Professional Documents
Culture Documents
APPEAL NO 10/2023
MR.DEDBUL RANJAN…..………………………………………………APPELIANT
V
CHEEKU REPUBLIC.……………..…………………………………..RESPONDENT
TABLE OF CONTENT
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES......................................................................................................
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION..........................................................................................
STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................................
ISSUES RAISED .....................................................................................................................
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS .............................................................................................
1. MR. ARYAN M.’S STATEMENTS MADE IN PARLIAMENT WERE
VIOLATIVE OF THE RIGHT TO DIGNITY OF THE VICTIM UNDER
ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION
2. PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE HOUSE OF THE LEGISLATURES
ENSHRINED UNDER ARTICLE 105 OF THE CONSTITUTION CAN’T
OVERRIDE THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS PROVIDED UNDER ARTICLE
19(1)(A) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF CHEEKU REPUBLIC
3. ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE CAN BE ADMISSIBLE BEFORE THE HIGH
COURT WHILE DEALING WITH THE ISSUE OF DISCHARGE
4. THE HONARABLE SUPREME COURT SHOULD GRANT DISCHARGE TO
MR. DEDBULL RANJAN, IN THE IMMEDIATE CASE
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
.................................................................................................
A. MR. ARYAN M.’S STATEMENTS MADE IN PARLIAMENT WERE
VIOLATIVE OF THE RIGHT TO DIGNITY OF THE VICTIM UNDER
ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION
A.1 . MR. ARYAN M.’S STATEMENTS IN PARLIAMENT, ARE NOT ONLY
INSENSITIVE BUT ALSO DEROGATORY, CAUSING SEVERE HARM TO
THE DIGNITY OF THE X
A 2 PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE PROTECTS PARLIAMENTARIANS
FROM PROSECUTION BUT CAN'T PROTECT PARLIAMENTARIANS
WHEN THEY VIOLATE THE RIGHT TO DIGNITY OF A PERSON. LIFE
AND LIBERTY COULD POTENTIALLY PREVAIL OVER CERTAIN
ASPECTS OF PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE.
B. THE COUNCIL CONTENDS THAT PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF
THE HOUSE OF THE LEGISLATURES ENSHRINED UNDER ARTICLE 105
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER Page |2
CONCOURS, 2024
PRAYER……………………………………………………………………………………...
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
PAGE NO
1. Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 1 SCC 248. 13
2. Keshav Singh v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly, 1965 AIR 745. 15
3. SR Bommai v. Union of India, 1994 2 SCR 644. 15
4. Tej Kiran Jain and Others v. Sanjiva Reddy and Others, 1971 SCR (1) 612. 16
5. Raja Ram Pal v. Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha & Ors., 2007 3 SCC 184. 16
6. Gunupati Keshavram Reddy v. Nafisul Hasan, AIR 1954 SC 636. 16
7. Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 4 SCC 1. 16
8. Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, Ministry of Law, 2016 SCC 302. 16
9. Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. 17
10. Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 1985 SCC 220. 17
11. Gunupati Keshavram Reddy v. Nafisul Hasan, AIR 1954 SC 636. 18
12. Ministry of I&B v. Cricket Association of Bengal, 1995 SCC 600. 18
13. Article 361A of the Indian Constitution. 19
14. Parliamentary Proceedings (Protection of Publication) Act, 1977. 20
15. Section 391 of the CRPC Code. 22
16. Rambhau & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, 2001 SCC 759. 22
17. Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh & Anr v. State Of Gujarat & Ors, 2004 4 SCC 158. 22
18. Section 386 of the CRPC Code. 23
19. Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 23
20. Lakhan Singh v. Amarjeet Singh and others, Criminal Appeal No. 2191/2022. 23
21. Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 1346. 23
22. Ramesh Chandra Agrawal v. Regency Hospital Ltd, 2009 9 SCC 709. 24
23. Andiswamy Chettiar vs. Subburaj Chettiyar, Civil Appeal No. 1333 of 2023. 24
24. Babubhai v. State of Gujarat & Ors., (2010) 11 SCC 508. 25
25. Bhag Singh v. State of Haryana, (2007) Appeal (Civil) 1054 of 2005. 25
26. Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). 25
27. Avinash v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2010 7 SCC 543. 26
28. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Kishen, 2019 12 SCC 198 27
29. Dayal Singh and Ors. v. State of Uttaranchal, 2012 8 SCC 263. 27
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
SC SUPREME COURT
HC HIGH COURT
X SEXUAL ASSAULT VICTIM
CNS CHEEKU NYAYA SANHITA
BBP BASU BELLI BHAAT PARTY
CRPC CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
ANR ANOTHER
ORS OTHER
SCC SUPREME COURT CASES
Hon’ble HONORABLE
SEC SECTION
AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER
SCR SUPREME COURT REPORTS
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
This Hon'ble Court possesses jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the Writ Petition
filed by X seeking redress for the alleged violation of her rights under Article 21 of the
Constitution.
