Memorial For Petitioner Proposition 'B'

TEAM CODE : J
IN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT

OF HIND
UDHAAR
.......PETITIONER No. 1
Mr. SWARMY
.......PETITIONER No. 2
V/s
REPUBLIC OF HIND
.......RESPONDENT
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
22nd M.C. CHAGLA MEMORIAL GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2015
P a g e | 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.................
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ...
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.......
STATEMENT OF FACTS.......................................................
STATEMENTOF ISSUES........................................................
10
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS...
11
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED...
15
The notification issued by the Ministry of Indigenous Medicine is

Constitutionally invalid.......................................................................................
15
The Petitioner No.1 is entitled to receive the information pertaining to

Multiple trusts related to MSG under the Right to Information Act, 2005........
23
The notification issued by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting

is arbitrary and unreasonable and thus deserves to be quashed........................
28
PRAYERS....
37
P a g e | 2

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Sr. No.
Abbreviation
Full form
1.
Honble
Honourable
2.
U.O.I
Union of India
3.
Vol.
Volume
4.
CJI
Chief Justice of India
5.
Edn.
Edition
6.
Para.
Paragraph
7.
PIO
Public Information Officer
8.
J.
Justice
9.
SC
Supreme Court
10.
U. P.
Uttar Pradesh
11.
RTI
Right To Information
12.
s.
Section
13.
Vs.
Versus
14.
MSG
Mahant Sadyoga Guru
15.
AIR
All India Reporter
16.
SCC
Supreme Court Cases
17.
Art.
Article
18.
SCR
Supreme Court Reports
19.
USS
U.S. Supreme Court Reports
20.
BCR
Bombay Cases Reports
21.
All E.R
All England Law Reports
22.
CIC
Central Information Commission.
23.
AT
Administrative Tribunal.
24.
MIM
Ministry of Indigenous Medicine.
P a g e | 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
TABLE OF CASES
Sr.
Name of the Case
No.
1.
2.
3.
Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur And Ors. vs

The State Of Punjab
Bijoe Emmanuel V/s State of Kerala
Sanjay Ananda Salve vs. State of
Maharashtra
Citation
Page No.
AIR 1955 SC 549
16
AIR 1987 SC 748
18
2014 (6) BCR 142
19
AIR 2014 (SC) 2094
20
State of Karnataka & Anr. V.

4.
Associated Management of Primary &

Secondary Schools & Ors.
5.
S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India
AIR 1994 SC 1918
20
6.
Sidhraj Bhai vs State of Bombay
AIR 1963 SC 540
21
AIR 1984 SC 1757
22
CIC/SM/C/2011/001235
25
CIC/AT/A/2006/00479
26
10. S.P.Singh v. Ministry of Home Affairs
TLCI-2006-0-1002
27
11. Express Newspapers v. Union of India
AIR 1958 SC 578
29
12. Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India
(1972) 2 SCC 788
29
13. Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India
AIR 1962 SC 305
29
14. Romesh Thappar v. The State of Madras
AIR 1950 SC 124
29
SCR 1994 (1) 6821
29
7.
8.
9.
15.
The Managing Board of the Milli Talimi

Mission vs. State of Bihar
Kuldeep Singh Khair V/s Shromani
Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee
G.R.Singh v. National Projects
Printers (Mysore) Ltd vs. Asstt. Commercial

Tax Officer
P a g e | 4

16. York Times vs Sullivan

17. Hector v. A.G.
376 USS 254
30
1990 (2) All E.R103
30
AIR (1986) SC 515
31
(1995) 2 SCC 161
32
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay)

18. Private Limited and Others V/s Union of
India and Ors
Secretary, Ministry of Information
19. &Broadcasting, Government of India & Ors.
v. Cricket Association of Bengal & Ors
20.
S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan
1989 SCR (2) 204
33
P a g e | 5

BOOKS REFEREED
1.
Shrimad BhagavadGitaby A.C. Swami Prabhupada
2.
C.K. Jain, Constitution of India, 7thEdition.
3.
Dr. Vijay Chitnis, Indian Constitutional Law New Challenge.
4.
Durga Das Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India, 9thEdition, 2012.
5.
G.S. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India, 7thEdition, 2008.
6.
H.K. Saharay, The Constitution of India, 2ndEdition, 2006. 1987 AIR 748
7.
H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India, 9thEdition, Vol. 1, 2 & 3, 2013.
8.
M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 8th Edition, 2012.
9.
P.M. Bakshi & Jaswant Singh, The Constitution of India, 2007Edition.
10. V.N. Shukla, Constitution of India, 9thEdition, 2006.

11. C.C.V. Subba Rao, Indian Constitutional Law, 1st Edition, 2006.
12. D. J. De, The Constitution of India, 3rdEdition, 2002, Vol. 1 & 2.
13. D. D. Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India, 8thEdition, 2008, Vol. 4&5.
14. M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 6thEdition, 2010, Vol. 1 & 2.
15. The Right To Information Act 2005 by Shruti Desai.
16. Law Relating to Right to Information Act, by S C Mitra and R P Kataria.
17. D.D. Basu, The Law of Press.
STATUTES
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957
MANUALS REFERRED
NEWS BROADCASTING STANDARDS REGULATION
WEBSITES REFERRED
http://india.gov.in/my-government/constitution-india
http://www.righttoinformation.gov.in/
http://presscouncil.nic.in/
P a g e | 6

