TEAM CODE: DY-08

LITIGATIONS (2015-2016)

Before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Bangistan

Pappu Toaster……………………………………....Petitioner No. 1

Bakbak Oswami…………………………………….Petitioner No. 2

Bangistan Broadcasting Association……………....Petitioner No. 3

v.

Union of Bangistan…………………………….....Respondent No. 1

State of Willy……………………………………...Respondent No. 2

Memorial for Respondents

 -LITIGATIONS, 2015-16-

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................................................. IV

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................ VI

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ................................................................................... IX

STATEMENT OF FACTS ..................................................................................................... X

ISSUES RAISED.................................................................................................................. XII

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ....................................................................................... XIII

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED .................................................................................................. 1

I. THAT SECTIONS 499 AND 500 OF BPC DOES NOT INFRINGE THE RIGHT TO
FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION.............................................................................. 1

a) That fundamental rights are not absolute ................................................................... 1

i. That reasonable restrictions have been imposed ...................................................... 2

b) That section 499 and 500 themselves form a part of Article 19 (2) ............................ 2

c) That sections 499 and 500 protect right to reputation ................................................ 3

II. THAT THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF WILLY IS NOT VIOLATIVE
OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT UNDER ARTICLE 19 (1) (A) ........................................................ 5

a) That the media has committed an act of defamation ................................................... 5

b) That defamation comes under the ambit of Art 19(2), hence justifying reasonable
restriction............................................................................................................................ 6

c) That the state has acted in interest of maintaining the ‘public order’ in society ........ 7

d) That the State has issued circular to prevent the filing of the frivolous complaints
and procedure adopted by the government to file a complaint is a reasonable one .......... 8

III. THAT THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF BANGISTAN IS NOT

UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND IS NOT AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF
SPEECH AND EXPRESSION ..................................................................................................... 9

a) That the restriction imposed is reasonable ................................................................. 9

i. That the restriction is in the interest of public order and security of state ............. 10

II | P a g e
[Memorial for Respondents]
 -LITIGATIONS, 2015-16-

ii. That there is a direct nexus between the exercise of fundamental right of citizen &
its impact on Society .................................................................................................... 11

b) That the maintenance of law and order is the primary duty of the State .................. 11

c) That the telecast and reporting by the media was not done in a good faith ............. 12

d) That the media has committed the act of Contempt of Court .................................... 12

IV. THAT THE PRESS DOES NOT ENJOY UNFETTERED RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH
AND EXPRESSION ................................................................................................................. 14

a) That the freedom of press has been derived from right to freedom of speech and
expression, therefore it doesn’t stand on any higher footing than any citizen ................. 14

i. That the freedom of press comes along with responsibility of providing correct
information ....................................................................................................................... 14

b) That due to the vulnerability of abuse of this freedom, it is not admissible to grant
absolute freedom to the press ........................................................................................... 15

c) That in order to maintain the harmony in the country, the press censorship is
justified ............................................................................................................................. 17

i. That it is reasonable for the state to impose restriction on the press to ensure public
order. ................................................................................................................................. 17

PRAYER ............................................................................................................................. XIV

III | P a g e
[Memorial for Respondents]
 -LITIGATIONS, 2015-16-

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS FULL FORM

§ Section

¶ Paragraph

AIR All India Reporter

All ER All England Reporter

Anr. Another

Art. Article

Bom Bombay

BPC Bangistan Penal Code

BPM Bangistan People’s Movement

Cal Calcutta

cl. Clause

COB Constitution of Bangistan

Cri. LJ Criminal Law Journal

Del Delhi

Dept. Department

DLT Delhi Law Times

ed. Edition

Govt. Government

IV | P a g e
[Memorial for Respondents]
 -LITIGATIONS, 2015-16-

H.C. High Court

Hon’ble Honourable

Ibid Ibidem

Kar Karnataka

M.P. Madhya Pradesh

Mad Madras

Nag. Nagpur

Ors. Others

P. Page

Raj. Rajasthan

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Reporter

Sec. Section

Supp. Supplementary

T.N. Tamil Nadu

U.P. Uttar Pradesh

U.S. United States

v. Versus

vol. Volume

V|Page
[Memorial for Respondents]
 -LITIGATIONS, 2015-16-

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

A.K. Gopalan v. State Of Madras, 1950 AIR 27 ....................................................................... 9

Ahmad Ali Akhtar and anr. v. Union Of India, 1993 (2) BLJR 1203. .................................... 11

All India Anna DMK v. Govindankutty, 1996 AIHC 4509 (AP) ............................................ 12

Anthoni Udayar v. Velusami Thevar AIR 1948 Mad 469. ...................................................... 12

Babulal v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1961 SC 884 ................................................................ 18

Brind v. Secretary of State, (1991) 1 All ER 720 .................................................................... 10

Chintaman Rao v. State of M.P., AIR 1951 SC 118 .................................................................. 2

Dr. D.C. Saxena v. Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India (1996) 5 SCC 216. ............................... 1

Dr. J Sudarshan v. R. Sankaran, 1992 Cri. U 2427 (Mad.)........................................................ 3

Gitlow v. N.Y. (1925) 268 US 652 .......................................................................................... 14

Gobinda Pershad Pandey v. Garth, (1900) 28 Cal 63. ............................................................... 5

Goplalan v. State of Madras (1950) SCR 88 (292) .................................................................... 7

Hindustan Times v. High Court of Allahabad, (2011) 13 SCC 155 .................................... 6, 15

K.L. Dhall v. B.P. Dutta, 1985 (8) DRJ 286 .............................................................................. 3

K.V. Ramaniah v. Special Public Prosecutor, AIR 1961 AP 190. ............................................ 6

Kishori Mohan Besa v. State of W.B., AIR 1972 SC 1749. ...................................................... 9

Kochuni v. State of Madras, AIR 1960 SC 1080 ..................................................................... 14

Laxmi Khandsari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1981 SCR (3) 92 .............................................. 2, 6

Madhu Limaye v. S.D.M,. AIR 1971 SC 2486 ....................................................................... 18

Miss Kamalini Manmade v. Union Of India, (1967) 69 BOMLR 512...................................... 2

MSM Sharma v. Shri Krishna Sinha, 1960 AIR 1186 ............................................................. 14

Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, (1999) 8 SCC 308 ........................................... 13

VI | P a g e
[Memorial for Respondents]
 -LITIGATIONS, 2015-16-

New Road Brothers v. Comm. Of Police, Ernakulam, AIR 1999 Ker 262 ............................. 11

Om Kumar v. Union of India, 2000 Supp(4) SCR 693 ............................................................. 2