The Supreme Court, being the apex judicial authority, is vested with the jurisdiction to enforce
fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
Article 32 of the Constitution confers upon this Hon'ble Court the power to entertain writ
petitions to enforce fundamental rights.
The Writ Petition filed by DumbPun Press invokes the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court to
protect and uphold the fundamental right to freedom of the press under Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution.
Article 32 empowers the Supreme Court to entertain writ petitions for the protection of
fundamental rights, including freedom of the press.
This Hon'ble Court possesses jurisdiction to hear the Criminal Appeal filed by Mr. DedBull
Ranjan, challenging the orders of lower courts, on matters relating to criminal law and
constitutional rights.
The Supreme Court, as the court of last resort, holds appellate jurisdiction over decisions of
lower courts in criminal matters. The Criminal Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court
mentioned in Article 134 of the Constitution.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
• Republic of Cheeku, a diverse nation of over 1.3 billion people with a rich historical
tapestry shaped by a significant colonial era under British rule. The framers of Cheeku's
constitution drew inspiration from English legal traditions, creating a constitutional
framework that reflects a fusion of colonial influences and the nation's aspirations for
sovereignty.
• Cheeku Republic operates as the world's largest democracy with a Parliamentary
System of Governance, embodying the principles of representative democracy and the
separation of powers among the Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary. However, recent
years have witnessed a rise in intolerant politics marked by polarization, religious and
ethnic tensions, and curtailed freedom of expression.
• The emergence of charismatic yet controversial leaders, exemplified by Daddy Dixit of
the Basu-Belli Bhaat Party (BBP), has further intensified political divisions. The BBP,
accused of employing intolerant politics, came to power in 2011, leading to increased
polarization along religious and ethnic lines.
• This situation culminated in a brutal sexual assault incident in the Cheeku Republic,
specifically in Bubu Pradesh in October, trigg
• ering widespread protests and demands for legislative reforms.
• The parliamentary discussion on revisiting sexual offense provisions in CNS 1860
AND CRPC 1973 led to a heated confrontation between Mr. Aryan M., a polarizing
cabinet minister, and opposition members. Mr. Aryan's statement, alleging a conspiracy
between the victim and the opposition, resulted in chaos, leading to the adjournment of
the parliamentary session.
• Proceedings of the parliament were being live reported by DumbPun Press, a large
media house notorious for publishing anti-government content live reporting of these
events by DumbPun Press, fueled the fire, The statement along with DumbPun Press’s
piece added to the public outcry and there were violent clashes between supporters of
the BBP and lower-caste student political leaders the next day
• In response to the incident, the BBP, in the majority in the lower house, initiated a
breach of privilege motion against Mr. DumbPun Trivedi, the founding editor of
DumbPun Press.
• Simultaneously, the sexual assault victim approached the Supreme Court, filing a Writ
Petition against Mr. Aryan M., alleging a violation of her Right to Dignity under Article
21 of the Constitution.
• Mr. DumbPun also filed a writ petition against the summons notice arguing that
privileges under Article 105 cannot override the Fundamental Right to Freedom of the
press provided under Article 19(1). He also believed that the live-reporting piece was
well-protected under Article 361-A of the Constitution and the Parliamentary
Proceedings (Protection of Publication) Act, 1977.
• After 5 days after the date of publication in the DumbPun Press, The panel Debate
was organized on Apne log News Channel by Mr. Gaurav Samay Raina (Speaker,
BBP) and Mr. DedBull Ranjan (Founder, FloodConnect Foundation). During the
panel debate, heated arguments and threats were exchanged between Mr. Gaurav and
Mr. DedBull
• Mr. Gaurav, a supporter of Mr. Aryan, was assaulted by Mr. DedBull during a public
gathering organised on 01/11/2023. Mr. Gaurav filed a police complaint on 03/11/2023
and Mr. DedBull was arrested. The case went through several stages:
• In the Initial investigation Police filed an FIR and investigated the case. On 12/11/2023
Assistant Chief Judicial Magistrate committed the case to trial under Sections 320, 322,
325 and 335 of the CNS. On 22/11/2023 Mr. DedBull filed a discharge application in
High Court, but it was dismissed. On 26/11/2023 Chief Judicial Magistrate found
insufficient evidence for grievous hurt and referred the case for reinvestigation. A new
application for discharge was filed based on the Chief Judicial Magistrate's order but
rejected by the Trial Court on 02/12/2023 then Mr. Dedbull Ranjan applied again in the
High Court under section 482 against the order of trial court passed by 02/12/2023 but
his appeal is rejected and Honarable HC says at this stage he cant accept additional
evidence other than that mentioned in section 239 and 240 of CRPC. Against This Mr.