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Petitioners have approached the Honble Supreme Court of Hind under Art.32 of the
Constitution of Hind.
Art. 32 of the Constitution provides for remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by part
III. The Article reads as follows :Art.32 Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part
1. The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement
of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
2. The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including
writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and
certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights
conferred by this Part
3. Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 ) and (
2 ), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local
limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court
under clause ( 2 ).
4. The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise
provided for by this Constitution.
THIS MEMORANDUM SETS OUT THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW WHICH NEEDS TO BE
SETTLED IN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AND THE SUBMISSIONS THERE UNDER.
P a g e | 7

STATEMENT OF FACTS
I.
Republic of Hind is a vibrant developing economy and is a Hindu majority nation. In 2014
the ruling Panda Party was overthrown by a landslide majority in favour of Progress at all
Points (PAAP) Party and Om Chai Singh came to power as the Prime Minister of Hind.
Om Chai had previously been the Chief Minister of Seceededa for five times and the
opposition blamed him and his several other ministers to have been complicit in
communal riots that had taken in Seceededa under his rule.
II.
On 31st May 2015, Om Chai announced June 21, 2015 to be celebrated as the World Yoga
Day with several yoga programs and events being organised throughout the country. The
Ministry of Indigenous Medicine (MIM), under the charge of Om Chai issued a Yoga
Day Notification announcing the programs for World Yoga Day which included
compulsory practice of yoga on June 21, 2015 for all persons and that Yoga would now be
mandatory in school and college curriculums as a compulsory subject. Further MIM
appointed Mahant Sadyoga Guru as the Regulating Authority for the purposes of carrying
out all functions related to Yoga Day Celebrations.
III.
The business operations of MSG were estimated to be worth 350 Crores and were
operated through multiple trusts related to MSG in controlling capacity, owing, inter alia,
Yoga Institutions and sale of Yoga and Ayurvedic products. Information of MSG was
disclosed under section 4 of the Right to information Act however Financial Information
pertaining to his trusts was not disclosed.
P a g e | 8

IV.
Further MSG and his disciples were actively involved in the yoga day programmes. Yoga
was now made mandatory for all the government employees to learn and practice for 1
hour every day from only Certified Practitioners of the Regulating Authority.
V.
Several minority groups had made its reservation public and protested against the
Government Stand to impose compulsory Yoga Training. The University of Clash, in the
state of Clashfaer, which is a Muslim State, refused to incorporate Yoga in its curriculum.
The Vice- Chancellor, Mr. Wyingoff Wrighte informed to the MIM that the Notification
was not binding upon the University for several reasons, therefore they would not follow
the notification. Soon thereafter, he was removed and with the appointment of the new
Vice- Chancellor Mr. Trik Shule the announcement regarding celebration of World Yoga
Day was made in the University. Thannos Mir, an enrolled student of the University,
refused to attend the Yoga Day Programs and peacefully protested against the same.
Consequent to this he was rusticated from the University.
VI.
In the meantime there were several reports in the media about large- scale kickbacks and
corruption in the appointments of Certified Yoga Practitioners of the Regulating Authority
and embezzlement of public funds. Tomorrow News, a TV news channel conducted an
investigation into the widespread corruption and criticised the appointment of MSG as the
Regulating Authority. In the interview by Mr. Swarmy the leading anchor for Tomorrow
News, MSG unable to give any satisfactory to the questions put forth by Mr. Swarmy
regarding the allegations made against him and ended up giving controversial and
embarrassing responses.
VII.
An RTI application filed with MIM requesting information on financial holdings of the
multiple trusts was rejected by the PIO on the grounds that such information was not
available with the MIM and was third party information.
P a g e | 9

VIII.
With the growing popularity of the media campaign the interview received highest ratings
that the channel had ever received. Subsequently Mr. Swarmy asked Om Chai to publicly
clarify his position upon the scam reported by his TV channel as the nation wanted to
know how many were involved in the scam. As the campaign Yogagate became popular,
people became critical about the yoga day celebrations in the country.
IX.
The state owned official news channel News Om came up with a report alleging nexus
between one of the directors of Networx Ltd. the owner of Tomorrow News and the leader
of the Opposition party. The report of News Om yet did not discredit the news reported by
Tomorrow News.
X.
Immediately, the Republic of Hind made an amendment in the Copyright Act, 1957
thereby including the Television Show Anchor in the definition of the term performer
given under section 2 (qq) of the Copyright Act, 1957 and owing to this Mr. Swarmy was
derecognised as the member of press. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting
ordered a probe into the motives behind the interview of Mr. Swarmy with MSG and
issued a notification prohibiting repeated telecast of the interview with MSG.
XI.
Udhaar, a NGO involved in equality and equal protection of rights and has preferred the
writ petition before the Supreme Court of Hind challenging the Yoga Day Notification as
unconstitutional. It also sought the information pertaining to the trusts related to MSG was
liable to be disclosed under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Mr. Swarmy also
preferred a writ before the Supreme Court of India against his derecognition as a member
of the press and the ban on the telecast of the interview with MSG.
XII.
The Honble Supreme Court has clubbed the matters to be scheduled for the final hearing.
P a g e | 10

STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1.
Whether the Yoga Day Notification issued by the Ministry of Indigenous Medicine
(MIM) is constitutionally valid?
2.
Whether the Petitioner No. 1 is entitled to get the information that it has sought under the
Right to Information Act 2005?
3.
Whether the Notification issued by the Ministry of Broadcasting and Information

prohibiting repeated telecast of the interview of Mr. Swarmy with MSG is valid and
should it be declared good in Law?
P a g e | 11