Papanasam Labour Union v. Madura Coats Ltd. (1995) 1 SCC 501 ....................................... 12

Perspective Publications v. State of Maharashtra, 1971 AIR 221 ..................................... 13, 17

Purshottam Lal Sayal v. Prem Shanker, AIR 1966 All 377....................................................... 2

R. Gandhi v. Union of India,1989 AIR(Madras) 205 ................................................................ 7

Radha Mohan Lal v. Rajasthan High Court, (2003) 3 SCC 427........................................ 13, 15

Ram Jethmalani v. Subramaniam Swamy’AIR 1961 AP 190, 1961 CriLJ 601 ........................ 4

Rama Dayal v. State of M.P., 1978 AIR 921 ........................................................................... 17

Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P., AIR 1957 SC 620................................................................ 17

S. Mohinder Singh Saluja v. Vanson Shoes, 1987 (2) DRJ 119 ................................................ 3

S. Rangarajan v. Jagjivan Ram, [(1989) 2 SCC 574. ............................................................... 11

Sanskar Marathe v. State of Maharashtra, 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 587 ................................. 10

Santosh Singh v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1973 SC 109....................................................... 7

Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, GoI v. CAB, (1995) 2 SCC 161 ........... 10

Sewakram v. R.K. Karanjia, 1981 AIR 1514 ............................................................................ 6

Shah Rukh Khan v. State Of Rajasthan And Ors., RLW 2008 (1) Raj 809 .............................. 2

Standard Chartered Bank v. Vinay Kumar Sood, Crl.M.C. 3828/2007 on Feb 6, 2009.......... 12

State of Bihar v. Lal Krishna Advani, AIR 2003 SC 3357 .................................................. 3, 17

State of Madras v. V.S. Rao, AIR 1952 SC 196 ........................................................................ 2

State of Punjab v. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd. (2004) 11 SCC 26 ................................... 11

Superintendent, District Jail v. Lohia, AIR 1960 SC 633 .......................................................... 2

Supt. Central Prison v. Ram Manohar Lohia, AIR 1960 SC 633 ............................................ 17

V.M. Telgan v. State of Maharashtra, 2003 Cr. LJ 3653 (Bom.). ............................................. 2

VII | P a g e
[Memorial for Respondents]
 -LITIGATIONS, 2015-16-

Valentine v. Chrestensen, (1942) 316 US 52 ........................................................................... 10

Virendra v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 896 (899). ............................................................ 12

Vrajlal M.& Co. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1970 SC 129 ............................................. 2

STATUTES REFERRED

 The Constitution of India, 1950

 The Contempt of Court Act, 1971
 The Indian Penal Code, 1860

BOOKS REFERRED

 Durga Das Basu, Commentary on Constitution of India (Vol. 2, 8th Ed. 2007)
 Durga Das Basu, Law of the Press (4th Ed., 2002)
 H.M. Seervai, Constitutional law of India (Vol. 2, 4th Ed., 2008)
 M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (Vol. 2, 6th Ed., 2010)
 Mahendra Pal Singh, V.N. Shukla’s Constitutional law of India (12th Ed., 2013)
 R.C. Lahoti, Preamble-The Spirit and Backbone of the Constitution of India (1st Ed.,
2004)
 Ratanlal and Dheerajlal, The Indian Penal Code (33rd Ed., 2013)

LEXICONS REFERRED

 Briam A. Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014)

 Sally Wehmeier, Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (7th ed. 2005)

VIII | P a g e
[Memorial for Respondents]
 -LITIGATIONS, 2015-16-

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Respondents humbly submit before the Hon'ble Supreme Court under the jurisdiction
invoked by the petitioner. The Respondents reserves the right to challenge the same.

IX | P a g e
[Memorial for Respondents]
 -LITIGATIONS, 2015-16-

STATEMENT OF FACTS

-BACKGROUND-

Bangistan is a small developing country where the freedom of speech and expression is
guaranteed as a fundamental right under the Constitution of Bangistan. The country has had
various instances where freedom of speech and expression has come under the scanner.

-PETITION I-

In the year 2014, Pappu Toaster, the Vice President of Kamal Party, arranged a huge rally in
Willy, the capital city of Bangistan. The Hath Party, born out of a fundamentalist religious
organization by the Bangistan People’s Movement (BPM) was the primary opposition party.
Pappu Toaster in the rally, accused BPM of harbouring criminals and also alleged that Lattu
Khorgade, who was behind the assassination of Ex-PM of Bangistan, was a member of BPM.

Radhabai Jyotshi, a member of BPM filed a criminal defamation complaint against Pappu
Toaster. Pappu Toaster challenged the constitutionality of Sections 499 and 500 of BPC
stating it to be violative of Art.19(1)(a) of Constitution of Bangistan.

-PETITION II-

Mr. Rudy is a member of opposition party in Capital City Willy of Bangistan. He accused the
Counsellor of Willy, Mr. Goldman, for being corrupt and incapable to run the govt. Mr.
Goldman filed a criminal defamation complaint against Mr. Rudy and has also filed more
than 200 cases against different individuals and newspaper organizations. However, all the
cases were criminal in nature. Hence, Mr. Rudy on the ground that the purpose of filing the
complaint by Mr. Goldman was to harass the editor, publisher and reporter who speak against
the Government, prayed for decriminalisation of defamation.

Thereafter, following the heavy criticism of Willy Government by the media, a circular was
issued by the city’s Information and Publicity Dept. saying that if any officer associated with
Willy Govt. feels that the published or aired item has caused damage to his or the
governments’ reputation, he would be free to file a complaint with the Principal Secretary
(Home). Thereinafter, a channel is provided for the filtration of the complaint and a person
can file complaint only after getting a go ahead through the procedure prescribed. Bakbak

X|Page
[Memorial for Respondents]
 -LITIGATIONS, 2015-16-

Oswami from Times Today media house challenged the said circular of being violative of
Art. 19(1)(a).

-PETITION III-

The State of Bangistan had witnessed a bloodiest terror attack in 1993 whereby 350 people
were killed and around 900 were injured. The prime accused of the said terror attack, Mr.
Bhudbak Len had surrendered to the police of Bangistan taking full responsibility of the
terror attack. He was tried by the Sessions Court along with 89 other accused. The Sessions
Court convicted Bhudbak Len on the charge of mass murders and waging war against the
nation and he was punished with a death sentence. The punishment was confirmed by the
Supreme Court and thereafter the Curative Petition and Mercy Petition against the said order
were filed and got dismissed. Meanwhile, some news channels in their telecast and reporting
on the death sentence of Mr. Bhudbak Len telecasted news articles in a manner to create
sympathy towards Mr. Len and criticising the government and the Supreme Court in its
decision to hang Bhudbak Len to death.