DedBull appealed to the Supreme Court, which admitted the appeal
• The Supreme Court, recognizing the interconnectedness of these issues, has scheduled
a joint hearing before a 7-Judge Bench on January 7th, 2024, to address crucial
constitutional questions arising from these complex circumstances.
ISSUE RAISED
1. Whether Mr. Aryan M.’s statements made in Parliament were violative of the Right to
Dignity of the victim under Article 21 of the Constitution?
2. Whether privileges and immunities of the House of the Legislatures enshrined under
Article 105 of the Constitution override the freedom of press provided under Article
19(1)(a) in the present case?
3. Is additional evidence admissible before the High Court while dealing with the
discharge issue?
4. In the instant case, whether Mr. DedBull Ranjan can be discharged or not?
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
It is Humbly Submitted by the Counsel of Petitioner that Mr. Aryan M.'s statements in
Parliament, accusing the victim and opposition of a deliberate ploy, have caused severe harm
to the dignity of the sexual assault victim, violating her fundamental right to life and personal
liberty under Article 21. Counsel agrees that a special right is granted to Parliamentarians to
speak freely without any Coercion. Still, such a right can’t violate the Right to Dignity granted
in Article 21 of the Constitution. Parliamentarians are responsible for upholding constitutional
values, and Mr. Aryan M.'s statements breach this responsibility. Counsel Seeks direction from
the Honorable SC for appropriate action against Mr. Aryan M. for violating the victim's right
to dignity.
The Counsel of Petitioner Humbly submits that The summons and the subsequent breach of
privilege motion against Mr. DumbPun Trivedi violate the fundamental right to freedom of the
press guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The provisions of the
Parliamentary Proceedings (Protection of Publication) Act, 1977, also protect the publication
of reports on parliamentary proceedings. Article 19(1)(a) talks about Freedom Of the Press,
which is a Fundamental Right, and the Press is Also Considered 4th Pillar of Democracy In
any Democratic Country. The press should run without any Duress or Pressure. The People Of
the Cheeku Republic have the right to see what their elected Representative is doing inside the
Parliament. The Counsel of Petitioner challenges the breach of privilege motion and seeks
protection for the press under Article 19(1)(a) and relevant statutes.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the objective of discharge
proceedings is to ensure that no person is subjected to a trial when there is insufficient evidence
to justify it. Admitting additional evidence may be essential for the High Court to make a well-
informed decision on whether to discharge the accused. There is a need for the admissibility of
additional evidence during discharge proceedings for fair adjudication and comprehensive
examination of facts to ensure justice. Present case laws also support the admission of
additional evidence in discharge hearings. Restricting the High Court from admitting additional
evidence may lead to manifest injustice. If crucial evidence comes to light post the framing of
charges, it is in the interest of justice to allow its consideration to prevent an innocent person
from facing trial. The council argues that the interpretation of procedural laws should be
harmonious, ensuring that justice is served. A restrictive interpretation prohibiting the
admission of additional evidence would contradict the overarching goal of delivering justice.
The Counsel of Petitioner Humbly submits that the lower courts, including the Chief Judicial
Magistrate and the High Court, have committed legal and procedural irregularities in rejecting
the discharge application. The reliance on false evidence and the refusal to consider additional
documents infringe upon Mr. DedBull Ranjan's fair trial rights. Counsel asserts that the refusal
to discharge him, despite the court's acknowledgment of insufficiency in medical evidence,
violates the principles of natural justice. The petitioner contends that continuing proceedings
without adequate evidence infringes upon his right to a fair trial. In light of the insufficiency
of medical evidence, non-examination of crucial witnesses, discrepancies in findings, and the
potential violation of principles of natural justice, The Counsel for Petitioner urges the Supreme
Court to discharge Mr Dedbull Ranjan from the criminal proceedings.