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1.
The notification issued by the Ministry of Indigenous Medicine is constitutionally

invalid.
It is humbly submitted that the notification issued by the Ministry of Indigenous
Medicine violates various Constitutional provisions and also goes against the very
secular nature of the Constitution of Hind.
1.1 The Notification issued by the Ministry of Indigenous medicine is an example of
colourable legislation and thus is bad in Law.
The subject of public health and sanitation is part of State list [List II, Entry 6th ]
provided under Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and thus it is only the State
that has the right to regulate public health and sanitation and Central Government cannot
by way of a notification enact such colourable legislation.
1.2 Yoga is a religious practice.
Yoga is a practice that is linked with Hinduism. In yoga, through the cessation of mind
one connects himself with the Supreme Being, and which forms an important part of
teachings laid down in the Holy Bhagavad Gita. Hence, yoga is a religious activity and
its forced practice for all persons would challenge the secular nature of the Constitution
of Hind.
1.3 Compulsory practice of yoga violates Articles 25, 26, 28 of the Constitution.
P a g e | 12

By making the notification compulsory and not leaving it as a choice to the people, the
notification negates the essence of Articles 25, 26, 28 of the Constitution of India which
guarantees every citizen a right to practice any religion and a right to freedom of
conscience
1.4 Rights of minorities are infringed
Article 30 of the Constitution of India guarantees the right of minorities to establish and
administer educational institutions. By making compulsory a religious practice in all the
school and college curriculums, including the minority institutions, the very purpose of
establishing a minority institution would stand nullified, also violating their right under
Article 30 of the Constitution.
2.
The Petitioner No.1 is entitled to receive the information pertaining to multiple

trusts related to MSG under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
MSG has been appointed as the Regulating Authority thereby being a public authority
under Section 2(h)(d) of The Right to Information Act, 2005. The Information sought
should be disclosed due to the following contentions.
2.1 The essence of the Act is to promote transparency and curb corruption and thus
the information should be provided.
The preamble of The Right to Information Act, 2005 states that the Act is set out to
secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote
transparency and accountability. Hence when there were several allegations of corruption
and embezzlement of funds by the MSG, it was pertinent to disclose such information.
2.2 There is a larger Public Interest that warrants such disclosure.
P a g e | 13

Section 8 of the RTI Act provides for exemptions from disclosure. Under the same
section it is also stated that when there is larger public interest, the disclosure of
information has to be done irrespective of their exemption from the said act. Hence, in
the present case, since there were allegations of embezzlement of public funds, there was
larger interest of the public for the information to be disclosed.
3.
The notification issued by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting is

arbitrary and unreasonable and thus deserves to be quashed.
3.1 Ban on the telecast of the interview was unconstitutional

It is humbly submitted that the notification issued by the Ministry of Information and
Broadcasting putting a ban on the telecast was unconstitutional owing to the following
contentions.
3.1.1 Violation of Freedom of Speech and Expression extends to the freedom of
press as well.
In the present case, being the organizer of the interview, the right to telecast the same lies
with the news channel, Tomorrow News. The interview is a form of expression, thereby
falling under the right to freedom and expression guaranteed by article 19(1) (a) of the
Constitution of India. Hence, by putting a ban on the interview, the notification violates
Article. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of Hind. Though freedom of press is not explicitly
guaranteed as a fundamental right, it is no longer in doubt that it is implicit in the freedom of
speech and expression. Therefore, by putting a ban on the telecast of the interview with
MSG, the notification violates the Freedom of Press granted under the Constitution.
3.1.2 No reasonable restriction applicable under Article 19(2).
P a g e | 14

Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India places reasonable restrictions on the Freedom
of Speech and Expression. In the present case, none of the restrictions mentioned under
the said Article places any nexus with the facts of the case. Hence, the ban on the telecast
was a sheer violation of Freedom of Speech and Expression granted under Article
19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
3.2 De-recognition as a member of Press of Mr. Swarmy was bad in law.
The notification issued also derecognized Mr. Swarmy as a member of Press. It is
humbly submitted that the same is unreasonable and should be set aside.
3.2.1 No nexus between the amendment in the definition of the term performer
and derecognition of Petitioner No.2.
The amendment clause states the definition of a performer, thereby including Mr.
Swarmy within its scope. But his mere inclusion in the said definition does not take away
his recognition of a member of Press. Hence, his derecognition merely on the ground that
he has been added in the definition of a performer is way too extraneous and
unreasonable.
3.2.2 Violates the Right to Freedom of Profession as provided under Art. 19(1)(g).
Article 19(1)(g) guarantees every citizen a Fundamental Right to practice any profession
or to carry out any occupation. By derecognizing Mr. Swarmy as a member of Press
without any justifiable ground, the notification violates his Fundamental Right to
Freedom of Profession.
P a g e | 15

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. The notification issued by the Ministry of Indigenous Medicine is

constitutionally invalid.
1.1 The Notification issued by the Ministry of Indigenous medicine is an example of
colourable legislation and thus is bad in Law.
In the present case, Ministry of Indigenous Medicine issued a notification having two
important clauses:
(a) Making yoga mandatory in school and college curriculum as a compulsory subject.
(b) Compulsory practice of yoga by all persons on 21st June, 2015.
Before discussing the provisions of the notification and their constitutionality, it is submitted
that the notification is an example of colourable legislation which is exercised by the Central
Government in issuing the aforesaid notification. As per the Ministry of Indigenous
Medicine, Yoga is useful for mind, body and soul of the youth and thus it is introduced to
improve public health. It is submitted that the subject of public health and sanitation is part of
State list [List II, Entry 6th ] provided under Schedule VII of the Constitution of India and
thus it is only the State that has the right to regulate public health and sanitation. Thus, it is a
case of colourable legislation being exercised by the Central Government by regulating an
activity which is a part of the State List.
P a g e | 16

