TEAM CODE- XII- 57 D

12TH AMITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF UTTAM PRADESH

IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 21 OF THE NAGARBHAVI

CONSTITUTION SECTIONS 415,417,420,500 OF THE INDIAN
CONSTITUTION 1950,RULE 6 CLAUSE 1 SUBCLAUSE (a),(d),(i),(o) OF
PROGRAM AND ADVERTISING CODE OF INDIA, 1994, SECTION 67 0F
THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT 2000, WIRELESS
TELEGRAPH ACT 1933

STATE OF UTTAM PRADESH ……………………………...PETITIONER

VS
IRIS TELEVISION NETWORK………………………….....RESPONDENT

BEFORE SUBMISSION TO HONOURABLE BENCH OF JUSTICES OF

THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF UTTAM PRADESH.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 12TH AMITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................... i

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
.............................................................................................................................................................
iii

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION............................................................................................ iv

STATEMENT OF FACTS........................................................................................................... v

STATEMENT OF ISSUES………………………………………………….......................vii

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS………………………………………………… ……………viii

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

ISSUE I: WHETHER THE CHANNEL IS VIOLATING THE INDIAN

BROADCASTING LAWS BY AIRING OBSCENE AND ADULT CONTENT ON THE
NATIONAL TELEVISION?.....................................................................................1

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS PAGE| i

 12TH AMITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

ISSUE II: IS CHANNEL CHEATING THE SUSPECT BY ALLURING HIM OR HER

WITH PRE-MEDITATED OBJECTIVE?.................................................................... 3

ISSUE III: WHETHER THERE IS VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

PROVIDED UNDER THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION?........................................ 5

ISSUE IV: WHETHER INJUNCTION ORDERS SHOULD BE PASSED AGAINST

THE CHANNEL WHEN THE SUIT IS FILED AT THE TIME OF THE RELEASE
OF SEASON 2 OF THE PROGRAMME?.............................................................. 7

PRAYER…………………………………………………………………………………..8

~MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT- PAGE| ii

 12TH AMITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATION - FULL FORM

Art. - article
IPC - Indian Penal Code
CrPC - Criminal Procedure Code
I.T. - Information Technology
T.V.- Television
V. - versus
AIR - All Indian Report
Sec. - Section
Hon’ble - honourable
S/d - Signature/date

~MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT- PAGE| iii

 12TH AMITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The honourable high court of Uttam Pradesh has jurisdiction to hear the matters under Art-
225 and 226 (1) (2) and (4) of the constitution of Nagarbhavi, 1950.
“Art 225. Jurisdiction of existing High Courts.”- Article 225 provides that subject to the
provisions of the constitution and to the provisions of any law of the appropriate legislature
made by virtue of powers conferred on that Legislature by the constitution, the jurisdiction of
, and the law , any existing high court, and the respective powers of the judges thereof in
relation to the administration of justice in the court ,including any power to make rules of
court and to regulate the sittings of the court and of the members thereof sitting alone or in
divisional courts, remind the same as immediately before the commencement of this
constitution.

“Art 226. Power of high court to issue certain writs.”

1. Notwithstanding in article 32, every high cort shall have power, throughout the
territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or
authority, including the appropriate case, any government, within those territories
direction, orders or writs, including[writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus,
prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of
the rights conferred by the part III and for any other purpose.

2. The power conferred by the clause 1 to issue directions, orders or writs to any
government, authority or person may also be exercised by any high court exercising
jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in
part, arises for the exercise of such powers, notwithstanding the seat of such government
or authority or the residence of such persons is not within those territories
4. The power conferred on a high court by this article shall not be in derogation of the
power conferred on the supreme court by clause (2) of article 32.

~MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT- PAGE| iv

 12TH AMITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

STATEMENT OF FACTS

 Nagarbhavi is a developing nation with God fearing, orthodox and conservative

people. Being a developing Country, Nagarbhavi in the age of globalization and
liberalization, relaxed its television broadcasting laws and allowed private
broadcasters to go on air.This amendment in Television broadcast laws by the
Government made the people of Nagarbhavi very happy because now they could
watch a variety of channels including foreign based ones.
 One Metropolis Entertainment Production Company applied to the Ministry of
Broadcasting for the approval of the launch of their channel -I. T.V (Iris Television).
The Ministry after considering the application of I. T.V allowed the producers to
broadcast their channel but subject to the laws of Nagarbhavi present and in future
thereon.

