HELIOPOLIS.

The petitioner humbly submits that Regulation 9 is detrimental to the interests of

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER(S)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER(S)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER(S)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER(S)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER(S)

1.2. REGULATION 9 DOES NOT COME WITHIN THE AMBIT OF REASONABLE

RESTRICTIONS AS ENSHRINED UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(A) IN 19(2).

Jurisprudentially, "proportionality" can be defined as the set of rules determining the

(i) it is designated for a proper purpose;

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER(S)

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER(S)

1.3. REGULATION 9 VIOLATES FREEDOM OF TRADE AND BUSINESS UNDER ARTICLE