Further Art 73 of the Constitution of India provides 73. (1) Subject to the provisions of this
Constitution, the executive power of the Union shall extend
(a) to the matters with respect to which Parliament has power to make laws; and
(b) to the exercise of such rights, authority and jurisdiction as are exercisable by the
Government of India by virtue of any treaty or agreement:
Provided that the executive power referred to in sub clause (a) shall not, save as expressly
provided in this Constitution or in any law made by Parliament, extend in any State 1*** to
matters with respect to which the Legislature of the State has also power to make laws.
Thus, the executive power of the Union is co-extensive with the legislative power of the
Union Parliament and therefore it shall extend only to the matters enumerated in Lists I and
III.
Further it is submitted that the execution of the notification requires considerable expenditure
and thus the sanction of the Legislature is imperative and is absent in the present case.
Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur And Ors. vs
The State Of Punjab1 held, Suppose now that the Ministry or the executive Government of a
State formulates a particular policy in furtherance of which they want to start trade or
business. Is it necessary that there must be a specific legislation legalising such trade
activities before they could be embarked upon? We cannot say that such legislation is always
necessary. If the trade or business involves expenditure of funds, it is certainly required that
Parliament should authorise such expenditure either directly or under the provisions of a
statute.
AIR 1955 SC 549

P a g e | 17

Thus the notification issued has no sanction of the legislature and therefore it is without any
legal backing and deserves to be quashed and set aside.
1.2 Yoga is a religious practice.

With respect to the provisions of the notification it is submitted that inclusion of yoga as a
compulsory subject in school and college violates various constitutional provisions. It is
pertinent to understand the meaning of the term Yoga and it origins. Yoga is a practice that is
linked with Hinduism in which through the cessation of mind one connects himself with the
Supreme Being and it is a part of teachings laid down in the Holy Bhagavad Gita. It states
the process of linking oneself with the Supreme is called yoga. The translation of the verse
13-14 of the Holy Bhagavad Gita from chapter 6 as given by A.C. Swami Prabhupada,
founder of ISCKON provides The yoga process is practiced in order to discover and see this
localized form of Viu, and not for any other purpose. The localized Viu-mrti is the
plenary representation of Ka dwelling within one's heart. One who has no program to
realize this Viu-murti is uselessly engaged in mock-yoga practice and is certainly wasting
his time. K is the ultimate goal of life, and the Viu-murti situated in one's heart is the
object of yoga practice.
Further translating the Verse 1 of the Seventh Chapter it is provided that At the end of the
Sixth Chapter, it has been clearly stated that the steady concentration of the mind upon Ka,
or in other words Ka consciousness, is the highest form of all yoga. Different types of
yoga are only steppingstones on the path of Ka consciousness.
Thus Yoga is a religious practice that is followed in Hinduism and thus it has religious
character as highlighted above.
P a g e | 18

1.3 Compulsory practice of yoga violates Articles 25, 26, 28 of the Constitution.
In the present case, by making yoga mandatory in schools and colleges and further mandating
compulsory performance of yoga by all persons on 21st June, the Ministry is violating the
freedom of religion as enshrined under Art.25, Art. 26 and Art.28 of the Constitution.
Art 25 states 25. (1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions
of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to
profess, practise and propagate religion.
Thus, every person has the right to freely propagate and practice his religion and the freedom
of conscience. Freedom of conscience connotes a persons right to entertain belief and
doctrines concerning matters which are regarded by him to be conducive to his spiritual well
being thereby granting the freedom to believe in religious tenets of any sector community. As
stated above, Yoga being an inherent part of Hinduism, cannot be compelled to be performed
by others as every individual has the right to practice the religion he believes in and
everyones right to freedom of conscience needs to be respected.
In the case of Bijoe Emmanuel V/s State of Kerala2 three students stood up for national
anthem and but did not sing it on the grounds that it was against their religious belief and they
were rusticated from the school. Honble Supreme Court of India in that case held, We are
satisfied, in the present case, that the expulsion of the three children from the school for the

2
AIR 1987 SC 748

P a g e | 19

reason that because of their conscientiously held religious faith, they do not join the singing
of the national anthem in the morning assembly though they do stand up respectfully when
the anthem is sung, is a violation of their fundamental right to freedom of conscience and
freely to profess, practice and propagate religion.
The Honble High Court of Bombay in the case of Sanjay Ananda Salve vs. State of
Maharashtra3 held,
The principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Bijoe Emmanuel (supra)
will apply and the Petitioner cannot be forced to stand with folded hands when the
prayers are being sung. Moreover, not standing with folded hands at that time and not
holding his hand in front at the time when oath is administered cannot be treated as
the acts of indiscipline so long as the petitioner does not show any disrespect to the
prayers and the oath. We, therefore, hold that though the Petitioner is bound by the
discipline of the school, at the time when the prayers are being sung at the beginning
of the day of the school, he cannot be forced to fold his hands. He cannot be forced to
hold his hand in the front at the time when the oath is being administered. Forcing him
to do so will be a violation of fundamental rights conferred on him under the
Constitution of India.
Further, Art 28 grants freedom as to attendance at religious instructions at educational
institution and lays down worship in certain educational institutions.
(1) No religious instruction shall be provided in any educational institution wholly
maintained out of State funds.
2014 (6) BCR 142

