ALLIANCE SCHOOL OF LAW MOOT COURT

ALLIANCE SCHOOL OF LAW MOOT COURT

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

W.P. (CIVIL) NO.____ OF 2022

UNDER ARTICLE 19 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

IN THE MATTER OF
ALOK……………………………………………………..PETITIONER
V.
RIA………………………………………..RESPONDENT
SARTAJ…………………………………..RESPONDENT
QUIBBLER TV…………………………...RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Memorial for Petitioner

1
 ALLIANCE SCHOOL OF LAW MOOT COURT

TABLE OF CONTENT

TITLE PAGE NO.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 03

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 04

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 05

STATEMENT OF FACTS 06

ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION 08

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 09

ISSUE 1 10

ISSUE 2 12

PRAYER 13

Memorial for Petitioner

2
 ALLIANCE SCHOOL OF LAW MOOT COURT

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

SERIAL NO. ABBREVIATION FULL FORM

1. AIR All India Reporter
2. Hon’ble Honourable
3. Raj Recent Arbitration Judgment
4. V. Versus
5. Ltd Limited
6. No. Number
7. AC Appeal Cases
8. WLR Weekly Law Reports
9. KB King’s Bench
10. Vs. Versus

Memorial for Petitioner

3
 ALLIANCE SCHOOL OF LAW MOOT COURT

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
i. TABLE OF CASES

1. Deepti Chaudhary v. Manjulata AIR 1997 Raj 170

2. Capital and Counties Bank Ltd v. Henty (1882) 7 App. Cas. 741.
3. Lewis v. Daily Telegraph Ltd (1964) A.C. 234.
4. Jones v. Skelton (1963) 1 W.L.R. 1362 at 1370
5. Cassidy v. Daily Mirror Newspapers Ltd (1929) 2 K.B. 331
6. Sh. Pradeep Anand v. City Bank, (2011)
7. Brig. B.C. Rana v. Ms. Seema Katoch & Ors., (2012)
8. B.M. Thimmaiah vs. T.M. Rukimini, (2012)
9. Shri Vijay Kumar vs. Smt. Kusum, (2013)

ii. LIST OF STATUTES/LEGISLATIONS

1. Defamation Act, 1996

iii. BOOKS REFERRED

1. W.V.H. ROGERS, M.A., WINFIELD AND JOLOWICZ ON

TORT (Sweet & Maxwell, 18th Edition, South Asian Edition, 2010)

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
Memorial for Petitioner
4
 ALLIANCE SCHOOL OF LAW MOOT COURT

The Petitioners have approached the court under Article 19 of the Constitution
of India, read with defamation. The Respondents submit to the same.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Memorial for Petitioner

5
 ALLIANCE SCHOOL OF LAW MOOT COURT

Part I
● Alok was the founder CEO of Essex Corporation. What began as a small start up with
a couple of college friends, barely five years ago. Umbrella Corporation, a giant
conglomerate of financial companies having its head office in the United States has
been negotiating the takeover of Essex Corporation for several weeks.
● The directors of Umbrella Corporation were meeting Alok and his team on
24.11.2018 for finalising the deal. It was undoubtedly the most important meeting of
Alok’s life. On 23.11.2018, Quibbler TV aired an interview of Ria wherein she
levelled various allegations against Alok regarding harrasment via Me Too
movement.
● Ria said, "Alok who have stalked and harassed women continue to enjoy impunity
and are not made to feel remorse about their actions.” On the basis of these
statements, the news anchor of Quibbler TV- Sartaj Singh carried out a 2 hours story
on prime time. In the first segment, Quibbler TV called for viewers to vote on
“Whether Alok should be allowed to get away with harassing women?” The TV
channel also started a twitter campaign with the #alokthepervert. In the next portion, a
debate was telecast on how companies need to strengthen their policies and refuse to
collaborate with people who were accused of harassment in the ‘Me Too’ movement
unless they prove their innocence.
● Umbrella Corporation informed Alok that they did not want to be seen as a company
that does business with anyone who is in the middle of a media trial. The deal was
annulled.
● Alok filed a civil suit for defamation, character assassination and damages before the
Delhi High Court arraying Ria as the First Defendant, Sartaj as the Second Defendant
and Quibbler TV as the Third Defendant.