The death penalty was criticised on the ground that he himself has surrendered and therefore
the punishment is not justified. The Information and Broadcasting Ministry took serious note
of the reporting and issued notices to media channels suggesting thems to report such matters
with caution. The notice also accused the channels of casting aspersions on the integrity of
the President and the Judiciary, inciting violence and anti-national sentiments. Thereinafter, a
circular was issued by the Govt. of Bangistan prohibiting the media channels from telecasting
anything regarding the hanging of Bhudbak Len which can harm communal harmony and
integrity of the country and which condemned the Judiciary and office of the President. The
Bangistan Broadcasting Association challenged the circular as being violative of right of
freedom of speech and expression.

-BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT-

Since, the aforementioned issues concerned interpretation of Articles of Constitution and was
thus placed before a special bench of the Supreme Court. Hence, this petition.

XI | P a g e
[Memorial for Respondents]
 -LITIGATIONS, 2015-16-

ISSUES RAISED

I. Whether Sections 499 and 500 of BPC infringe the fundamental right of freedom of
speech and expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution?

II. Whether the circular issued by the government of City Council Willy is violative of
fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of
the Constitution?

III. Whether the circular issued by the government of Bangistan prohibiting the telecast
and reporting of hanging of Mr. Bhudbak Len is unconstitutional and against the fundamental
right of freedom of speech and expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the
constitution?

IV. Whether the press enjoys unfettered right to freedom of speech and expression?

XII | P a g e
[Memorial for Respondents]
 -LITIGATIONS, 2015-16-

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. That Section 499 and 500 of BPC does not infringe the Right to freedom of
speech and expression under Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of Bangistan.
It is submitted that Sections 499 and 500 of BPC do not infringe the fundamental right under
Art.19(1)(a). Firstly, the fundamental rights are not absolute. Secondly, Sec. 499 and 500
form a part of Art.19 (2). Lastly, these sections protect right to reputation.

II. That the circular issued by the Govt. of Willy is not violative of fundamental
right under Art. 19(1)(a).
It is submitted that the circular issued by the government of Willy is not violative of
fundamental right under Art.19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Firstly, the media has committed an
act of defamation. Secondly, the restriction is justified as the defamation comes under the
ambit of Art 19(2).Thirdly, the state has acted in interest of maintaining the ‘Public Oder’ in
society. Lastly, the State has issued circular to prevent the filing of the frivolous complaints.

III. That the circular issued by the Government of Bangistan is not unconstitutional
and is not violative of fundamental right under Art. 19 (1) (a).
It is submitted that the circular issued by Govt. of Bangistan is not unconstitutional and is not
violative of fundamental right under Art.19(1)(a). Firstly, the restriction imposed is
reasonable. Secondly, the maintenance of law and order is the primary duty of the State.
Thirdly, the telecast and reporting by the media was not done in a good faith. Lastly, the
media has committed the act of Contempt of Court.

IV. That the press does not enjoy unfettered right to freedom of speech and
expression.
It is submitted that the press does not enjoy unfettered right to freedom of speech and
expression. Firstly, the freedom of press has been derived from right to freedom of speech
and expression. Secondly, the freedom of press comes along with responsibility of providing
correct information. Thirdly, it is not admissible to grant absolute freedom to the press due to
the vulnerability of its abuse. Lastly, in order to maintain the harmony in the country, the
press censorship is justified.

XIII | P a g e
[Memorial for Respondents]
 -LITIGATIONS, 2015-16-

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. THAT SECTIONS 499 AND 500 OF BPC DOES NOT INFRINGE THE RIGHT TO
FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION

1. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that Sections 499 and 500 of the Bangistan
Penal Code do not infringe the right to freedom of speech and expression enshrined under
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of Bangistan. Firstly, fundamental rights cannot be
absolute. Secondly, that since Section 499 and 500 itself forms a part of Article 19(2), these
are not unreasonable. Lastly, reputation of an individual is very important and Sections 499
and 500 protect this right to reputation.

a) That fundamental rights are not absolute

2. It is submitted that, Article 19(1)(a)1 guarantees right to freedom of speech and expression
and limitations imposed by Articles 19 (2)-19 (4) and 19 (6) serve a purpose, viz., they
specify that these freedoms are not absolute but are subjected to regulations.2 It is submitted
that since the fundamental rights cannot be absolute and are subjected to reasonable
restrictions, Section 499 and 500 could not be said to travel beyond reasonable limits of
speech and expression as this was imposed by Art. 19(2), itself.

3. If maintenance of democracy is the foundation for free speech, society equally is entitled to
regulate freedom of speech or expression by democratic action. The reason is obvious, viz.,
that society accepts free speech and expression and also puts limits on the right.3

4. It can be inferred that right to freedom of speech and expression can be exercised till a
tolerable limit and once that limit exceeds, it is important to impose restrictions.

1
BANGISTAN CONST. Art. 19, cl. 1, sub-cl. a.
2
M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1413-1415 ( 6th ed. 2010).
3
Dr. D.C. Saxena v. Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India, (1996) 7 S.C.C. 216.

1|Page
[Memorial for Respondents]
 -LITIGATIONS, 2015-16-

i. That reasonable restrictions have been imposed

5. It is submitted that the phrase “reasonable restriction” connotes that the limitation imposed on
a person in enjoyment of the right should not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature, beyond
what is required in the public interest. The word “reasonable” implies intelligent care and
deliberation, that is, the choice of a course which reason dictates.”4

6. In order for a restriction on the fundamental right to be valid, it must have a rational relation
with the grounds for which the legislature is entitled to impose restrictions. These grounds are
laid down in Arts. 19(2).5 When a law is found to infringe a right guaranteed by Art. 19(1)(a),
it will be invalid unless it can be brought under the protective provisions of Arts. 19(2) to
19(6)6 and the onus are on the state to justify this restriction.7 A right cannot be said to
contain the quality of reasonableness unless it strikes a proper balance between Fundamental
Rights guaranteed and the restrictions imposed thereon.8 In any case, reasonability cannot be
lost sight of.9 In the present case, the restrictions which were imposed by the government
were reasonable in nature since it strikes a balance between individual liberty and freedom of
speech. This point will be further substantiated in the next contention.

b) That section 499 and 500 themselves form a part of Article 19 (2)

7. It is submitted that, Article 19(2) of the Constitution of Bangistan states that “Nothing in sub
clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State
from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of
the right conferred by the said sub clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of
India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or
morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.” This is
law as it is which clearly defines defamation as one of its exceptions 10 and hence Sections
499 and 500 cannot be said to be out of the scope of reasonable restrictions.