P a g e | 20

(3) No person attending any educational institution recognised by the State or receiving aid
out of State funds shall be required to take part in any religious instruction that may be
imparted in such institution or to attend any religious worship that may be conducted in such
institution or in any premises attached thereto unless such person or, if such person is a
minor, his guardian has given his consent thereto.
Thus this Article specifically provides that religious instructions shall not be provided in the
educational institution maintained by state and further clause (3) states no person shall be
required to take part in any religious instructions unless his consent has been obtained. By
making yoga compulsory in schools and colleges, religious instructions are being imparted
which violates the above Article and no choice has been given to the students. Thus the
notification deserves to be quashed and set aside.
The Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Karnataka & Anr. V.
Associated Management of Primary & Secondary Schools & Ors.4AIR 2014 (SC) 2094 held,
Freedom or choice in the matter of speech and expression is absolutely necessary for an
individual to develop his personality in his own way and this is one reason, if not the only
reason, why under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution every citizen has been guaranteed the
right to freedom of speech and expression.
Also the Preamble of the Constitution of India provides that India is a Sovereign, Socialist,
Secular and Democratic Republic and thus Secularism is a fundamental and most important
element of our Constitution. It means that the state will have no religion of its own and in the
matter of religion the state is neutral. It neither promotes nor practices any religion, nor does
it interfere with any religious practice. The Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of
AIR 2014 (SC) 2094

P a g e | 21

S.R.Bommai vs Union of India5 held that the provisions of the constitution by implication
prohibit the establishment of a theocratic state and prevent the state either identifying itself
with or favouring any particular religion or religious sect or denomination. The State is
enjoined to accord equal treatment to all religions and religious sects and denominations.
In the present case, The Respondent is propagating religious practice in schools and colleges
which is against the concept of secularism and thus it should be declared as bad in law.
1.4 Rights of minorities as provided under Art 30(1) are infringed.
In the present case, by making yoga compulsory in schools and college curriculum the right
granted by Art.30 stands to be violated and compromised.
30. Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions.(1) All
minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and
administer educational institutions of their choice. It is submitted that the right granted by this
Article is absolute and is not subject to any restriction that can be imposed by the State.
Affirming the same, the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Sidhraj Bhai vs State of
Bombay6 held The right established by Art. 30(1) is a fundamental right declared in terms
absolute. Unlike the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by Art. 19, it is not subject to
reasonable restrictions. It is intended to be a real right for the protection of the minorities in
the matter of setting up of educational institutions of their own choice. The right is intended
to be effective and is not to be whittled down by so-called regulative measures conceived in
the interest not of the minority educational institution, but of the public or the nation as a
whole. If every order which while maintaining, the formal character of a minority institution
destroys the power of administration is held justifiable because it is in the public or national

5
6
AIR 1994(SC) 1918

AIR 1963 (SC) 540
P a g e | 22

interest, though not in its interest as an educational institution, the right guaranteed by Art.
30(1) will be but a "teasing illusion", a promise of unreality.
Thus it is submitted that the State does not have the right to impose regulations that affect the
administration of the minority educational institution and thus the present notification,
making yoga a mandatory activity in all educational institutions which also includes the
minority institutions is violative of the right granted aforesaid article of the constitution.
Further the very purpose of the establishment of minority institutions is to preserve their
religion and culture which in the present case gets compromised. By including a religious
practice like yoga in to the school curriculum, the minority institutions are made to teach a
practice associated with a different religion, thus the sole purpose of establishing a minority
educational institution gets defeated.
The Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of The Managing Board of the Milli Talimi
Mission vs. State of Bihar7 held, While imposing conditions before granting affiliation, as
indicated above, the State or the University cannot kill or annihilate the individuality or
personality of the institution in question by insisting on following a particular kind of
syllabus or a course of study which may be directly opposed to the aims, objects and ideals
sought to be achieved by the institutions.
AIR 1984(SC) 1757

P a g e | 23

2. The Petitioner No.1 is entitled to receive the information pertaining to multiple

trustsrelated to MSG under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
In the present case, MIM issued a notification which laid down several programmes to be
performed in light of celebrating World Yoga Day. Further, it appointed Mahant Sadyoga
Guru as the regulating authority. It is submitted that the regulating body is an important
public office and the appointment of its authority should have been done in an extremely
transparent manner. Here Mahant Sadyoga Guru was directly appointed by the Ministry and
thus lacked transparency.
2.1 The essence of the Act is to promote transparency and curb corruption and thus the
information should be provided.
It is submitted that enormous powers were granted to Mahant Sadyoga Guru for regulating
the Yoga Day celebrations.
MSG and only his chosen disciples were involved in the teaching of the Yoga at celebratory
functions organised by the Government. In other words, only the disciples of his institutions
that were maintained by his trusts were chosen to teach yoga at functions.
Further, Yoga was made mandatory for Government employees to practice for 1 hour every
day and only the certified practitioners appointed by MSG can carry out teaching of Yoga. It
is submitted that there are thousands of Government Employees in the country and it is only
MSG who has the sole right to appoint certified practitioners. Therefore if anyone wanted to
teach Yoga, he had no choice but to approach MSG and ask for appointment as a certified
practitioner. Every person seeking appointment requires a certificate that he/she has
completed the course of yoga and is fit to teach others. This certificate has to be issued by a
Yoga institutions and it is a fact that MSG is controlling multiple yoga institutions.
P a g e | 24

Appointments of Certified Practitioners not being regulated by any legislation, there was
absence of any procedure and thus Mahant Sadyoga Guru carried out corruption through his
institutions. He issued certificate of practice through his institutions, he appointed only his
disciples at the celebratory functions and thus trust were actively involved in the yoga day
celebrations.
Several media reports have stated that there is large scale corruptions and kickbacks in the
appointment of Certified Practitioners and an even embezzlement of public funds. Also, when
MSG was asked to clarify his stand on the media reports, he gave out controversial and
embarrassing responses. The information sought is to contain corruption and irregularities
prevailing in the regulating authority office and it deserves to be provided under the Right to
Information Act, 2005.
The preamble of the Right to Information Act, 2005 provides, An Act to provide for setting
out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information
under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability
in the working of every public authority.
Thus there very essence of the Act is to curb corruption and thus information sought should
be provided.
Further it is submitted that MSG is a public authority as defined under Section 2(h)(d) of the
Right to Information Act. Section 2 states:
(h) Public Authority means any authority or body or institution or self-government
established or constituted(c) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government.
P a g e | 25

