MULTI MOOT - JULY 2023

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF VALLUVANADU

IN MATTER OF

ABHAY…………………………………………………………………………PETITIONER

VERSUS

IRA and ORS ............................................................................................... RESPONDENTS

UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDICA

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
 MULTI MOOT - JULY 2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTENT PAGE NO
LIST OF ABBREVIATION 2
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 3-4
1. CASE LAWS REFERRED 3
2. LEGISLATIONS AND 3
REGULATIONS
3. BOOKS REFERRED 4
4. WEBSITES 4
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 5
STATEMENT OF FACTS 6
ISSUE RAISED 7
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 8
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 9 - 17
ISSUE 1 9-14
Whether Ira's actions have infringed upon
Abhay's Right to Reputation, Dignity, and
Personal Integrity, thereby affecting his Right to
Life as guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.?
ISSUE 2 15-17
Does the right to freedom of speech and
expression, as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a)
of the Constitution of India, encompass the
'Right not to Read'? Furthermore, can this right
be restricted when it clashes with an individual's
Right to Reputation and Dignity?

PRAYER 18

MEMORIAL OF PETITIONER
 MULTI MOOT - JULY 2023

LIST OF ABBREVIATION

N.G.O Non – Governmental Organisation

Hon’ble Honourable

HC High Court

SC Supreme Court

AIR All India Record

Art Article

NALSA National Legal Services Authority

& And

J Justice

I.e., That is

Ors Others

P Pages

r/w Read with

S.C.C Supreme court cases

S.C.R Supreme Court Reporter

u/s. Under section

V Versus

MEMORIAL OF PETITIONER
 MULTI MOOT - JULY 2023

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES REFERRED

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621
Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT and AIR 2001 HC 7455
others
Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
Francis Coralie Mullin v. The 1981 AIR 746, 1981 SCR (2) 516
Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India. 1984 AIR 802, 1984 SCR (2) 67
Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. 1982 AIR 1473, 1983 SCR (1) 456
Union of India
Chandra Raja Kumar v. Police 1998 (1) ALD 810, 1998 (1) ALD Cri 298,
Commissioner Hyderabad 1998 (1) ALT 329
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration & 1978 AIR 1675, 1979 SCR (1) 392
Others
Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India AIR 2017 SC 2728

D.F. Marion v. Minnie Davis 217 Ala 16.

State of Bihar v. Lal Krishna Advani (2003) 8 SCC 361
Smt. Kiran Bedi v. Committee of Inquiry 1988 AIR 2252, 1988 SCR Supl. (2) 518
Om Prakash Chautala V. Kanwar Bhan And AIR 2014 SC 1220
Others
National Legal Services Authority vs. AIR 2014 SC 1863
Union of India
M.S.M. Sharma v. Krishna Sinha 1959 AIR 395, 1959 SCR Supl. (1) 806
Sakal Papers v. Union of India 1962 AIR 305, 1962 SCR (3) 842

STATUTES REFERRED:

• ARTICLE 19 (1)(a) Freedom Of Speech And Expression

• ARTICLE 19(2) provides a reasonable restriction to ARTICLE 19(1)(a)
• ARTICLE 21 Protection of Life and Personal Liberty

MEMORIAL OF PETITIONER
 MULTI MOOT - JULY 2023

BOOKS REFERRED:

1. BARE ACT – CONSTITUTION OF INDICA EDITION 2023

2. CONSTITUTION LAW OF INDIA BY J N PANDEY

WEBSITES REFERRED

• https://indianlegalservices.com
• https://Indiankanoon.org
• www.casemine.com
• https://blog.ipleaders.in

MEMORIAL OF PETITIONER
 MULTI MOOT - JULY 2023

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The jurisdiction of this honourable Supreme Court of Indica has been humbly invoked under Article
226 of The Constitution of Indica, 1950
The counsel on behalf of the petitioner Abhay has filed petition under the jurisdiction of the
honourable High Court of Madras, in the matter of his right to reputation, dignity and personal
integrity being infringed by Ira, a news reporter of watchful. 1
The present memorial sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments

1
226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs
(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the territories in relation to
which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government,
within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus,
prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III
and for any other purpose
(2) The power conferred by 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 power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or
authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories
(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is
made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause ( 1 ), without
(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order;
and
(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of
such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the
counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date
on which it is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later,
or where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on
which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of
that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the aid next day, stand vacated
(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 OF PETITIONER
 MULTI MOOT - JULY 2023

STATEMENTS OF FACTS

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

NGOs, or non-governmental organisations, play a major role in international development, aid,

and philanthropy. NGOs are often non-profit and may run budgets of millions or up to billions
of dollars each year. NGOs rely on a variety of funding sources, from private donations and
membership dues to government grants. For example, NGOs might focus on activities in areas
involving health or health emergencies, education, infrastructure, advocacy of minority rights,
support of the poor, and the reduction of crime. Abhay is a social activist and Philanthropist
working for welfare for unprivileged children. He runs a well-known NGO named Abhayam
which provides education and healthcare services to marginalised communities.

