STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

1. Writ Petition of 2019

The petitioners approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Mindia under Article 32 of Constitution
against the order of High court of uplifting thedecision of the committee of blanket ban.

Article 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.

2. Special leave petition of 2019

The petitioners approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Mindia under Article 136 of
Constitution to appeal for the judgment given by the high court.

Article 136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court (1) Notwithstanding anything in this
Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any
judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by
any court or tribunal in the territory of India
 ISSUES RAISED
1. Writ Petition

(i) Whether the Writ Petition filed by Zing tv News is maintainable under article 32 of the Constitution?

(ii) Whether the impugned the High Court order violates freedom of speech and expression of the
Petitioner?

2. Special leave petition of 2019

(i) Whether the Appellants be granted special leave to appeal by Supreme Court of India against the
impugned order of High Court?

(ii)Whether the petitioners are guilty of contempt of Supreme court?

(iii) Whether the SLP no. 987 of 2017 is maintainable under Article 136 of Constitution of Indiana?
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY ZING TV IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE
CONSTITUTION?

It is humbly submitted that the Writ Petition is maintainable under Article 32 of the Constitution of
Indiana (herein after referred as the Constitution). Article 32 provides the right to move the Supreme
Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by Part III of the
Constitution. The right to access to the Supreme Court under Article 32 is the Fundamental Right itself. It
is contended that the petitioners have the locus standi, there is violation of fundamental right, Supreme
Court has the jurisdiction to hear the present case and alternative remedy not a bar to maintainability.

ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE IMPUGNED THE HIGH COURT ORDER VIOLATES FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND
EXPRESSION OF THE PETITIONER?

It is humbly submitted that the impugned Supreme Court order violates the freedom of speech and
expression of the Petitioner and other media houses under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It is the
first condition of liberty which opens up channels of free discussion of issues, formation of public
opinion on social, economic, political and judicial matters, free propagation and interchange of ideas. It
ensures dissemination of information which would help debate on the matters of public concern. It is
contented that Freedom of Press is an essential right to freedom of speech and expression under Article
19(1)(a) of the Constitution, it is the duty of judiciary to protect freedom of press, the restriction
imposed by the judiciary is not reasonable and the burden to justify prohibition lies on respondent.
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE I: WHETHER THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY ZING TV IS MAINTAINABLE

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION`?

It is humbly submitted that the Writ Petition No. 45 of 2017 filed by News Channel Indiana 24*7
on behalf of all leading media houses is maintainable under Article 32 of the Constitution of
Indiana (herein after referred as the Constitution).

[1.], It is contended that the petitioners have the locus standi

[2.], there is violation of fundamental right

[3.], Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to hear the present case

[4.].alternative remedy not a bar to maintainability

1. THE PETITIONER HAS THE LOCUS STANDI, THAT IS, AN ENFORCEABLE

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT MUST BE PRESENT

1.1.In order to have the Locus Standi, the person of body approaching must have enforceable
fundamental rights.1 The various freedoms under Article 19 of the constitution are necessary not
only to promote certain basic rights of the citizens but also certain democratic values in and the
oneness and unity of the country.

1.2.Generally, a person whose Fundamental Right is affected has standing to file a petition under
Article 32 of the Constitution. The petitioner, along with the media houses whom it is
representing in this case is aggrieved by the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court with respect to the
freedom of speech and expression promised under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

2. VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

2.1. Article 32 can be invoked only when there is an infringement of a Fundamental Right. The
violation of a Fundamental Right is the sine qua non for seeking enforcement of that right by the
Supreme Court.2 In the present case, the Supreme Court by restraining the print and electronic

1
State of Haryana v. RamKumar Mann, (1997) 3 SCC 321
2
Hindi Hitrashak Samiti v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 851
media from publishing Swami J.’s contemptuous statements and orders, seriously violated the
freedom of press/media, implicit in the freedom of expression guaranteed by the Constitution
under Article 19(1)(a).3

3. THE SUPREME COURT HAS THE JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE PRESENT MATTER

3.1. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 is an important and integral part of
the basic structure of the Constitution, as it provides effective remedy for the enforcement of the
Fundamental Rights if they are violated.4 The Supreme Court is laid with the responsibility to
protect and guarantee the Fundamental Rights and therefore, it cannot refuse to entertain
applications seeking protection against infringement of such rights.5

[3.1] judicial decisions are subject to fundamental rights

3.1.1. Supreme Court, cannot be allowed to breach fundamental right of people to whom they are
granted. Supreme Court held6 that: ‘.. any decision or order of the court which violates
fundamental rights shall be void and this court can correct its own error brought to its notice. A
judgment or order passed by this court will not be open to a writ of certiorari, but there should be
no hesitation in correcting an error in exercise of inherent powers.’