Section 2(f) of the RTI Act defines the term information as, information means any
material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press
releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data
material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can
be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force. Thus,
information relating to a private body which is accessible by the Public Authority should be
provided under the Act and thus the information of multiple trusts should be disclosed.
Honble Central Information Commission in the case of Kuldeep Singh Khair V/s Shromani
Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee8, Amritsar held that
The trust in question is under the management and control of SGPC. As SGPC has been
held to be a public authority and as the trust is under the predominant and pervasive control
of SGPC, the latter (SGPC) has all the authority to summon requisite information from the
trust in terms of section 2(f) of the RTI Act and ordered the public authority to provide the
information of the trust it managed to the appellant.
Thus Mahant Sadyoga Guru is a public authority and therefore by virtue of Section 4 the
information pertaining to his trusts should be revealed under the Act.
2.2 There is a larger Public Interest that warrants such disclosure.

It is submitted that there is a strong fiduciary relationship that exists between the citizens and
Government. The citizens repose confidence in the Government elected and expect it to work
with full honesty and utilise the funds provided in the interest of the nation. Every member of
the public has the right to know about how their fund are being utilised and it is the duty of

8
CIC/SM/C/2011/001235

P a g e | 26

the Government to keep them updated and provide the related information which ultimately
is the essence of Democracy.
In the case of G.R.Singh v. National Projects9, Honble Central Information Commission
held, any claim made on public monies is essentially a public activity and cannot be
prevented from disclosure characterizing it as personal. Any charge on the public funds is
subject to public audit and scrutiny. It is not a confidential transaction between the employer
and the employee. If such transactions are shielded from public view, it is sure to encourage
corruption, irregular claims, poor scrutiny of such claims and so on. On balance, the second
proposition has much to commend itself. A public servant making a claim from public funds
for duties performed cannot claim personal status for such transaction and thus directed the
public authority to reveal the information.
In the present case, there are several reports that evidence the irregularities prevailing in the
appointments made by the regulatory authority and further embezzlements of public money,
Thus there is a large public interest involved in the present case and thus information sought
should be provided with immediate effect.
The Honble Central Information Commission in the case of S.P.Singh v. Ministry of
Home10Affairs held, Combating corruption is one of the avowed objectives of the RTI Act.
It would not be a happy development if the message these appeals give is that the RTI Act
which promotes transparency is, quite paradoxically, also susceptible, through clever
machinations, to being used to weaken, or at-least to complicate, the campaign against
corruption
by
public
authorities
engaged
in
this
task.
Vigilance against these
manoeuvrings is thus of utmost importance.

9
CIC/AT/A/2006/00479
TLCI20060-1002
10
P a g e | 27

3. The notification issued by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting is arbitrary

and unreasonable and thus deserves to be quashed.
P a g e | 28

In the present case Ministry issued a notification having two important clauses whereby:
1. It imposed a ban on the telecast of the interview conducted by the Petitioner No.2 of
Mr. Mahant Sadyoga Guru.
2. It further derecognised TV news presenters as members of press.
3.1 Ban on the telecast of the interview was unconstitutional as it violates the
freedom of speech and expression guaranteed to the press.
It is submitted that there were several reports in the media that stated large scale corruption
was being carried out by MSG in the appointments of the certified yoga practitioners and also
there was serious embezzlement of public funds. It has always been the practice of Tomorrow
News and of the Petitioner No.2 to verify the sources before reporting and thus an
investigation was conducted so as to be sure of the authenticity of the reports. Investigations
affirmed the irregularities and thus Mahant Sadyoga Guru was invited by the Petitioner No.2
to clarify his stand on the corruption reported by his channel and Mahant Sadyoga Guru
accepted the invite. In the course of the interview several direct questions were asked by the
Petitioner No.2 in his usual style to which MSG let out several embarrassing and
controversial answers. The role of the press is to educate people about the things happening
in the society and thus the interview was broadcasted and it received highest viewership.
Suddenly, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting by issuing the notification, imposed
a complete ban on the interview conducted by the Petitioner No.2. Further the report did not
discredit the facts reported by the Petitioner No.2 in his interview and thus there is no
P a g e | 29

justification to the imposition of the ban and it is submitted that the ban on the interview is a
gross violation of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Art.19(1)(a).
The Honble Supreme Court in the cases of Express Newspapers v. Union of India11, Bennett
Coleman & Co. v. Union of India12 Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India13and Romesh
Thappar v. State of Madras14 held that the freedom of press is an important right conferred
under Art.19(1)(a). Further affirming the same in the case of Printers (Mysore) Ltd vs. Asstt.
Commercial Tax Officer15, the Honble Supreme Court held that Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution declares that all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and
expression. Though freedom of press is not explicitly guaranteed as a fundamental right, it is
no longer in doubt that it is implicit in the freedom of speech and expression. This was so
stated by Dr Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly during the deliberations on Article
19(1)(a) (vide Constituent Assembly Debates Vol. 7, page 780)
Thus, freedom of speech and expression is an invaluable freedom and the same is granted to
the press too.
It is submitted that in a democratic country like Hind, fair criticisms of any public authority is
considered healthy and is thus, not violative of any law.
In the case of New York Times vs Sullivan16, Justice Goldberg and Justice Douglas of the
Honble United States Supreme Court held,