 T.V is an entertainment channel with an aim to target youth audience. All serials and
programs which are broadcasted by this channel are reality based, such as
“Adventure Riding” in which the contestants travel on their motorcycles across the
length and breadth of the Country with limited food and petrol.

 Recently I.T.V launched a new reality based program “Emotional Torture” with a
concept where any person may approach the channel and request them to conduct
“Loyalty and Infidelity” test on their spouse provided the person who has approached
the channel agrees to subordinate their rights to the channel. The channel would then
monitor the suspect under hidden cameras and then try to allure him/her through the
channels “under-cover agents”.

 Recorded footage of the conduct of the suspect with the under-cover agent is then
shown to the person who approached the channel and thereafter to the public.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS PAGE| v

12TH AMITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT,2018

 After seeing Prem‟s video footages on the channel his family, relatives and friends
started questioning, avoiding and also humiliating him. His company also terminated him
from his job on the basis of turpitude (immoral conduct).

 Meanwhile, after 7 months the Channel plans to come up with the second season of
their superhit T.V programme “Emotional Torture-2”.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS- PAGE| vi

12TH AMITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

~ISSUE-I~

WHETHER THE CHANNEL IS VIOLATING THE INDIAN BROADCASTING

LAWS BY AIRING OBSCENE AND ADULT CONTENT ON THE NATIONAL
TELEVISION?

~ISSUE-II~

IS CHANNEL CHEATING THE SUSPECT BY ALLURING HIM OR HER WITH

PRE-MEDITATED OBJECTIVE?

~ISSUE-III~

WHETHER THERE IS VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS PROVIDED

UNDER THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION?

~ISSUE-IV~

WHETHER INJUNCTION ORDERS SHOULD BE PASSED AGAINST THE

CHANNEL WHEN THE SUIT IS FILED AT THE TIME OF THE RELEASE OF
SEASON 2 OF THE PROGRAMME?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT PAGE| vii

12TH AMITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018
 SUMMARY OF ARGUEMENTS

ISSUE I: WHETHER THE CHANNEL IS VIOLATING THE INDIAN

BROADCASTING LAWS BY AIRING OBSCENE AND ADULT CONTENT ON THE
NATIONAL TELEVISION?

It is humbly contended before this hon’ble court that the channel is not violating the Indian
Broadcasting Laws. When the aim of the program “Emotional Torture” is viewed as a whole,
it shall be concluded that the contents of the program were not ‘obscene’ as per the Section
292 of the IPC. The video footages of private meetings of the suspect i.e. Prem and the
undercover agent Riya played a critical role in determining Prem’s infidelity towards his
spouse and thus it was necessary for the channel to show those footages on the television as
the scenes advanced the message the program i.e. “Emotional Torture” wanted to convey.

ISSUE II: IS CHANNEL CHEATING THE SUSPECT BY ALLURING HIM OR HER

WITH PRE-MEDITATED OBJECTIVE?

It is humbly contended before the court that the channel Iris T.V. is not cheating the suspect
through their program Emotional Torture. Rather the channel is exercising its right to
freedom of press as mentioned under freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)
(a) of the Constitution. The channel did not cheat the individual Prem rather performed sting
operation, as per the rights under aforementioned article, to unveil the truth.

ISSUE III: WHETHER THERE IS VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

PROVIDED UNDER THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION?

It is humbly contended before the court that the channel Iris T.V. is not in any way depriving
the suspect of his right to privacy, right to live with dignity and right to reputation mentioned
under Article 21 of the Nagarbhavi constitution by airing footages of him getting intimate
with their agent on national television, all the case laws necessary to prove the same have
been mentioned under arguments advanced

ISSUE IV: WHETHER INJUNCTION ORDERS SHOULD BE PASSED AGAINST

THE CHANNEL WHEN THE SUIT IS FILED AT THE TIME OF THE RELEASE
OF SEASON 2 OF THE PROGRAMME?