4
Chintaman Rao v. State of M.P., A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 118.
5
Superintendent, District Jail v. Lohia, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 633:1960 S.C.R. (2) 821.
6
Vrajlal M.& Co. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 129:(1970) 2 S.C.C. 248.
7
Laxmi Khandsari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1981 S.C.R. (3) 92.
8
Supra 4, State of Madras v. V.S. Rao, A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 196; Om Kumar v. Union of India, 2000 Supp(4)
S.C.R. 693.
9
V.M. Telang v. State of Maharashtra, 2003 Cri LJ 3653.
10
Shah Rukh Khan v. State Of Rajasthan And Ors., RLW 2008 (1) Raj 809; Miss Kamalini Manmade v. Union
Of India, (1967) 69 BOMLR 512.

2|Page
[Memorial for Respondents]
 -LITIGATIONS, 2015-16-

8. It is submitted that the word ‘defamation’ covers the entire law of defamation criminal as
well as civil;11 hence there is no distinction between defamation given under Art. 19(2) and
Sections 499 and 500. This can further be understood in the sense that if a magistrate feels
that the offence of defamation has taken place, there is no bar to the magistrate taking
cognizance of the offence against the person whose matter is already pending in a civil court,
12
so, there is practically no distinction between both the civil and criminal defamation and
defamation mentioned under Art. 19 (2) are the same hence forming a part of reasonable
restrictions.

9. It is also submitted that Art. 19 (2)13 in the initial lines states that “Nothing in sub clause (a)
of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law” and Sections 499 and 500 of BPC
were existent14 at the time of making of the Constitution and hence their operation cannot be
questioned and Sections 499 and 500 of BPC cannot be called as infringing rights under Art.
19(1)(a).

c) That Sections 499 and 500 protect right to reputation

10. It is submitted that the scope of defamation extends to protecting the reputation of an
individual. Art. 21 of the Constitution guarantees right to life and personal liberty which also
includes right to live with dignity and the nature of human is such that he requires a good
name in the society, which is reputation, to live with dignity, and this right is protected
against defamation by Sections 499 and 500.

11. Shakespeare clearly points out the importance of dignity in the lives of human being- “Good
name in man and woman, dear my Lord is the immediate jewel of their souls; Who steals my
purse, steals trash; It’s something, nothing; T'was mine, it’s his, and has been slate to
thousands; But he that filches from me my good name, Robs me of that which not enriches
him and makes me poor indeed.”15 It is thereby contended that reputation is an integral and
important aspect of dignity of every individual. The right to preserve one's reputation is
acknowledged as a right in rem i.e., a right against the entire world” 16

11
Purshottam Lal Sayal v. Prem Shanker, A.I.R. 1966 All 377.
12
Dr. J Sudarshan v. R. Sankaran, 1992 CriLJ 2427; K.L. Dhall v. B.P. Dutta, 1985 (8) DRJ 286.
13
BANGISTAN CONST. art. 19, cl. 2.
14
BANGISTAN PENAL CODE, 1860, § 499-500.
15
Shakespear, Othello, Act-II, Scene III, pp.167.
16
State of Bihar v. Lal Krishna Advani, A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 3357.

3|Page
[Memorial for Respondents]
 -LITIGATIONS, 2015-16-

12. The importance of reputation in an individual’s life is also defined in the case of S. Mohinder
Singh Saluja v. Vanson Shoes,17 that it cannot be forgotten that right of a person to the
unimpaired possession of his reputation and good name is recognized by law and is an
inherent right of every individual. A man’s reputation is his property and may be considered
to be more valuable and hence the protection of this reputation is a must and thus protection
of Sections 499 and 500 of BPC is required as these protect one of the most essential rights of
an individual. This is further defined in the cases of ‘Ram Jethmalani v. Subramaniam
Swamy’18 and ‘Dr. D.C. Saxena v. Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India’19

13. Hence it is humbly submitted before this court that Sections 499 and 500 are a set of
reasonable restrictions controlling the exercise of right to freedom of speech and expression
enshrined under Art. 19(1)(a) and hence are not ultra vires and do not infringe the right to
freedom of speech and expression.

In the light of arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is humbly submitted that Sections
499 and 500 of BPC do not infringe the fundamental right of freedom of speech and
expression enshrined under Art.19 (1) (a) of Constitution of Bangisatan.

17
S. Mohinder Singh Saluja v. Vanson Shoes, 31 (1987) DLT 189.
18
Ram Jethmalani v. Subramaniam Swamy, A.I.R. 2006 Delhi 300.
19
Supra 3.

4|Page
[Memorial for Respondents]
 -LITIGATIONS, 2015-16-

II. THAT THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF WILLY IS NOT VIOLATIVE
OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT UNDER ARTICLE 19 (1) (a)

14. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the circular issued by the govt. of Willy
is not violative of fundamental right guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(a). Firstly, media has
committed an act of defamation, which falls under ambit of Art 19(2). Secondly, the state has
acted in interest of maintaining the ‘public order’ in society, maintaining which is the
responsibility of the state conferred by Art.38 of Constitution of Bangistan. Lastly, the State
has issued circular to prevent the filing of the frivolous complaints and the procedure adopted
by the govt. to file a complaint is a reasonable one.

a) That the media has committed an act of defamation

15. It is submitted that the offence of defamation, consists of three essential ingredients, namely,
1) making or publishing any imputation concerning any person, 2) such imputations must
have been made by words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by visible
representations and (3) the said imputation must have been made with the intention to harm
or with knowledge or having reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of the person
concerned. Therefore, the intention to cause harm is a sine qua non of the offence. It is not
necessary to prove that the complainant actually suffered directly or indirectly from the
scandalous imputation alleged; it is sufficient to show that the accused intended to harm, or
knew, or had reason to believe that the imputation made by him would harm the reputation of
the complainant.20

16. It is submitted that the malicious intention of the press can be traced from the facts and
circumstances of the case, leading to which the govt. of Willy had to resort to the decision of
bringing up the circular at the first place. Mr. Goldman has filed many cases of criminal
defamation against various media persons and therefore he was the target of various news
agencies. Due to this reason, there were repeated news articles against Mr. Goldman and his
government.21 In order to take the revenge, the media went on to criticize the government on
every possible point, resulting which about 10% if the news contents were dedicated in only
criticizing the policies of the government. Also, the defamation cases were filed at the first

20
Gobinda Pershad Pandey v. Garth, (1901) ILR 28 Cal 63.
21
Moot Proposition, ¶ 3.

5|Page
[Memorial for Respondents]
 -LITIGATIONS, 2015-16-

place not to scandalize the media but to protect the spoiling image of the government due to
false and exaggerated news reports which were published in the newspapers.