ARGUMENT ADVANCED
It is humbly submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that Mr. Aryan M.’s Statements Made
in Parliament Were Violative Of The Right To Dignity Of The Victim Under Article 21 Of
The Constitution. : Mr. Aryan M.'s statements in Parliament, accusing the X and opposition of
a deliberate ploy, have not only tarnished the reputation of the X but have also exacerbated the
trauma she has already endured as a survivor of sexual assault. These statements go beyond
political discourse and directly impact her right to live with dignity, which is an integral part
of the right to life and personal liberty under Artic`le 21 of the Constitution.
Human dignity is an inherent and inalienable right that every individual possesses by being
human. In the context of sexual assault, recognizing and upholding the survivor's dignity
becomes paramount. Dignity encompasses the right to be treated with respect and empathy and
without any form of degradation.
• Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, and the
right to live with human dignity. The right to dignity includes protection from public
statements or actions that demean or degrade an individual. In 1Maneka Gandhi v.
Union of India the Supreme Court gave a new dimension to Art. 21. The Court held
that the right to live is not merely a physical right but includes the right to live with
human dignity within its ambit. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has held in Francis vs.
Union Territory (AIR 1981 SC 746) that the right to life would include the right to live
with human dignity.
• Mr. Aryan M.'s statement alleging a conspiracy between the victim and the opposition
party to play caste politics not only casts unwarranted aspersions on the character of the
1
Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 1 SCC. 248.
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER P a g e | 13
CONCOURS, 2024
victim but also perpetuates harmful stereotypes. Such statements contribute to the
victim's stigmatization and compromise her right to live a life with dignity.
• The Counsel asserts that the victim's mental and emotional well-being has been
adversely affected by the public discussion of the assault in Parliament. This impact on
the psychological integrity of the victim further underscores the violation of the Right
to Dignity. exual assault is a sensitive and deeply personal crime that inflicts severe
emotional, psychological, and sometimes physical trauma on the survivor. Recognizing
the gravity of such offenses, legal systems worldwide have developed mechanisms to
protect the identity and dignity of survivors.
• Parliament, being a public forum where legislative matters are discussed and decisions
are made, is expected to uphold the highest standards of propriety. Discussions within
Parliament should be conducted with a sense of responsibility, especially when dealing
with matters as sensitive as sexual assault.
• X may experience profound psychological distress when intimate details of the assault
are disclosed in a public setting. This disclosure not only invades the survivor's privacy
but also exposes them to public judgment, reinforcing the trauma and inhibiting their
ability to heal.
• Public disclosures in Parliament can have a chilling effect on survivors coming forward
to report incidents of sexual assault. Fear of public exposure may deter survivors from
seeking justice, thus undermining the broader societal goal of combating sexual
violence.
• The Counsel contends that Parliamentarians have a constitutional duty to exercise their
privileges responsibly without causing harm to the fundamental rights of individuals.
The Counsel emphasizes that parliamentary immunity should not extend to actions that
infringe upon the Right to Dignity. While parliamentary privilege protects open and
frank discussion in Parliament, it does not absolve parliamentarians of their
2
Keshav Singh v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly, 1965 AIR 745
3
SR Bommai v. Union of India, 1994 2 SCR 644.
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER P a g e | 15
CONCOURS, 2024
• In 4Tej Kiran Jain And Others V. Sanjiva Reddy And Others., the Supreme Court
observed that defamation proceedings cannot be instituted against the parliamentarians
for their speeches made in the parliament. The only caveat is that such speech must be
in the course of parliamentary business but here in this case speech given by Mr.Aryan
is not in Parliamentary Business.
• In 5Raja Ram Pal v. Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha, honorable SC establish that It is
beyond doubt that the Supreme Court possess the jurisdiction to examine matter relating
to particular power and privilege as asserted by the legislature. Raja Ram Pal, who
published a book critical of a former Prime Minister, faced a breach of privilege
complaint. The Supreme Court ruled that although legislative bodies have certain
privileges necessary for their functioning, these cannot override fundamental rights,
including freedom of speech and expression, unless a compelling justification exists.
• Supreme Court of India in 6Gunupati Keshavram Reddy v. Nafisul Hasan held that
“Article 194(3) (i.e. privileges) was subject to Part III (i.e fundamental rights)
• In 7Kaushal Kishore v State Of Uttar Pradesh Justice Nagarathna, in a partly dissenting
judgment, opined that dignity is a quintessential and basic constituent of the rights
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution cannot be cited as a reason for curtailing the rights under Article 21. She
held that since the speech in the given case was disparaging, derogatory and resembled
hate speech, it could not be protected under Article 19(1)(a). court held that facts of this
case did not require balancing two fundamental rights, but rather dealt with an abuse of
freedom of speech used to attack the fundamental rights of an individual.