It is humbly contended before the hon’ble court that no injunction should be passed against
the show emotional torture under Section 142 of CrPC as the show does not promotes
vulgarity and obscenity when seen as a whole, all the show does is that it exercises it’s rights
of press as mentioned under Art-19(1)(a) of the constitution and exposes the suspect’s true
nature
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS PAGE| viii

12TH AMITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2018

 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE I: WHETHER THE CHANNEL IS VIOLATING THE INDIAN

BROADCASTING LAWS BY AIRING OBSCENE AND ADULT CONTENT ON THE
NATIONAL TELEVISION?

(1.1)It is submitted before this hon’ble court that the channel is not violating the Indian
Broadcasting Laws as the definition of word “obscene” has not been defined under the
Section 292 of IPC and this delicate task of how to distinguish between that which is artistic
and that which is obscene has to be performed by Courts. The test to be evolved must
obviously be of a general character but it must admit of a just application from case to case
by indicating a line of demarcation not necessarily sharp but sufficiently distinct to
distinguish between that which is obscene and that which is not.

(1.2)In Chandrakant Kalyandas Kakodar v. Province of Maharashtra, the court held: “What is
obscenity has not been characterized either in Section 292 of IPC or in whatever other
statutes.” Supreme Court in the case namely Ranjit D. Udeshi vs. State of Maharashtra, 1964
discussed and adjudicated on the constitutionality of Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (IPC). Section 292 deals of provision relating to sale of obscene books etc.

(1.3)On the subject of obscenity it was submitted that a work of art is not necessarily obscene
if it treats with sex even with nudity and a work of art or a book of literary merit should not
be destroyed if the interest of society requires that it be preserved. The work should be
viewed as a whole, and its artistic or literary merits should be weighed against the so-called
obscenity, the context in which the obscenity occurs and the purpose it seeks or serve. If on a
fair consideration of the opposite aspects, the interest of society prevails, then the work of art
or the book must be preserved, for then the obscenity is overborne. The standard should not
be that of an immature teenager or a person who is abnormal but of one who is normal.

(1.4)It was observed that the laying down of the true test is not rendered any easier because
art has such varied facets and such individualistic appeals that in the same object the
insensitive sees only obscenity because his attention is arrested, not by the general or artistic
appeal or message which he cannot comprehend, but by what he can see, and the intellectual
sees beauty and art but nothing gross. The Indian Penal Code does not define the word
“obscene” and this delicate task of how to distinguish between that which is artistic and that
which is obscene has to be performed by Courts. The test to be evolved must obviously be of
a general character but it must admit of a just application from case to case by indicating a
line of demarcation not necessarily sharp but sufficiently distinct to distinguish between that
which is obscene and that which is not. Treating with sex and nudity in art and literature
cannot be regarded as evidence of obscenity without something more.

(1.5)It was pointed out that the test adopted by the Courts below from Queen v. Hicklin
(1868) (the Hicklin test) is out of date and needs to be modified. The Hicklin test in this
though was not discarded as was sought and eventually it was discarded in the recent decision
of Supreme Court in the recently decided case namely Aveek Sarkar and Anr. vs. State of
West Bengal and Ors., 2014.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS- PAGE| 1

12TH AMITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2018

(1.6)In the case of Bobby International & Others v. Om Pal Singh Hoon & Others, 1846 the
court observed that a fim that illustrates the consequences of a social evil must show that
social evil. Film intended to depict consequences of social evil can show social evil itself to
the extent it is relevant for the purpose of the show. A film that carries the message that evil
is wrong cannot be made impermissible on the ground that it depicts the particular evil.

(1.7)When the aim of the program “Emotional Torture” is viewed as a whole, it shall be
concluded that the video footages of private meetings between individual Prem and the
undercover agent Riya played a critical role in determining Prem’s infidelity towards his
spouse. It was necessary for the channel to show those footages on the television as the
scenes advanced the message the program i.e. “Emotional Torture” wanted to convey.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS- PAGE| 2

 12TH AMITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2018

ISSUE II: IS CHANNEL CHEATING THE SUSPECT BY ALLURING

HIM OR HER WITH PRE-MEDITATED OBJECTIVE?