17. It is contended that there was absence of good faith in publication of defamatory news
articles against the Willy Govt. and the act was done with a malicious intention. The onus of
proving the good faith rests on the accused and journalists do not enjoy any special
privilege.22 Hence, the newspaper agency can be made liable for publishing the defamatory
article in the newspaper against the public acts of Public servants when it was evident from
the circumstances that it was not made in good faith.

18. It is thereby contended that the act of defamation was committed by the press against Mr.
Goldman and government officials in the capital city of Willy.

b) That defamation comes under the ambit of Art 19(2), hence justifying reasonable
restriction

19. It is submitted that, freedom of speech in Article 19(1)(a) cannot be taken to mean absolute
freedom to say or write whatever a person chooses recklessly and without regard to any
person’s honour and reputation. The right guaranteed by the Constitution, it must be borne in
mind, is to all the citizens alike. The right in one certainly has a corresponding duty to the
other and judged in that manner also, the right guaranteed cannot but be a qualified one.
Indeed the right has its own natural limitation. Reasonably limited alone, it is an inestimable
privilege. Without such limitations it is bound to be a scourge to the Republic.23

20. Hence, this right is restricted by Article 19(2) in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity
of Bangistan, security of the State, public order, decency and morality and also Contempt of
Courts and defamation.24 The Peculiarity of this article, as pointed out already, lies in the fact
that it contains two parts, - One declaring the rights themselves and another enumerating
precisely the limitations which may be imposed by the state upon the exercise of each of
these rights.25

21. However, Art.19 (2) provides for only ‘reasonable’ restrictions to be imposed on the freedom
of speech and expression. The test of reasonableness of restriction, however, has to be

22
Sewakram v. R.K. Karanjia, 1981 A.I.R. 1514; 1981 S.C.R. (3) 627.
23
K.V. Ramaniah v. Special Public Prosecutor, A.I.R. 1961 AP 190.
24
Hindustan Times v. High Court of Allahabad, (2011) 13 S.C.C. 155.
25
Laxmi v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 873.

6|Page
[Memorial for Respondents]
 -LITIGATIONS, 2015-16-

considered in each case in the light of the nature of the right infringed, the purpose of
restriction, and extent and the nature of the mischief required to be suppressed and the
prevailing social and other conditions at this time.26 Hence, in the present case before the
court, it is obvious from the circumstances that the circular issued is a reasonable restriction
as it provided for the channelization and filtration of the frivolous complaints which were
filed by various govt. officials in reference to the huge amount of defamatory articles which
were published.

c) That the state has acted in interest of maintaining the ‘public order’ in society

22. It is submitted that the maintenance of law and order is the primary duty of the State and
under our Constitution it is a State subject and tops the State List. No Government worth the
name can abdicate this function and put the life and liberty, the hearth and home of the
citizens in jeopardy. Art. 38 of the Constitution of Bangistan enjoins on the State to strive to
promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting, as effectively as it may,
a social order. 27 The term ''social order'', within the context of Art.38 of Constitution, has a
very wide ambit. It includes ''law and order'', ''public order'' as well as ''the security of the
State''.28 Hence, the maintenance of public order within the meaning of Art.19 (2) will include
the duty of the state under Art.38 to maintain social order.

23. Putting restraint on the freedom of wrong doing of one person is really securing the liberty of
the intended victims. Therefore, restraint on liberty should be judged not, only subjectively as
applied to few individuals who come within their operations but also objectively as securing
the liberty of a greater number of individuals.29

24. When defamatory imputations are being repeatedly published, mala fide or with ulterior
motives or for which no justification or defense is offered, an injunction should follow to
protect the fair reputation of the person concerned.30

25. It is thereby contended that, in the present case before the court, the circular tends to secure
the interests of the aggrieved who were falsely framed and whose reputation was affected by

26
Santosh Singh v. Delhi Administration, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 1091.
27
R. Gandhi v. Union of India, 1989 A.I.R. Madras 205.
28
In Re: Ramlila Maidan Incident Dt.4/5.06.2011 v Home Secretary, Union of India & Ors, 2012 Indlaw S.C.
54.
29
A. K. Goplalan v. State of Madras, 1950 S.C.R. 88.
30
Cadbury (India) Ltd. v. Dr. M.C. Saxena, 83 (2000) DLT 592; 2000 (52) DRJ 590.

7|Page
[Memorial for Respondents]
 -LITIGATIONS, 2015-16-

the defamatory articles which were published. Therefore, the act of govt. being the one to
secure the social order of the state is a reasonable in nature.

d) That the State has issued circular to prevent the filing of the frivolous complaints and
procedure adopted by the government to file a complaint is a reasonable one

26. It is submitted that the procedure adopted by the govt. of Willy to channelize and filter the
complaints was a just and reasonable one. The aim of the circular was to reduce the number
of complaints by providing a channel to filter frivolous complaints and reduce the burden on
the judiciary.

27. The journalists are entitled to do criticism, but without touching the reputation and without
exceeding the limits and bounds made by law, since law would not permit any one to use his
freedom of speech or expression as to injure another’s reputation or to indulge what may be
called character assassination.31 Hence, the circular also serves as a deterrent for the press
for promoting responsible journalism. The Press has great power in impressing the minds of
the people and it is essential that persons responsible for publishing anything in newspapers
should take good care before publishing anything which tends to harm the reputation of a
person. Reckless comments are to be avoided. When one is proved to have made defamatory
comments with an ulterior motive and without the least justification motivated by self-
interest, he deserves a deterrent sentence.32

In the light of the arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is humbly submitted that the
circular issued by the Willy Govt. is not violative of the fundamental right of freedom of
speech and expression.

31
Selvi J. Jayalalithaa and anr. v. R. Rajagopal, A.I.R. 2006 Mad 197.
32
Sahib Singh Mehra v. State Of Uttar Pradesh, 1965 A.I.R. 1451:1965 S.C.R. (2) 823.

8|Page
[Memorial for Respondents]
 -LITIGATIONS, 2015-16-

III. THAT THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF BANGISTAN IS NOT

UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND IS NOT AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF
SPEECH AND EXPRESSION.