• The argument that free speech under Article 19(1)(a) was a higher right than the right
to reputation under Article 21 was rejected by this Court in Subramanian 8Swamy vs.
Union of India, Ministry of Law 2016 SCC 302 in which Section 499 IPC was
under challenge
In summary, the counsel submits that Mr. Aryan M.'s statements in Parliament violate
X's right to live with dignity as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.
4
Tej Kiran Jain and Others v. Sanjiva Reddy and Others, 1971 SCR (1) 612.
5
Raja Ram Pal v. Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha & Ors., 2007 3 SCC 184.
6
Gunupati Keshavram Reddy v. Nafisul Hasan, AIR 1954 SC 636.
7
Kaushal Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2023) 4 SCC 1.
8
Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, Ministry of Law, 2016 SCC 302.
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER P a g e | 16
CONCOURS, 2024
9
Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.
10
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 1985 SCC 220.
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER P a g e | 17
CONCOURS, 2024
• While Article 105 grants certain privileges and immunities to the House of the
Legislatures, it is essential to recognize that these privileges are not absolute. The
Constitution envisages a delicate balance between the powers and immunities of the
legislature and the fundamental rights of individuals, including the freedom of the press.
This balance should be maintained to prevent the overreach of legislative power
• Article 105 grants privileges to the Houses of Parliament, such as freedom of speech
and immunity from legal proceedings for speeches and votes. However, these privileges
are circumscribed by the need to protect the larger public interest and fundamental
rights. The interpretation of these privileges must align with constitutional principles
and should not result in the suppression of legitimate expression or reporting.
• The freedom of the press serves as a watchdog, ensuring transparency and
accountability in the functioning of the government and public institutions. Granting
absolute immunity to legislative proceedings without allowing reasonable reporting
would undermine the democratic principle of checks and balances. Public scrutiny
through media coverage is crucial for holding elected representatives accountable.
11
Gunupati Keshavram Reddy v. Nafisul Hasan, AIR 1954 SC 636.
12
Ministry of I&B v. Cricket Association of Bengal, 1995 SCC 600.
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER P a g e | 18
CONCOURS, 2024
• Any restrictions or actions that curtail the freedom of the press should meet the
standards of necessity and proportionality. This means that limitations on press freedom
must be necessary to achieve a legitimate aim and should not be more extensive than
required for that purpose.
• While parliamentary privileges are essential, they are not absolute. They are subject to
the overarching principles of the Constitution, including fundamental rights. Privileges
should be exercised in a manner that is consistent with the larger constitutional
framework.
• The scope of privileges must be understood in the context of a delicate balance with
other fundamental rights. While Article 105 grants certain immunities, these should not
be used to suppress dissent, stifle criticism, or violate the rights of others, including the
freedom of the press.
B3. THE COUNSEL FURTHER CONTENDS THAT ARTICLE 361A AND THE
PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS (PROTECTION OF PUBLICATION) ACT,
1977 PROTECT THE PUBLICATION OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS IN
THE HOUSE AGAINST ARTICLE 105 PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE
• The wording of 13Article 361A is “No person shall be liable to any proceedings, civil or
criminal, in any court in respect of the publication in a newspaper of a substantially true
report of any proceedings of either House of Parliament or the Legislative Assembly,
or, as the case may be, either House of the Legislature, of a State, unless the publication
is proved to have been made with malice” This clearly protect Press and allow them to
publish house Proceedings and Petitioner was exercising this article to publish
parliament proceeding report on his Newspaper Dumbpun press
• 14
The Parliamentary Proceedings (Protection of Publication) Act, 1977 is an Indian
law that protects the publication of reports of proceedings in Parliament the main
Objective is to ensure public awareness of parliamentary proceedings by granting legal
protection to their publication in newspapers and broadcasts.
• The act says No one can be sued (civil or criminal) for publishing a substantially true
report of parliamentary proceedings in a newspaper unless it's proven to be done with
malice. Definition of "newspaper": Includes printed periodicals, news agencies, and
13
Article 361A of the Indian Constitution.
14
Parliamentary Proceedings (Protection of Publication) Act, 1977.
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER P a g e | 19
CONCOURS, 2024
broadcasting stations. The Act also applies to reports of proceedings broadcast over
radio or television.