11
AIR 1958 SC 578

(1972) 2 SCC 788
13
AIR 1962 SC 305
14
AIR 1950 SC 124
15
1994 SCR (1) 6821
16
376 USS 254
12
P a g e | 30

In my view, the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution afford to the
citizen and to the press an absolute, unconditional privilege to criticize official
conduct despite the harm which may flow from excesses and abuses. The right
should not depend upon a probing by the jury of the motivation of the citizen or
press. The theory of our Constitution is that every citizen may speak his mind and
every newspaper express its view on matters of public concern and may not be
barred from speaking or publishing because those in control of government think
that what is said or written is unwise, unfair, false, or malicious. In a democratic
society, one who assumes to act for the citizens in an executive, legislative, or
judicial capacity must expect that his official acts will be commented upon and
criticized. Such criticism cannot, in my opinion, be muzzled or deterred by the courts
at the instance of public officials under the label of libel.
Amendment I to the United States Constitution grants freedom of speech and states that
Congress shall not make any law that takes away the freedom of speech which is granted to
press. The same is the object of Art. 19(1)(a), thus the press has the right to freedom of
speech and expression and criticize Government if required.
Further in the case of Hector vs A.G.17 , the Privy Council held In a free democratic society
it is almost too obvious to need stating that those who hold office in government and who are
responsible for public administration must always be open to criticism. Any attempt to stifle
or fetter such criticism amounts to censorship of the most insidious and objectionable kind.

17
1990 (2) All E.R 103

P a g e | 31

In the case of Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Limited and Others V/s Union of
India and Ors.18, Honble Supreme Court of India held :
In today's free world freedom of press is the heart of social and political intercourse.
The press has now assumed the role of the public educator making formal and nonformal education possible in a large scale particularly in the developing world, where
television and other kinds of modern communication are not still available for all
sections of society. The purpose of the press is to advance the public interest by
publishing facts and opinions without which a democratic electorate cannot make
responsible judgments. Newspaper being surveyors of news and views having a
bearing on public administration very often carry material which would not be
palatable to governments and other authorities. The authors of the articles which are
published in newspapers have to be critical of the action of government in order to
expose its weaknesses. Such articles tend to become an irritant or even a threat to
power. Governments naturally take recourse to suppress newspapers publishing such
articles in different ways. lt is, therefore, the primary duty Of all the national courts to
uphold the said freedom and invalidate all laws or administrative actions which
interfere with it, contrary to the constitutional mandate.
Similarly Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Information
&Broadcasting, Government of India & Ors. v. Cricket Association of Bengal & Ors19(1995)
2 SCC 161 held,
The right of free speech and expression includes the right to receive and impart
information. For ensuring the free speech right of the citizens of this country, it is
necessary that the citizens have the benefit of plurality of views and a range of opinions

18
AIR (1986) SC 515

(1995) 2 SCC 161
19
P a g e | 32

on all public issues. A successful democracy posits an 'aware' citizenry. Diversity of

opinions, views, ideas and ideologies is essential to enable the citizens to arrive at
informed judgment on all issues touching them. This cannot be provided by a medium
controlled by a monopoly - whether the monopoly is of the State or any other individual,
group or Organisation. The broadcasting media should be under the control of the
public as distinct from Government. This is the command implicit in Article 19(1)(a).
Thus the freedom of speech and expression is also granted to the press and in the present case
the same is violated.
3.1.2 No reasonable restriction that may be imposed under Article 19(2) would apply to
the present case.
Further it is submitted that the freedom of speech and expression can be restricted only by
virtue of Art 19(2) and none of its provision are applicable to justify the ban imposed on the
telecast of the interview. Art 19(2) states : (2) 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.
In the present the interview reported the responses from MSG as it is and the authenticity of
the news reported by Tomorrow News is not even challenged in the report given by the News
Om itself which is being heavily relied upon by the Respondent. Therefore, there was no
P a g e | 33

question of any defamation that would justify respondents action. Further Section 499 of the
Indian Penal Code deals with defamation and the exceptions provided there in specifically
state:
Imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published.It is not
defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it be for the
public good that the imputation should be made or published. Whether or not it is for
the public good is a question of fact. Second Exception.Public conduct of public
servants.It is not defamation to express in a good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of a public servant in the discharge of his public functions, or
respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no
further. Thus the Petitioner No.2 imputed the truth by broadcasting the interview and
thus there was no defamation carried out by the Petitioner No.2.
Similarly even possible disruption of the Public order also cannot justify the ban imposed on
the broadcasting of the interview. Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of
S.Rangarajan v. P.Jagjivan20 Ram held, It is the duty of the State to protect the freedom of
expression since it is a liberty guaranteed against the State. The State cannot plead its
inability to handle the hostile audience problem. It is its obligatory duty to prevent it and
protect the freedom of expression
Thus it is submitted that the interview was broadcasted to report the irregularities prevailing
in the office of regulating authority and it is the duty of the Press to report the truth and
educate the masses. MSG had no answers to the questions put forth and thus gave
embarrassing responses and with that the popularity of Yoga Day dwindled. The

20
1989 SCR (2) 204

P a g e | 34

Government being aggrieved by it has imposed the ban and thus it is against the freedom
granted to the press to report freely and fairly.
The Respondent in the present case has curbed this right and thus it is submitted that the ban
is arbitrary and deserves to be set aside.
3.2 Derecognition as a member of Press of Mr. Swarmy was bad in law.
3.2.2 No nexus between the amendment in the definition of the term performer
and the derecognition of Petitioner No.2.
The definition of the term performer as found in Section 2(qq) of the Copyright Act, 1957
was amended and the new definition read as under:
Performer includes an actor, singer, musician, dancer, acrobat, juggler, conjurer, snake
charmer, a person delivering a lecture, television show anchor or any other person who
makes a performance;
The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting subsequently issued a notification and thereby
derecognised television news presenters as members of Press.
It is humbly submitted that there is no reason to derecognise Television News presenters as
members of press just because of the inclusion of Television show anchors in the definition
of the term performer. Performer is merely a characteristic assigned to the professional. A TV
news presenters primary recognition is that of being a journalist and a member of press and
the same is being taken away by the present notification.
P a g e | 35