28. It is submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the circular which was issued by the govt. of
Bangistan prohibiting the telecast and reporting of hanging of Mr. Bhudbak Len is not
unconstitutional and is not against the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression
enshrined under Art.19 (1) (a) of Constitution Of Bangistan. Firstly, the restriction imposed is
reasonable as it is in the interest of ‘Public Order’ & ‘Security of the State’. Secondly, the
state was merely performing its duty of ensuring the social order of the state. Thirdly, the
telecasting and reporting has not been done in a good faith, hence the media is guilty for
contempt of court.

a) That the restriction imposed is reasonable

29. It is submitted that, man as a rational being desires to do many things, but in a civil society
his desires will have to be controlled with the exercise of similar desires by other
individuals’.33

30. Professor K. G. Gardinar in his Rule on the Road says that “when you walk on the road, you
are at liberty to revolve your walking stick so long as it does not touch the nose of the other
man.” This analogy can be applied to the present facts of the case too. True it is, the
journalists are entitled to make criticism, but without touching the reputation and without
exceeding the limits and bounds made by law, since law would not permit any one to use his
freedom of speech or expression as to injure another's reputation or to indulge what may be
called character assassination.34

31. It is submitted that a citizen has a right to say or write whatever he likes about the
Government or its measures, by way of criticism or comments, so long as he does not incite
people to violence against the Government established by law or with the intention of
creating public disorder.35 But in the present case, the issue which is in question is highly
sensitive in nature and hence it has the tendency of inciting violence and creating public
disorder in the country.

33
Supra 29.
34
Supra 31.
35
Sanskar Marathe v. State of Maharashtra, 2015 S.C.C. OnLine Bom 587.

9|Page
[Memorial for Respondents]
 -LITIGATIONS, 2015-16-

32. The term ''social order'' has a very wide ambit. It includes ''law and order'', ''public order'' as
well as ''the security of the State''.36 The compulsions to preserve the values of freedom of a
democratic society and social order sometimes merit the curtailment of the individual liberty.
Thereby it is contended that the circular issued by the govt. is reasonable. This point will be
substantiated in the following contentions.

i. That the restriction is in the interest of public order and security of state

33. It is submitted that under Art.19 (2), the reasonable restrictions can be imposed on the
exercise of the right to freedom of speech & expression in the interest of ‘Public Order’ as
well as ‘Security of State’. Also, an act affecting public order may have such an impact that it
would affect both public order and the security of the State.37 The right to freedom of speech
and expression cannot rise above national interest and interest of society, which is but
another name for the interest of general public. It is true that Art. 19 (2) does not use the
words “national interest”, “interest of society”, but the several grounds mentioned in clause
(2) are ultimately referable to the “interest of the nation” and “interest of society”38

34. Freedom of speech has been interpreted to include dissemination of knowledge, according to
one’s own ideas, so long as that does not infringe the collective interests, or the object is not
purely commercial.39 Therefore, when a person enjoys a right under Art.19 (1)(a), he must
enjoy the same with very minimum inconvenience to the public at large.40

35. In determining the reasonableness of a law challenged as an unreasonable restriction upon a

fundamental right guaranteed by Art. 19, the Court has to balance the need for individual
liberty with the need of social control and the magnitude of the evil which is the purpose of
the restrictions to curb or eliminate, so that the freedom guaranteed to the individual
subserves the larger public interests.41

42
36. In Brind v. Secretary of State, the Home Secretary issued directives to the broadcasting
authorities pursuant to Section 29 (3) of the Broadcasting Act 1918, prohibiting the

36
Supra 28.
37
Kishori Mohan Bera v. State of W.B., A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 1749.
38
Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Govt. of India v. Cricket Association of Bengal, (1995) 2
S.C.C. 161.
39
Valentine v. Chrestensen, 316 U.S. 52 (1942).
40
New Road Brothers v. Comm. Of Police, Ernakulam, A.I.R. 1999 Ker 262.
41
Ahmad Ali Akhtar and anr. v. Union Of India, 1993 (2) BLJR 1203.
42
Brind v. Secretary of State, [1991] 1 All ER 720 (HL).

10 | P a g e
[Memorial for Respondents]
 -LITIGATIONS, 2015-16-

broadcasting of direct statements by representatives of certain terrorist organizations. The

same was challenged on the grounds that it violated Art.10 of the European Convention. The
restriction was held to be reasonable and in public interest.

ii. That there is a direct nexus between the exercise of fundamental right of citizen & its
impact on Society

37. It is submitted that, in order to determine whether total prohibition would be reasonable, the
court has to balance the direct impact of the fundamental right of the citizen against the
greater public or social interest sought to be ensured.43 The anticipated danger should not be
remote, conjectural or far-fetched. It should have proximate and direct nexus with the
expression and should be intrinsically dangerous to the public interest.44 Also, art. 19 (2)
enables legislature to restrict the exercise of the fundamental right as soon as a threat of
injury to the social interest protected by the relevant ground or a proximate tendency thereof
is manifest.45 It is not bound to wait until the mischief has actually taken place.

38. It is thereby contended that in the present case, there is a direct nexus between the exercise of
fundamental right of speech and expression and its impact on the society. The reporting of
press against the government and the judiciary will result in detriment of image of the
government in front of the public at large and thus will affect the proper functioning of the
government. Also, reckless reporting regarding such a sensitive matter can lead to unrest in
the country.

b) That the maintenance of law and order is the primary duty of the State

39. It is submitted that the maintenance of law and order is the primary duty of the State.46 No
Government worth the name can abdicate this function and put the life and liberty, the hearth
and home of the citizens in jeopardy. Art. 38 of the Constitution of Bangistan enjoins on the
State to strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting, as effectively
as it may, a social order.47 Implementation of directive principles contained in Part IV is
within the expression of restrictions in the interest of general public.48 Thus, any restriction so

43
D D BASU, COMMENTARY ON CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 2217 (8th ed. 2007).
44
S. Rangarajan v. Jagjivan Ram, (1989) 2 S.C.C. 574.
45
Virendra v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 896.
46
BANGISTAN CONST, Entry 1, List II, Schedule VII.
47
BANGISTAN CONST, art. 38.
48
State of Punjab v. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd., 1979 S.C.R (3) 568.