• Overall This Act safeguards freedom of the press and promotes informed public
participation in democracy. It enables newspapers and broadcasters to report on
parliamentary debates and decisions without fear of legal repercussions.
B4. THE ARTICLE 19(1)(a) IS ALIGNED WITH THE DEMOCRATIC
PRINCIPLES ON WHICH OUR COUNTRY CHEEKU REPUBLIC FORMED
AND MAKES OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE ACCOUNTABLE BY
PUBLISHING THERE CONDUCT INSIDE THE HOUSE OF PARLIAMENT
• Democracy is a foundational principle of the Indian Constitution, and it is enshrined in
the Preamble as a key feature of the country's governance. The essence of democracy
lies in the active participation of citizens, the protection of individual rights, and the
accountability of elected representatives.
• Freedom of the press is considered one of the pillars of a vibrant democracy. It serves
as a crucial check on governmental power, provides a forum for diverse voices and
opinions, and ensures that citizens are informed, enabling them to make informed
decisions.
• The press plays a pivotal role in democracy by acting as a watchdog, exposing
corruption, scrutinizing government actions, and facilitating public discourse. Any
undue restriction on the freedom of the press can have a detrimental effect on the
democratic fabric of the country.
• Democracy thrives when citizens are well-informed and actively participate in the
democratic process. The press bridges the government and the public, holding public
officials accountable for their actions. Any curtailment of press freedom can impede
the ability of citizens to make informed decisions.
• Public accountability is a foundational principle of democracy. It ensures that those in
power, including elected representatives, are answerable for their actions and decisions
to the citizens they serve. This accountability is essential for maintaining the trust and
integrity of democratic institutions. Public accountability relies on transparency and the
availability of information. A well-informed citizenry is better equipped to participate
in the democratic process, make informed choices, and hold public officials
accountable. Access to accurate and unbiased information, including through the
media, is crucial for achieving this
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER P a g e | 20
CONCOURS, 2024
• The media, often referred to as the "Fourth Estate," plays a vital role in ensuring public
accountability. Journalists act as watchdogs, scrutinizing the actions of the government
and public officials, and providing the public with the information needed to make
informed decisions.Freedom of the press, protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian
Constitution, is a cornerstone of democratic societies. It allows journalists to
investigate, report, and disseminate information without fear of censorship,
contributing to the public's ability to hold those in power accountable.
• Public accountability thrives in an environment where there is robust debate and
discussion. Parliamentary proceedings, as well as media reporting on these
proceedings, contribute to the exchange of ideas, scrutiny of policies, and examination
of government actions.
• While parliamentary privileges are crucial for the effective functioning of the
legislature, they should not shield actions that undermine public accountability. The
necessity of public accountability ensures that the exercise of parliamentary privileges
aligns with the democratic values of openness, responsibility, and responsiveness.
• The principle recognizes that a balance must be struck between the privileges of the
legislature and the need for public accountability. It underscores the importance of
maintaining checks and balances to prevent the abuse of power and to uphold the
principles of democratic governance.
C. ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE CAN BE ADMISSIBLE BEFORE THE HIGH
COURT WHILE DEALING WITH THE ISSUE OF DISCHARGE
It is Humbly submitted before the honourable Supreme Court that The objective of
discharge proceedings is to ensure that no person is subjected to a trial when there is
insufficient evidence to justify it. Admitting additional evidence may be essential for
the High Court to make a well-informed decision on whether to discharge the accused.
Additionally, Admission of additional evidence is becomes necessary ensure that
justice done rightly and fair.
• 15
Section 391 of the CRPC Code empowers the court to admit additional evidence at
the appellate stage if it considers such additional evidence necessary. The power to be
exercised is discretionary and cannot be utilized to fill up gaps and lacunae in the
evidence.
• The appellate court's power to receive additional evidence under section 391 of the
Code fell for consideration in 16Rambhau and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and it
was held that the powers under the section being like an exception shall always have to
be exercised with caution and circumspection to meet the ends of justice
• The nature, scope and object of the powers to be exercised under section 391 of the
Code was also examined in 17Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh & Anr vs State Of Gujarat &
Ors and it was held that though under the provision a wide discretion has been
conferred, the powers could not be exercised for filling up any lacunae and the appellate
court while directing taking of additional evidence was required to record reasons for
the same. The powers under section 391 of the Code were held to be like exception to
the general rule and it was stated that the same must be exercised with great care.