[3.2] Writ petition can be allowed against the impugned order

3.2.1. There have been instances7 where writ petition was filed against a Supreme Court order
and was entertained by it. The judiciary while exercising administrative powers is subjected to
the Fundamental Rights, but the position while adjudicating legal disputes is not settled till now.8
However, a progressive approach was adopted in Common Cause v. Union of India9 , wherein it

3
All citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression.
4
The Fertilizer Corporation Case, AIR 1981 SC 344
5
Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124
6
AIR 1988 SC 1531
7
Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India & Anr., (1998) 4 SCC 409
8
Prem Chand Garg v Excise Commissioner, U.P. 1963 Supp. (1) SCR 885
9
2015 (7) SCC 1
was observed that the judicial organ of the state is subject to similar guidelines as a legislature
and an executive, all three being integral parts of one state within Article 12 of the Constitution.
Therefore, some fundamental rights can be enforced against it.

3.2.2. A determination is no determination if it is contrary to the constitutional mandate of Art.

19.10 An order which infringes a fundamental freedom passed in violation of the audi alteram
partem rule is a ‘nullity’. 11 Further, the Supreme Court in Asit Kumar Kar v. State of West
Bengal & Ors.12, held that the precedent in Rupa Ashok Hurra case13 and other cases14 on similar
issue only stated that Article 32 of the Constitution cannot hold as invalid a judgment of the
Supreme Court by treating it as a nullity. However, these judgments do not say that the Apex
Court cannot pass a recall order when that order has been passed without hearing a party. In this
case, the Court treated the writ petition under Article 32 as a recall petition because the order was
passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the persons aggrieved thereby.15

3.2.3. In the present case, the Supreme Court issued the ‘gag order’ to the print and electronic
media in general. The generality of the order indicates that no specific media house(s) was the
party to the case and therefore was not heard. This amounts to breach of important principle of
natural justice - audi alteram partem.

3.2.4. There should be no hesitation in correcting an error in exercise of inherent jurisdiction if it

comes to the notice of the court,16 irrespective of the rules provided to permit the of petition. 17

4. ALTERNATIVE REMEDY NO BAR TO MAINTAINABILITY

4.1. Article 32 is in itself a Fundamental Right and therefore, the existence of an alternative
remedy is no bar to the Supreme Court entertaining a petition under Article 32 for the
enforcement of a Fundamental Right.18

10
Nawabkhan Abbaskhan v. The State Of Gujarat 1974 SCR (3) 427
11
Ajit Kumar Barat v. Secretary, Indian Tea Association & Ors, (2001) 5 SCC 42.
12
(2008) 17 SCC 491.
13
Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra & Anr. (2002) 4 SCC 388
14
Supra 10
15
See also All Bengal Licensees Association v. Raghabendra Singh & Ors., 2007 (11) SCC 374
16
Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1992) 1 SCC 225.
17
Supreme Court relied upon Issac’s case (1984) 3 All ER 140 in Para 111 of AR Antuley case
18
Daryo v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 1457
4.2.Also, the writ petition is filed in the present case on the ground that for the enforcement of a
Fundamental Right, a writ petition under Article 32 (which itself is a Fundamental Right) is a
best remedy. The Supreme Court in Lala Ram v. Supreme Court Of India & Ors.19, held that,
‘The main purpose of a ‘Review Petition’ under Article 137 of the Constitution is not to enforce
a fundamental right, but to reopen an order vitiated by an error on the face of the record or for
such other reasons. It may be that this is a consequence of reopening an order, but the application
itself, is not to enforce the fundamental right, and on the other hand, the main and the very
purpose of a ‘Writ Petition’ under Article 32 is to enforce a Fundamental Right.’

4.3.Further, the Supreme Court observed that while in a review petition the Court considers on
merits where there is an error apparent on the face of the record, in a writ petition which is
treated as a recall petition, the Court does not go into the merits but simply recalls an order
which was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to an affected party.20

4.4.Thus, petitioner in this case chose the best remedy available to secure to itself and to the
other media houses which it is representing, the freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) of
the Constitution.

ISSUE II WHETHER THE IMPUGNED SUPREME COURT ORDER VIOLATES

FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION OF THE PETITIONER?

It is humbly submitted that the impugned Supreme Court order violates the freedom of speech
and expression of the Petitioner and other media houses under Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution. It is contented that

[1.] Freedom of Press is an essential right to freedom of speech and expression under Article
19(1)(a) of the Constitution,

[2.] it is the duty of judiciary to protect freedom of press

19
1967 SCR (1) 14.
20
Ajit Kumar Barat v. Secretary, Indian Tea Association & Ors., (2001) 5 SCC 42.
[3.] the restriction imposed by the judiciary is not reasonable

[4.]. the burden to justify prohibition lies on respondent

1. FREEDOM OF PRESS IS AN ESSENTIAL RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND

EXPRESSION

1.1. It is now well settled law that in India, freedom of press is an intrinsic fundamental right
implied in the Freedom of speech and expression clause.21 The prime purpose for free press
guarantee is regarded as creating a 4th institution outside the government as an additional check
on the three official branches – executive, legislative and the judiciary.22 As per the decision in
Sakal Papers v. Union of India23 ,“... freedom of press is regarded as a species of which freedom
of expression is a genius. Thus, being only a right flowing from the freedom of speech, the
freedom of press in India stands at a pedestal of a fundamental right”.