(2.1)It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the channel is not cheating the
suspect by alluring him or her with pre-meditated objective. The channel i.e. Iris T.V. enjoys
freedom of press as given in Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution. Freedom of press is not
specifically mentioned in article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution and what is mentioned there is
only freedom of speech and expression. In the Constituent Assembly Debates it was made
clear by Dr. Ambedkar, Chairman of the Drafting Committee, that no special mention of the
freedom of press was necessary at all as the press and an individual or a citizen were the same
as far as their right of expression was concerned.

(2.2)The framers of the Indian constitution considered freedom of the press as an essential
part of the freedom of speech and expression as guaranteed under Article 19(1) (a) of the
constitution. The media has a right to impart the information to the public. Freedom of speech
includes freedom to communicate, advertise, publish or propagate ideas and the
dissemination of information. Furthermore Art. 19(1) also incorporates within itself right to
receive information about any event, happening or incident etc. Sting operations are methods
of uncovering information. In more refined terms, it can be called Investigative Journalism or
Undercover Journalism. Sting Operation is an information-gathering exercise; it looks for
facts that are not easy to obtain by simple requests and searches, or those that are actively
being concealed, suppressed or distorted. In the present scenario, the channel conducted an
sting operation on the individual Prem in order to test his infidelity towards his spouse, as per
the very aim of the program “Emotional Torture”.
(2.3)In Romesh Thapar v State of Maharashtra, Patanjali Shastri, CJ, observed that “Freedom
of speech & of the press lay at the foundation of all democratic organization, for without free
political discussion no public education, so essential for the proper functioning of the process
of popular government, is possible.” In this case, entry and circulation of the English journal
“Cross Road”, printed and published in Bombay, was banned by the Government of Madras.
The same was held to be a violation of the freedom of speech and expression, as “without
liberty of circulation, publication would be of little value”. 
 (2.4)In Indian Express Newspapers v Union of India, it has been held that the press plays a
very significant role in the democratic machinery. The courts have duty to uphold the
freedom of press and invalidate all laws and administrative actions that abridge that freedom.
In Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd. and Ors v. Union of India and Ors. , the
Court emphasized that the freedom of press and information were “vital for the realization of
human rights”. The court relied upon the Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, 1948.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS- PAGE| 3

12TH AMITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2018

(2.5)In Pushpadevi M. Jatia v. M. L. Wadhawan, 1987 , it was held that the evidence
remained evidence even if the methods prescribed in CrPC were not complied with. In
another example of case Sri Bharadwaj Media Pvt. Ltd. V. State, 2007, court admitted
evidence against a person lured into committing an offence upon observing that there would
be an increase in wrong doings if people who helped unravel acts of wrongdoings in an
institution are prosecuted.
(2.6)It was the duty of the channel to bring truth to the knowledge of the people. The channel
i.e., Iris T.V. acted in exercise of their rights guaranteed under Article 19(1) (a) of the
Constitution. The channel did not cheat the individual rather performed sting operation, as
per the rights under aforementioned article, to unveil the truth

.
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS- PAGE| 4
TH
12 AMITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

ISSUE III: WHETHER THERE IS VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

PROVIDED UNDER THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION?

(3.1)It is humbly contended before the Hon’ble court and respected bench of judges that none
of the actions taken by Iris T.V. are violating any of the fundamental rights of the suspect
provided under the Indian constitution, special notice is to be taken that even none of the
rights mentioned under Art-21 of the Indian constitution are being violated or infringed.
(3.2)Art-21 of the Indian Constitution consists of right to life and personal liberty. Art-21
reads as, “No person shall be deprived of his life except according to a procedure established
by law.” Art-21 consists of two rights (i) Right to life, (ii) Right to personal liberty. Right to
life is further elaborated in Kharak singh v. State of U.P., It was held by Supreme Court
that, “By the term ‘life’ as here used something more is meant than mere animal existence.
The inhibition against it’s deprivation extends to all those limbs and faculties by which life is
enjoyed. The provision equally prohibits the mutilation of the body by amputation of an arm
or leg or the pulling out of an eye, for the destruction of any other organ of the body through
which the soul communicates with the outer world.”
(3.3)In Sunil batra v. Delhi Administration, The supreme court reiterated with the approval
the above observations and held that the “Right to life” included the right to lead a healthy
life so as to enjoy all faculties of the human bodies in their prime conditions. It would even
include the right to protection of a person’s tradition, culture, heritage and all that gives
meaning to a man’s life. It includes the right to live in peace, to sleep in peace and the right to
repose and heath.
(3.4)Now, the right to life has been further categorized into;
Right to Live With Human Dignity:-
In Francis Coralie v. Union of India, the supreme court held that, “The right to live includes
the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, viz., the bare necessities of
life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter over the head and facilities for reading
writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing and
mingling with fellow human beings and must include the right to basic necessities of life and
also the right to carry on functions and activities as constitute the bare minimum expression
of human self.”