• Section 391 is one such exception to the ordinary rule. If the appellate Court considers
additional evidence to be necessary, the provisions in 18
Section 386 and Section 391
have to be harmoniously considered to enable the appeal to be considered and disposed
of also in the light of the additional evidence as well The legislative intent in enacting
Section 391 appears to be the empowerment of the appellate court to see that justice is
done between the prosecutor and the persons prosecuted. If the appellate Court finds
that certain evidence is necessary to enable it to give correct and proper findings, it
would be justified in taking action under Section 391.
• The powers under the section have been held akin to those under 19Order 41 Rule 27 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and in view thereof, additional evidence cannot be
tendered at the appellate stage as a matter of right, and the power to be exercised by the
appellate court is to be based on discretion, sound judicial principles and in the interest
of justice.
15
Section 391 of the CRPC Code.
16
Rambhau & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, 2001 SCC 759.
17
Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh & Anr v. State Of Gujarat & Ors, 2004 4 SCC 158.
18
Section 386 of the CRPC Code.
19
Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER P a g e | 22
CONCOURS, 2024
• In 20Lakhan Singh VS Amarjeet Singh and other the High Court allowed an application
moved by the accused-applicant (appellant before the High Court-respondent No. 1
herein) with reference to Sections 311 and 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
and directed the Trial Court to take on record the additional evidence and documents,
as mentioned in the subject application; and to send the file back along with additional
evidence.
• In 21Mohanlal Shamji Soni vs Union of India, the Honorable SC held that the Accused
should given full Opportunity to Prove his innocence; admission of additional evidence
helps court to achieve this objective
• Allowing the presentation of additional evidence at the discharge stage ensures that the
accused is afforded a fair opportunity to contest the charges and present relevant
material that might impact the decision. The council further asserts that the right to a
full defense is a fundamental aspect of a fair trial. Any restrictions on presenting
additional evidence may curtail the accused's ability to counter the charges effectively
and could lead to an incomplete assessment. Legal proceedings are dynamic, and new
evidence may come to light after framing charges. Allowing the introduction of
additional evidence acknowledges the evolving nature of cases and ensures that the
court is equipped with all relevant information. Counsel argues that a rigid prohibition
on presenting additional evidence may lead to potential miscarriages of justice. If, for
instance, exculpatory evidence emerges post the framing of charges, the accused should
be permitted to bring such evidence to the court.
• The right to a full defense is intertwined with the principles of due process and a fair
trial. Allowing the accused to present additional evidence ensures that the legal process
is transparent. At the stage of framing charges, the evidence available might be
incomplete or subject to reinterpretation. Allowing the accused to introduce additional
20
Lakhan Singh v. Amarjeet Singh and others, Criminal Appeal No. 2191/2022.
21
Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 1346.
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER P a g e | 23
CONCOURS, 2024
evidence ensures that a more comprehensive and accurate picture of the case can be
presented, contributing to the fairness and reliability of the legal proceedings.
• In 22Ramesh Chandra Agarwal v. Regency Hospital Ltd the Supreme Court held that in
the interest of justice, the court has the discretion to allow additional evidence if it is
satisfied that such evidence is necessary for a just decision. This decision exemplifies
the court's recognition of the evolving nature of legal disputes.
• SC order in 23
Andi Swamy Chettiar vs Subburaj Chettiyar case SC had held that an
appellate court, while hearing the matter finally, could exercise jurisdiction one way or
the other under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, specially
clause (b).
• In the case of 24
Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, the court set a significant precedent by
allowing the admission of additional evidence at the discharge stage. The key
arguments and observations from this case include. The court acknowledged that the
primary purpose of discharge proceedings is to prevent the abuse of the legal process.
Allowing the admission of additional evidence was seen to achieve this objective.
Emphasizing the importance of a fair decision, the court held that the High Court should
have the flexibility to consider additional evidence if it is crucial for arriving at a just
and equitable decision. The court recognized that a restrictive approach, barring the
admission of additional evidence, might lead to manifest injustice. In the interest of
justice, the High Court should be empowered to consider all relevant material.The case
underscored the discretionary powers of the High Court in criminal proceedings.
Judicial discretion was seen as a tool to be used judiciously to balance the interests of
the accused and the interests of justice. The court's decision in Babubhai emphasized
that procedural fairness demands a certain degree of flexibility. Prohibiting the
admission of additional evidence rigidly would be inconsistent with the principles of
22
Ramesh Chandra Agrawal v. Regency Hospital Ltd, 2009 9 SCC 709.