2. DUTY OF JUDICIARY TO PROTECT FREEDOM OF PRESS

2.1. The purpose of press is to promote and advance public interest by publishing facts and
opinions without which a democratic mass of people cannot make an informed judgment. It is
the primary duty of the courts to uphold the freedom of press and invalidate any laws which
interferes with it contrary to constitutional mandate.24

2.2.Therefore the ban that has been imposed extensively curtails the ability of press to
disseminate complete information so as to enable an enlightened discussion on the issue which
the freedom of every single citizen of this country. It is humbly submitted that dissemination of
information facilitates right to know [2.1], Media is a means to disseminate essential information
[2.2].

[2.1] Dissemination of complete information facilitates “Right to Know”

21
Sakal papers v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 305; See also, Indian Express Newspaper (Bombay) P. Ltd. v. Union of
India,AIR 1986 515 at 527; Brij Bhushan v. Delhi, AIR 1950 SC 129; Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC
124; Printers (Mysore) Ltd. v. Assistant CTO (1994) 2 SCC 434
22
New York Times v. Sullivan 376 U.S. 254.
23
Supra Footnote
24
Indian Express Newspaper v. Union of India (1985) 1 SCC 641
2.1.1. The right to know, receive and impart information has been recognized within the right to
freedom of speech and expression.25 Right to know has some broad special purposes to serve:26
1) It helps to attain self-fulfillment. 2) It assists in the discovery of truth. 3) It strengthens the
capacity of an individual in participating in decision-making. 4) It provides a mechanism by
which it would be possible to establish a reasonable balance between stability and social change,
etc. To achieve all these objects it is important to secure every possible means of getting
information to enable people make an informed decision. In the present case, the blanket ban on
media shocks the conscience of this country.

[2.2] Media is a means to disseminate essential information

2.2.1.The freedom of speech and expression includes liberty to propagate not one’s views only
but also the views and opinions of others27. Therefore, the ban that has been imposed strikes at
the right to disseminate information related to the issue.

2.2.2.An analysis of cases28 reiterate that freedom of speech corresponds to freedom of press and
freedom of press lies rests on the presumption that widest possible dissemination of information
from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of people. Therefore, it is
submitted that in order to facilitate healthy public discussion, media has the right to publish the
statements and orders of Swami J..

3. RESTRICTION BY SUPREME COURT ORDER IS NOT REASONABLE 3.1.The

fundamental right provided under Article 19(1)(a) can be limited only by reasonable restrictions
under a law made for purpose mentioned in Article 19(2) of the Constitution.29 It is humbly
submitted that media Guidelines case30 was not followed [3.1].

[3.1] Media Guidelines case was not followed

25
State of U.P. v. Raj Narain 1975 SCR (3) 333
26
Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, 1973 AIR 106. ; Marsh v. Alabama (1945) 326 US 501
27
Srinivas v. State of Madras, AIR 1931 Mad 70
28
Bharti Press v. The Chief Secretary of Govt. of India, AIR 1951 Pat 12 relying on Romesh Thapar v. State of
Madras AIR 1960 SC 124 and Brij Mohan and Anr. v. State of Delhi AIR 1950 SC 129.; Abrams v. United States 250
US 616 (1919) refered to in Subramaniam v. Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 221
29
he Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal & Anr.,1995 SCC(2)161
30
(2012) 10 SCC 603.
3.1.1. The liberty of the press consists in laying no previous restraints upon publication.31 In
Sahara India Real Estate Corpn. Ltd. v. Securities and exchange Board of India32 popularly
known as the “Media Guidelines Case”, the Supreme Court carved out a specific exception to the
rule against prior restraint: i. It had inherent powers under the Constitution to prohibit, statements
being made in the media which would prejudice or obstruct or interfere with the administration
of justice in a given case pending in the Supreme Court or the HC or in the subordinate courts. ii.
It could only pass “postponement orders” (i.e., temporary stopping the media from reporting on a
particular event) in order to ensure a fair trial. iii. Given that the postponement orders curtail the
freedom of expression of third parties, such orders have to be passed only in cases in which there
is real and substantial risk of prejudice to fairness of the trial.

3.1.2. From the prima facie perusal of Media guidelines case33 , it is quite obvious that none of
these pre-conditions for imposing prior restraint are even remotely satisfied. i. There is no matter
sub-judice – by the same order in which it imposed the media blanket ban as the Court had
already convicted him of contempt. Consequently, the prospect of prejudicing an ongoing trial
and thereby interfering with the administration of justice – the basis of the judgment in Media
Guidelines case – does not exist. ii. It is not a temporary ban: The order is neither narrow in
scope, nor in its duration: it is, in the true sense of the word, a blanket gag order. Consequently,
the prohibitory order does not fall in line with the well established precedent in Media
Guidelines case.

31
Blackstone
32
AIR 2012 SC 3829
33
Supra