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS- PAGE| 5

 12TH AMITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

Another broad formulation of the theme of Life to Dignity is to be found in Bandhua Mukti
Morcha v. Union of india(5). Characterizing Art-21 as the heart of fundamental rights, the
court gave it an expanded interpretation. Bhagwati J. observed: “it is the fundamental right of
everyone in this country…to live with human dignity free from exploitation. This right to live
with human dignity and shrined in Art-21 derives its life breath from the directive principal
of state policy and particularly clauses (e) (f) of Art 39 and Art 41 and 42 and at the least,
therefore, it must include protection of the health and strength of workers, men and women,
and of the tender age of children against abuse, opportunities and facilities for children to
develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity, educational facilities,
just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief. These are the minimum
requirements which must exist in order to enable a person to live with human dignity and no
state the central government nor any state government-has the right to take any action which
will deprive a person of the enjoyment of these basic essentials.”
Right to Reputation:-
In State of U.P. v. Mohammaad Naim, The court succinctly laid down the following tests
while dealing with the question of expunction of disgracing remarks against a person or
authority whose conduct comes in consideration before a court of law:
(i) Whether the party whose conduct is in question before the court or has an opportunity of
explaining or defending himself.
(ii) Whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks.
(iii) Whether it is necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof, to any
madvert on that conduct. It has also been recognized that judicial pronouncements must be
judicial in nature, and should not normally depart from sobriety, modulation and reserve.

SINCE ALL THESE CONDITIONS ARE MET I HEREBY REQUEST

THE HON’BLE COURT TO CONDEMN ALL THE ACCUSATIONS OF
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS BEING VIOLATED BY THE CHANNEL
Right to Privacy:-
According to Sec-66(e) of Information Technology Act, 2000; Whoever, intentionally or
knowingly captures, publishes or transmits the image of a private area of any person without
his or her consent, under circumstances violating the privacy of that person, Shall be
punished with imprisonment which may extend to 3 years or with fine not exceeding 2 lakhs
rupees, or with both.
SINCE NO PRIVATE PARTS OF THE SUSPECT WERE RECORDED
ON THE HIDDEN CAMERAS THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF HIS
RIGHT TO PRIVACY.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS- PAGE| 6

12TH AMITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

ISSUE IV: WHETHER INJUNCTION ORDERS SHOULD BE PASSED AGAINST

THE CHANNEL WHEN THE SUIT IS FILED AT THE TIME OF THE RELEASE
OF SEASON 2 OF THE PROGRAMME?

(4.1)It is humbly contended before the hon’ble court that no injunction should be passed
against the show emotional torture under Section 142 of CrPC as the show does not promotes
vulgarity and obscenity when seen as a whole, all the show does is that it exercises it’s rights
of press as mentioned under Art-19(1)(a) of the constitution and exposes the suspect’s true
nature
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT PAGE| 7
12TH AMITY NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2018

PRAYER

Wherefore, in light of the Issues Raised, Authorities Cited and Arguments Advanced, it is
most humbly and respectfully requested that the Hon’ble High Court of Uttam Pradesh be
pleased to:

DECLARE that the content broadcasted on Iris T.V. is not obscene or vulgar

DECLARE that the channel Iris T.V. is not cheating the suspect

DECLARE that no fundamental rights of suspect are being deprived

NOT pass any injunction against Iris T.V.

\

AND/OR

Pass any other order it may deem fit, in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.
All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted

S/d
COUNSELS FOR THE APPELLANTS
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT PAGE| 8