11 | P a g e
[Memorial for Respondents]
 -LITIGATIONS, 2015-16-

imposed which has the effect of promoting or effectuating a directive principle can be
presumed to be a reasonable restriction in Public Interest.49

40. Article 19, in order to be valid must be proximately related to a ground specified in the
relevant limitation clause, that very expression enables the Legislature to restrict the exercise
of the fundamental right as soon as a threat of injury to the social interest protected by the
relevant ground or a proximate tendency thereof is manifest.50 It is thereby contended that the
Govt. of Bangistan has performed its duty as it issued the circular in interest of Public order.

c) That the telecast and reporting by the media was not done in good faith

41. It is submitted that, requirement of good faith and public good, both, are to be satisfied and
failure to prove good faith would exclude the person from enjoying the unfettered freedom of
press even if requirement of public good is satisfied.51 Repeatedly publishing defamatory
matter may be restrained because Art.19(1)(a) does not give a free hand to publish
defamatory matters.52 Further, there cannot be any rule of thumb to determine in particular
case whether an imputation is made in good faith or not.53

42. It is contended that the act of the media was not done in good faith as the media persons, in
most cases, are highly educated and informed person regarding the current affairs & situation
of a country. So, in such a case where the death penalty had been awarded after the due
consideration by President as well as Judiciary, they are very well aware that any criticism on
their part would lessen the faith of the people of the country which they have in judiciary as
well as executive of the country. Further, the media channels are also aware that such
criticism on their part that decision of death penalty on the ground that he has himself
surrendered to the Bangistan Police, is not justified54 might incite anti-national sentiments in
the people and result in violence.

43. It is thereby contended that the telecast and reporting by media on the death penalty of
Bhudbak Len was not done in good faith.

d) That the media has committed the act of Contempt of Court

49
Papanasam Labour Union v. Madura Coats Ltd., (1995) 1 S.C.C. 501.
50
Virendra v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 896.
51
Standard Chartered Bank v. Vinay Kumar Sood and Others, Crl.M.C. 3828/2007 on February 6, 2009.
52
All India Anna DMK v. Govindan kutty, (1996) 2 ALD 139 (AP).
53
Anthoni Udayar v. Velusami Thevar A.I.R. (35) 1948 Mad 469.
54
Moot Proposition, ¶ 4.

12 | P a g e
[Memorial for Respondents]
 -LITIGATIONS, 2015-16-

44. It is submitted that the liberty of free expression cannot be equated or confused with a license
to make unfounded and irresponsible allegations against the judiciary.55 If the criticism
exceeds the limits of fair comment and tends to scandalize the administration of justice56 or
undermine the confidence which the public rightly repose in the courts of justice57 or is likely
to interfere with the due administration of justice, the Press would lose its freedom to criticize
the judgment because such criticism has ceased to be for the public good. 58 After evaluating
the totality of the factors, if the court considers the attack on judge or Judges scurrilous,
offensive, intimidatory or malicious beyond condonable limits, the strong arm of the law
must, in the name of public interest and public justice, strike a blow on him who challenges
the supremacy of the rule of law.59

45. It is contended that from the very facts, it is obvious that media has committed the act of the
Contempt of Court. As at first, the punishment of death penalty was confirmed by Supreme
Court, Further, the ‘curative petition’ of Mr. Bhudbak Len was rejected by Supreme Court60
after reconsideration on the sentence of death penalty. Even after having awareness regarding
such due consideration and knowledge that any criticism of the decision by them might
undermine the confidence of the public in the Courts of Justice, the media and some intellects
criticized the decision. It clearly implies that the criticism by the media is not a fair criticism
and is made with the malicious intention to lessen the confidence of the people in Judiciary
which is not protected by the right to freedom of speech and expression under Art.19(1)(a). It
is thereby contended that the media has committed the act of contempt of court.

In the light of arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is humbly submitted that the
circular issued by the Govt. of Bangistan prohibiting the telecast and reporting of hanging of
Mr. Bhudbak Len is constitutional and such restriction is reasonable and doesn’t infringe the
Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression guaranteed under Art.19(1)(a)

55
Radha Mohan Lal v. Rajasthan High Court, A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 1467.
56
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 3751.
57
Supra 43 2596.
58
Perspective Pubs v State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 221.
59
Supra 43 2598.
60
Moot Proposition, ¶ 3.

13 | P a g e
[Memorial for Respondents]
 -LITIGATIONS, 2015-16-

IV. THAT THE PRESS DOES NOT ENJOY UNFETTERED RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH
AND EXPRESSION

46. It is submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the press does not enjoy unfettered right of
freedom of speech and expression. Firstly, the freedom of press has been derived from right
to freedom of speech and expression; therefore it doesn’t stand on any higher footing than
any citizen. Secondly, this freedom comes along with responsibility of providing correct
information. Thirdly, due to the vulnerability of abuse of this freedom, it is not admissible to
grant absolute freedom to the press. Lastly, in order to maintain the harmony in the country,
the press censorship is justified.

a) That the freedom of press has been derived from right to freedom of speech and
expression, therefore it doesn’t stand on any higher footing than any citizen

47. It is submitted that, there is no specific guarantee to the Freedom of Press in the Constitution
of Bangistan, unlike some foreign Constitutions. It is not that the Freedom of Press has no
Constitutional protection in Bangistan, but it has to be deduced from a wider guarantee of
freedom of expression which is guaranteed to all citizens, by Art 19(1)(a).

48. Being only a right flowing from the freedom of expression belonging to the citizens,
generally, the liberty of the Press, in Bangistan, stands on no higher footing than the freedom
of speech and expression of a citizen and no Privilege attaches to the Press as such, as distinct
from the freedom of citizen.61 It follows that the constitutional limitations to this freedom
have to be found in Cl. (2), which controls Cl.(1)(a) of Art. 19.

49. It is thereby contended that, the press is not entitled to any absolute immunity62 from actions
for unlawful conduct any more than any other individual.

i. That the freedom of press comes along with responsibility of providing correct
information

50. It is submitted that, the media, be it electronic or print media, is generally called the fourth
pillar of democracy. The media, in all its forms, whether electronic or print, discharges a very
onerous duty of keeping the people informed. The impact of media is far-reaching as it

61
MSM Sharma v. Shri Krishna Sinha, 1960 A.I.R. 1186.
62
Gitlow v. N.Y., 268 U.S. 652 (1925); Kochuni v. State of Madras, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 1080.

14 | P a g e
[Memorial for Respondents]
 -LITIGATIONS, 2015-16-

reaches not only the people physically but also influences them mentally. It creates opinions,
broadcasts different points of view, brings forth wrongs and lapses of the Government and all
other governing bodies and is an important tool in restraining corruption and other ill-effects
of society. The media ensures that the individual actively participates in the decision-making
process. The right to information is fundamental in encouraging the individual to be a part of
the governing process. The enactment of the Right to Information Act is the most
empowering step in this direction. The role of people in a democracy and that of active
debate is essential for the functioning of a vibrant democracy.