23
Andiswamy Chettiar vs. Subburaj Chettiyar, Civil Appeal No. 1333 of 2023.
24
Babubhai v. State of Gujarat & Ors., 2010 11 SCC 508.
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER P a g e | 24
CONCOURS, 2024
fairness. The decision in this case was in harmony with the statutory framework,
recognizing that the CrPC provides the High Court with broad powers to ensure a fair
and just decision at every stage of the criminal proceedings.
• In 25Bhag Singh v. State of Haryana the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the
prosecution to submit a fresh medical report that had become available after the filing
of the discharge application. The Court concluded that the report contained vital
information relevant to the charges against the accused.
• In India, High Courts have the discretion to admit additional evidence while dealing
with the discharge issue under 26Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This
power is exercised cautiously and judiciously, considering various factors like the
nature of the evidence, its relevance and stage of the proceedings, and potential
prejudice to the parties.
D. THE HONARABLE SUPREME COURT SHOULD GRANT DISCHARGE TO
MR. DEDBULL RANJAN, IN IMMEDIATE CASE
The counsel, on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the circumstances surrounding the
alleged assault on Mr. Gaurav Samay Raina do not warrant the continuation of criminal
proceedings against him. The council seeks discharge, contending that the evidence
presented is insufficient to establish the charges under Sections 320, 322, 325, and 335
of the Cheeku Nyaya Sanhita (C.N.S.).
25
Bhag Singh v. State of Haryana, (2007) Appeal (Civil) 1054 of 2005.
26
Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER P a g e | 25
CONCOURS, 2024
27
Avinash v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2010] 7 SCC 543.
28
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Kishen, [2019] 12 SCC 198.
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER P a g e | 26
CONCOURS, 2024
The reliance on inaccurate information compromises the integrity of the judicial process
and justifies the intervention of higher courts.
• The Counsel contends that the Chief Judicial Magistrate's refusal of the discharge
application by Namanapatnam was based on an erroneous interpretation of the law. The
court's reliance on false evidence and failure to consider the discrepancies in the
medical findings demonstrate a legal error that justifies intervention by higher courts.
• The Counsel emphasizes the overarching need to protect individual rights and liberties.
Continuing the criminal proceedings without a solid evidentiary foundation
compromise Mr. DedBull's right to a fair trial and subjects him to undue hardship.
• 29
Dayal Singh and Ors. v. State of Uttaranchal when the court emphasized thus:.
Where our criminal justice system provides safeguards of fair trial and innocent till
proven guilty to an accused, there it also contemplates that a criminal trial is meant for
doing justice to all, the accused, the society and a fair chance to prove to the
prosecution. Then alone can law and order be maintained. The courts do not merely
discharge the function to ensure that no innocent man is punished, but also that a guilty
man does not escape. Both are public duties of the judge. During the course of the trial,
the learned Presiding Judge is expected to work objectively and in a correct perspective.
Where the prosecution attempts to misdirect the trial on the basis of a perfunctory or
designedly defective investigation, there the Court is to be deeply cautious and ensure
that despite such an attempt, the determinative process is not subverted. For truly
attaining this object of a ―fair trial‖, the Court should leave no stone unturned to do
justice and protect the interest of the society as well.
• Counsel submit that the legal proceedings against him should be discharged based on
violating his right to fair trial and natural justice, abuse of the legal process, the prima
facie evaluation of evidence, judicial error, and the overarching need to protect
individual rights. The Counsel for petitioner seeks the Supreme Court's intervention to
rectify the legal anomalies and uphold the principles of justice and fairness.
29
Dayal Singh and Ors. v. State of Uttaranchal, 2012 8 SCC 263.
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER P a g e | 27
CONCOURS, 2024
Wherefore in the light of the facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced, and
authorities cited, may this Hon’ble bench be pleased to adjudge and declare that:
1. For an immediate quashing of the impugned actions and statements made by Mr. Aryan M.
in Parliament, which are violative of the Right to Dignity of the sexual assault victim under
Article 21 of the Constitution.
2. For a declaration that the privileges and immunities of the House of the Legislatures under
Article 105 of the Constitution cannot override the freedom of the press provided under Article
19(1)(a) in the present case.
3. For a declaration that additional evidence is admissible before the High Court while dealing
with the discharge issue, and for an appropriate order allowing the presentation of such
evidence.
4. Discharge Mr. DedBull Ranjan in immediate Case on the grounds of of insufficient Evidence
And/Or
Pass any other order that it may deem fit in the interest of justice, equality,
s/d
On behalf of Petitioners