Part II
● Ria graduate from college and getting placed in a company was on the top of her
priority - Wade Enterprises. The securities and investments division were headed by
Alok who had a remarkable name for himself in the organization. Ria performed quite
well in the interview taken by Alok and joined the organization on 01.09.2012.
● Alok grew quite fond of Ria who was indeed very good looking. He never expressed
his feelings to Ria fearing rejection and losing her as a friend.
● At the New Year’s Eve, Ria had a little too much to drink. As she was too drunk to
drive, Alok stayed up till late night and dropped her back. When they reached Ria’s
home, she invited him over. As Ria was intoxicated, Alok declined and thought best if
he left. Ria gave him a hug and kissed him goodbye.
● The next morning, Ria was flabbergasted to find her
● workplace filled with red heart shaped balloons and decorations. In the centre was
Alok who was down on one knee with a ring proposing to her. Ria was petrified. She
spoke to Alok and told him that she did not feel that way about him. She clarified that
he was reading too much into last night and she did not have any romantic thoughts or
feelings for him. Alok was dejected.

Memorial for Petitioner

6
 ALLIANCE SCHOOL OF LAW MOOT COURT

● Alok followed her to the restaurant to talk to her. Alok thought it would be best if he
and Ria did not work in the same department. The next day Ria received a mail from
the HR of Wade Enterprises informing her that she is no longer with the securities and
investment team of Stark Industries and that she will be reporting to the marketing
team.
● Ria escalated the issue by filing a complaint against Alok alleging stalking,
unwelcomed physical advances and detrimental treatment at her workplace to her
disadvantage for having refused the advances of Alok under the Sexual Harassment of
Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
● Alok tendered his resignation to the company and months at the marketing division of
Wade Enterprises, seeking no growth in the near future, Ria left the organization.
● Ria could not understand where she had erred. She could not find a suitable job
elsewhere and could not stop blaming Alok for ruining her career. Several years later,
when the Me-Too movement started, Ria found it fit to raise her voice and speak up.

Memorial for Petitioner

7
 ALLIANCE SCHOOL OF LAW MOOT COURT

ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

ISSUE 1
WHETHER THE CIVIL SUIT FOR DEFAMATION FILED BY ALOK IS VALID?

ISSUE 2
WHETHER ALL DEFENDANTS ARE LIABLE FOR THE DEFAMATION AND
DAMAGES?

Memorial for Petitioner

8
 ALLIANCE SCHOOL OF LAW MOOT COURT

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1 - WHETHER THE CIVIL SUIT FOR DEFAMATION FILED BY ALOK IS

VALID?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that suit filed by Alok is valid. Defamation
under the law of tort is defined as the publication of a statement which reflects on a person’s
reputation and tends to lower him in the estimation of right-thinking members of society
generally or tends to make them shun or avoid him. The statement said by the defendant is
defamatory and refers to the claimant i.e., Alok, and published or communicated via T.V. All
these conditions fulfil the essentials of defamation and thus makes the suit filed by Alok valid
for defamation.

ISSUE 2 - WHETHER ALL DEFENDANTS ARE LIABLE FOR THE DEFAMATION

AND DAMAGES?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that all the defendants are liable for the
defamation, character assassination and damages to Alok. They all fulfil the essentials of
defamation done to Alok, therefore liable to pay damages to him.

Memorial for Petitioner

9
 ALLIANCE SCHOOL OF LAW MOOT COURT

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Issue 1 - Whether the civil suit for defamation filed by Alok is valid?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the suit filed by Alok for defamation is
valid. Under the law of tort, Alok is being subjected to defamation clearly by the defendant
one, two and three. His reputation is injured and his deal with Umbrella Corporation was
called off because of false statement published to the people through the campaigns and
media.
In the case Brig. B.C. Rana v. Ms. Seema Katoch $ Ors., it was said that the principle of
equity, every man is entitled to have his reputation preserved intact, and any words
calculated to cause harm to his reputation affords a good cause of action.
To claim that a particular statement is defamatory there should be publication to third party
and such publication should be of a nature as is likely to cause appreciable injury to a
person’s reputation. Defamatory words, if false are actionable. False defamatory words, if
written and published, constitute a libel, if spoken, a slander. In libel, the statement is made in
some permanent and visible form in writing or otherwise recorded, such as printing, typing,
pictures, photographs, caricatures, effigies. In slander, the statement is expressed by speech
or its equivalent, that is, in some other transitory form, whether visible or audible, such as, a
nod, wink, smile, hissing, the finger-language of the deaf and dumb, gestures or inarticulate
but significant sounds. 1
For the completion of the tort of defamation what is required is any word or statement made
by the other party expose the plaintiff to hatred, contempt, or tend to injure the plaintiff in his
profession or trade or cause the plaintiff to be shunned or avoided by his public.2
In the case of Deepti Chaudhary vs. Manjulata AIR 1997 Raj 170, the news was published
that the plaintiff had run away with a boy which was revealed to be false and untrue, but her
marriage prospects were badly affected.3
Alike this case, Alok is also in the trap of false and untrue news, which has affected his
dealing badly with Umbrella Corporation.
Good character and reputation are as much important for both man and woman. It does count
a lot in the life of both men and women. Any attack on their character would certainly injure
their feelings and would be entitled to maintain an action for defamation against the
offender.4
Alok has been defamed by both modes of defamation i.e., libel and slander.