51. However, with this immense power, comes the burden of responsibility. With the huge
amount of information that they process, it is the responsibility of the media to ensure that
they are not providing the public with information that is factually wrong, biased or simply
unverified information. The right to freedom of speech is enshrined in Art.19(1)(a) of the
Constitution. However, this right is restricted by Art.19 (2) in the interest of the sovereignty
and integrity of Bangistan, security of the State, public order, decency and morality and also
Contempt of Courts and defamation.63 Free expression cannot be equated or confused with a
license to make unfound and irresponsible allegation against the legislature, executive or the
judiciary.64

52. It is thereby contended that, the unbridled power of the media can become dangerous if check
and balance is not inherent in it. The role of the media is to provide to the readers and the
public in general with information and views tested and found as true and correct. Any wrong
or biased information that is put forth can potentially damage the otherwise clean and good
reputation of the person or institution against whom something adverse is reported.65

b) That due to the vulnerability of abuse of this freedom, it is not admissible to grant
absolute freedom to the press

53. It is submitted that, the Press is the most potent instrument of mass communication.
Newspapers are sought to be used by powerful parties and financial groups or even influential
individuals to farther their vested interests to the detriment of the public, as a result of which

63
Hindustan Times v. High Court of Allahabad, (2011) 13 S.C.C. 155.
64
Supra 55.
65
Supra 63.

15 | P a g e
[Memorial for Respondents]
 -LITIGATIONS, 2015-16-

the Press, instead of creating a ‘free market of ideas’, tends to become an instrument for
suppression of views, and an agency of monopolistic control of even news and reports.

54. The problem arising from the commercial vices of newspapers is becoming more and more
acute, owing to the dependence of the masses on the dailies for information and
entertainment and their helpless assumption that whatever is published in newspapers is
authentic. The newspaper is the reading of not only of the rich, but mainly of the poor.
Statements made therein shrieking superlatives influence the mind of the reader. Even highly
educated persons assume whatever is stated, to be true. They have neither time nor inclination
to verify the logic of the conclusions stated. It is very exhilarating to indulge in the popular
sport of jumping to conclusions.66

55. In any civilized society where individual rights are declared and enforced, whether by
ordinary law or by Constitution, the right implies a duty not to abuse that right. 67 This
limitation arising out of the “due recognition and respect for the rights and freedom of
others”, is expressly laid down in Art. 29 (3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
1948.68

56. In 1789, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man, which declared that “free
communication of thoughts and ideas is one of the most precious rights of man’’, in the same
breath stated that this freedom of every citizen was “subject to responsibility for abuse of this
liberty in cases contemplated by law”.69

57. In USA, though the guarantee of freedom of expression and of the press in the Federal
Constitution is absolute, most of the States qualify this guarantee: every person who ‘may
freely speak, write and publish on all subjects’ shall be ‘responsible for the abuse of that
liberty’.70

58. It is contended that, in Bangistan, such abuses have been mentioned in Cl. (2) of Art. 19, and
it is only on those specific grounds that the freedom of expression be curtailed. Freedom of
expression brings within its ambit the corresponding duty and responsibility and puts
limitations on exercise of that liberty.

66
DURGA DAS BASU, LAW OF THE PRESS 112 (4th ed., 2002).
67
COOLEY, CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS 225 (8th ed. 1927).
68
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, art. 29, cl. 3.
69
French Declaration for the Rights of Man, art.XI; SWIDZERLAND CONST. 1874, art.55; BRAZIL CONST. 1946,
art.141, cl. 5.
70
ILLINOIS CONST. art. II, § 4; W. VIRGINIA CONST. art. III, § 7.

16 | P a g e
[Memorial for Respondents]
 -LITIGATIONS, 2015-16-

c) That in order to maintain the harmony in the country, the press censorship is justified

59. It is submitted before the Hon’ble Court that, if the criticism exceeds the limit of fair
comment and tends to scandalize the administration of justice or undermine the confidence
which the public rightly repose in the courts of justice or is likely to interfere with the due
administration of justice, the Press would lose the freedom to criticize the judgment because
such criticism has ceased to be for the public good.71 Every individual has a right to protect
his reputation and goodwill and even a journalist has no unfettered right to make defamatory
statement about a person to a third person or persons without lawful and justifiable basis.72

60. It is also submitted that, in past there have been certain similar circumstances where certain
State acts, such as Punjab Special Powers (Press) Act, 1956, the Assam Special Powers
(Press) Act, 1960, which empower the govt. to prohibit the printing and publication of any
material which is prejudicial to communal harmony or maintenance of public order, have
been applied to combat the agitations in Punjab and Assam respectively.73

i. That it is reasonable for the state to impose restriction on the press to ensure public
order.

61. It is submitted that, the expression “public order” is synonymous with public peace, safety
and tranquility.74 It signifies absence of disorder involving breaches of local significance in
contradiction to natural upheavals such as revolution, civil strife or war, affecting the security
of the State. Therefore, not only such utterances as are directly intended to incite disorder but
also those that have the tendency to lead to disorder, fall within the expression.75 Thus a law
punishing utterances made with deliberate intention to hurt the religious feelings of any class
of persons is valid, because it imposes a restriction on the right to free speech in the interest
of public order, since such speech or writing has the tendency to create public disorder even
in some cases those activities may not actually lead to a breach of the peace.76

62. In the present case before the court, the circular was issued by the govt. of Bangistan in order
to maintain the public order and security of the state. The constitutional support for such

71
Supra 58; Rama Dayal v. State of M.P., 1978 A.I.R. 921.
72
Supra 16.
73
Supra 50; Challenges as to the constitutional validity of censorship under these Acts have not so far been
successful.
74
Supt. Central Prison v. Ram Manohar Lohia, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 633: (1960) 2 S.C.R. 821.
75
Ramji Lal Modi v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 620; Supra 49.
76
Ibid.

17 | P a g e
[Memorial for Respondents]
 -LITIGATIONS, 2015-16-

preventive measures is afforded by the expression ‘in the interests of’ in Cl. (2) of Art 19.
Thus, the State would be justified, ‘in the interests of public order’, not only to meet actual
breach of public order, but also to impose restrictions on utterances or publications which
have a tendency to cause public disorder.77

In the light of the arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is humbly submitted that Press
doesn’t enjoy an unfettered freedom of speech and expression. The restriction on the freedom
of press has been thus rightfully justified and such reasonable restrictions, therefore, does
not infringe the fundamental right of speech and expression guaranteed under Art 19(1)(a) of
Constitution of Bangistan.

77
Supra 50; Babulal v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 884; Madhu Limaye v. S.D.M., A.I.R. 1971 S.C.
2486.

18 | P a g e
[Memorial for Respondents]
 -LITIGATIONS, 2015-16-

PRAYER

Wherefore in light of the facts of the case, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to adjudge and declare:

1. That the petitions be dismissed.

In the alternative, pass any other relief which the court may deem fit and proper.

All of which is humbly submitted by

Counsels on behalf of the Respondents

XIV | P a g e
[Memorial for Respondents]