News Broadcasting Standards Regulations recognises television news anchors and defines the
term Television Journalist as it shall mean and shall include an editor, producer, anchor
and/or any other person by whatever name called who is responsible for approving the
content of a broadcast and shall include a stranger or a casual contributor.
Thus Petitioner No.2 being a television news anchor is also a Television Journalist and thus is
a member of press. He cannot be de recognised as a member of press merely by his inclusion
in the definition of performer and thus the notification is arbitrary as per article 14 as it
doesnt satisfy the twin test of classification qua the other professionals included in the
definition of a television journalist as aforesaid. There is no intelligible differentia between a
producer, editor and a TV Anchor for the purposes of the definition of a television journalist
merely because such anchor was included in the definition of a performer as well. Therefore
the impugned notification deserves to be declared as bad in law.
3.2.2 The notification violates the Right to Freedom of Profession as provided under Art
19(1)(g).
It is submitted that the notification issued is arbitrary and unreasonable and violative of
Art.19 (1) (g). Art 19(1) (g) states that (1) All citizens shall have the right (g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
The petitioner is a leading television show anchor and by derecognising him as a member of
press his freedom of profession gets severely violated. By including him in the definition of
performer his act of educating the people by reporting fair and accurate news is being termed
as a performance which is against the very purpose of his profession as it discredit his
standing as a reliable journalist. As a member of press he has the right to put forth questions
to the Government and it is the duty of the public officials to respond to the same. By
P a g e | 36

including him in the definition of performer, the above right gets defeated and thus the
authority as a member of press, which backed him to ask questions to the public officials and
compelled them to answer is being taken away. Similarly the viewers have a faith in the
establishment of Press and thus they respect the opinions put forth by the news
presenters. By labelling the dutiful and independent journalism as a performance, viewers
will lose faith in the establishment and thus would not consider the independent news
reported by the news presenters.
Similarly all the privileges that the Petitioner No.2 has as a member of press namely
exclusive right to report Parliamentary proceedings gets lost and thus the notification grossly
interferes with the freedom granted by Art 19(1) (g).
The Television news anchors are the most important link in the dissemination of the news.
All the facts that have been generated are communicated to the masses through television
news presenters and by de recognising the most important link as the member of press, the
whole concept of electronic media gets defeated.
Thus the notification is ultra vires Art 19(1) (a) and Art. 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India
and thus deserves to be quashed and set aside.
P a g e | 37

PRAYERS
In light of the questions presented, arguments advanced and the authorities cited, counsel for
the NGO Udhaar and Mr. Swarmy, most humbly pray that the writ petition of the Petitioners
may kindly be allowed and the Honble court be pleased to issue of a writ of mandamus or
any other appropriate writ, order or direction and thereby:
The Notification issued by the Ministry of Indigenous Medicine be declared as

unconstitutional and thus should be quashed and set aside.
Direct the appropriate authorities to disclose such information pertaining to multiple

trusts related to MSG under the RTI.
The notification issued by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting be declared as

unconstitutional and thus be quashed and set aside.
Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Honble Court may deem just and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favor of the
Petitioner.
Cost of the petition may kindly be awarded in favor of the Petitioner.
Respectfully submitted,
Sd/(Counsel for the Petitioners)

Memorial For Petitioner Proposition 'B'

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Memorial For Petitioner Proposition 'B'

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Memorial For Petitioner Proposition 'B'

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TEAM CODE : J

IN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ...

The notification issued by the Ministry of Indigenous Medicine is

The Petitioner No.1 is entitled to receive the information pertaining to

The notification issued by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting

Chief Justice of India

Public Information Officer

Mahant Sadyoga Guru

All India Reporter

Supreme Court Cases

Supreme Court Reports

U.S. Supreme Court Reports

Bombay Cases Reports

All England Law Reports

Central Information Commission.

Ministry of Indigenous Medicine.

Name of the Case

Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur And Ors. vs

AIR 1955 SC 549

AIR 1987 SC 748

2014 (6) BCR 142

AIR 2014 (SC) 2094

State of Karnataka & Anr. V.

Associated Management of Primary &

S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India

AIR 1994 SC 1918

Sidhraj Bhai vs State of Bombay

AIR 1963 SC 540

AIR 1984 SC 1757

10. S.P.Singh v. Ministry of Home Affairs

11. Express Newspapers v. Union of India

AIR 1958 SC 578

12. Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India

(1972) 2 SCC 788

13. Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India

AIR 1962 SC 305

14. Romesh Thappar v. The State of Madras

AIR 1950 SC 124

SCR 1994 (1) 6821

The Managing Board of the Milli Talimi

Printers (Mysore) Ltd vs. Asstt. Commercial

16. York Times vs Sullivan

376 USS 254

1990 (2) All E.R103

AIR (1986) SC 515

(1995) 2 SCC 161

Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay)

1989 SCR (2) 204

Shrimad BhagavadGitaby A.C. Swami Prabhupada

C.K. Jain, Constitution of India, 7thEdition.

Dr. Vijay Chitnis, Indian Constitutional Law New Challenge.

Durga Das Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India, 9thEdition, 2012.

G.S. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India, 7thEdition, 2008.

H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India, 9thEdition, Vol. 1, 2 & 3, 2013.

M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 8th Edition, 2012.

P.M. Bakshi & Jaswant Singh, The Constitution of India, 2007Edition.