1
Brig. B.C. Rana v. Ms. Seema Katoch & Ors., (2012)
2
Shri Vijay Kumar Jha v. Smt. Kusum, (2013)
3
Deepti Chaudhary v. Manjulata AIR 1997 Raj 170
4
B.M. Thimmaiah v. T.M. Rukimini, (2012)
Memorial for Petitioner
10
 ALLIANCE SCHOOL OF LAW MOOT COURT

Under the slander, defamation has taken place through visual, virtual, or oral way that can be
temporary but leaving behind the trail of injury to Alok’s reputation. There has been
interview of Ria by Quibbler TV wherein she levelled various fake allegations against Alok
about harassing women using the me-too movement name.5
Also, the anchor of Quibbler TV – Sartaj Singh carried out this story on their prime time
using the lines as “whether Alok should be allowed to get away with harassing women?”.
This question kind of statement by Sartaj Singh clearly depicts that Quibbler TV is trying to
say that Alok harasses women, which completely a false statement.
Under the libel, defamation has taken place in written way where the TV channel – Quibbler
also started a twitter campaign with the writing ‘#alokthepervert’ and any form of written
defamatory statement amounts to libel.
In an action for libel the plaintiff should prove that the statement complained of 1) refers to
him; 2) is in writing; 3) is defamatory, and 4) was published by the defendant to a third
person or persons.6 Also, as it has been posted on a big social media platform i.e., twitter, it
also amounts to be published or communicated to the people at large causing the destruction
to Alok’s reputation.

5
W.V.H. ROGERS, M.A., WINFIELD AND JOLOWICZ ON TORT (Sweet & Maxwell, 18th Edition, South
Asian Edition, 2010)
6
Brig. B.C. Rana v. Ms. Seema Katoch & Ors., (2012)
Memorial for Petitioner
11
 ALLIANCE SCHOOL OF LAW MOOT COURT

Issue 2 - Whether all defendants are liable for the defamation and damages?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that all the defendants are liable for the
defamation, character assassination and damages to Alok.
The defence on account of a bona-fide error/negligence and without any ill-will against the
plaintiff, is of no value. In a suit for damages based on defamation, bona-fide error and lack
of ill-will do not constitute any valid defence.7
Defendant one – Ria is liable for saying that Alok has harassed women and took the help of
me-too movement for her support.
Defendant two – Sartaj Singh is liable for carrying out the fake story about Alok and
published it through media.
Defendant three – Quibbler TV is liable for organising the poll vote on Alok’s character
indirectly and also for the untrue campaign on twitter ‘#alokthepervert’ along with telecasting
a debate on how companies need to strengthen their policies and refuse to collaborate with
people who were accused of harassment in the ‘me-too’ movement which also lead Alok’s
deal to be cancelled with Umbrella Corporation.
Hereabove mentioned all the wrongs done by defendants made them liable for damages and
also for the apology letter along with reviving of Alok’s reputation in public.8

PRAYER
7
Sh. Pradeep Anand v. City Bank, (2011)
8
The defamation act, 1996, c 31, Act of the Parliament, 1996, (United Kingdom)
Memorial for Petitioner
12
 ALLIANCE SCHOOL OF LAW MOOT COURT

Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments and authorities cited, it is humbly
requested that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to adjudge and declare:

i. That the suit filed by Alok for defamation is valid;

ii. That all the defendants are charged with defamation done to Alok to
ruin his reputation;
iii. That all the defendants are liable to pay damages and publish apology
letter to retrieve Alok’s reputation.

And pass such order writ or direction as the Hon’ble court deems fit and proper
in the light of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience, for this the petitioner shall
duty bound pray.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

Memorial for Petitioner

13