CRUX OF THE CASE

Abhay, a social activist works for the marginalised community and runs a NGO named
Abhayam in the state of Valluvanadu of Union of Indica. Ira a news reporter works for
Watchful, a prominent news channel. She published a series of articles and aired news related
to misappropriation of funds by several NGOs which was meant for charitable causes.
After the spread of news and reach of mass public despite Abhay’s commitment and
transparency and accountability of his NGO, the financial supporters, fund raisers and the
members of marginalized community started to question the credibility of ABHAYAM.

APPROACHING JUDICIARY

Abhay filed a suit for the violation of his fundamental right under Article 21 for his protection
of Right to reputation, Right to dignity, Right to life and personal liberty which are guaranteed
under the Indian Constitution.

MEMORIAL OF PETITIONER
 MULTI MOOT - JULY 2023

ISSUES RAISED

1. WHETHER IRA’S ACTIONS HAVE INFRINGED UPON ABHAY'S RIGHT TO

REPUTATION, DIGNITY, AND PERSONAL INTEGRITY, THEREBY AFFECTING
HIS RIGHT TO LIFE AS GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA?

2. DOES THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION, AS

GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(A) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,
ENCOMPASS THE 'RIGHT NOT TO READ'? FURTHERMORE, CAN THIS RIGHT BE
RESTRICTED WHEN IT CLASHES WITH AN INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT TO
REPUTATION AND DIGNITY?

MEMORIAL OF PETITIONER
 MULTI MOOT - JULY 2023

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1

It is humbly submitted before the Honorable High Court of Valluvanadu, that the respondent
has infringed the right to dignity, right to reputation, and right to personal integrity of Mr.
Abhay’s under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

ISSUE 2

It is humbly submitted before the Honorable High Court of Valluvanadu that Freedom of
speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) is exercised neglecting the reasonable
restriction mentioned under the Article 19(2) of the Indian constitution. Right not to read is
respectively addressed as the publications made where of the publics right to read or to not
read and does not create any obligation on the readers or the publishers to force them to read
the publications which raised questions on the creditability of the NGO.

MEMORIAL OF PETITIONER
 MULTI MOOT - JULY 2023

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. WHETHER IRA’S ACTION HAVE INFRINGED UPON ABHAY’S RIGHT TO

REPUTATION, DIGNITY, AND PERSONAL INTEGRITY, THEREBY
AFFECTING HIS RIGHT TO LIFE AS GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 21 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA?

It is most humbly submitted that, in this instant case the petitioner Mr. Abhay has
encountered adverse repercussions, particularly from marginalised communities,
subsequent to the publication of an article authored by Ira from Watchful. Despite Mr.
Abhay having consistently demonstrated the authenticity and transparency of his work over
the years, doubts have arisen regarding his principles and integrity. This situation signifies
a breach of his fundamental rights to reputation, dignity, and personal integrity,
consequently impinging upon his right to life as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution.

1.1 THE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS THAT FOLLOW ARTICLE 21

1.1.1 THE RIGHT TO REPUTATION, HUMAN DIGNITY AND PERSONAL

INTEGRITY

1. It is most humbly submitted that, apart from what has been stated in the
constitution’s Article 21, Protection of life and personal liberty ; No person shall be
deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by
law. The right to life does not merely mean the continuance of a person's animal
existence, but a quality of life. 2 It means the fullest opportunity to develop one's
personality and potentiality to the highest level possible in the existing stage of our
civilisation. Inevitably, it means the right to live decently as a member of a civilised
society. This right implies a reasonable standard of comfort, decency and to live
with human dignity.3

2. It is most humbly submitted that the following cases stated and cited are
submissions concerning the judiciary’s precedents in the matter of how one’s
dignity is above another’s right to speech and expression, thereby in consonance
with the case of Abhay’s fundamental rights.

3. In the State of Maharashtra v. Public Concern for Governance Trust, held that

2
Kharak Singh vs The State Of U. P. & Others, 1963 AIR 1295, 1964 SCR (1) 332
3
Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India, 1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621
MEMORIAL OF PETITIONER
 MULTI MOOT - JULY 2023

a good reputation was an element of personal security and was protected by the
Constitution, equally with the right to the enjoyment of life, liberty and property.
The court affirmed that the right to enjoyment of a private reputation was of ancient
origin and was necessary to human society.

4. It is furthermore humbly submitted that, the Delhi High Court in the case of Swami
Ramdev vs Juggernaut Books Pvt Ltd & Ors 4 banned the publication and sale of
the book named “Godman to Tycoon: The Untold Story of Baba Ramdev”
observing that the right to reputation of an individual cannot be crucified at the
altar of somebody’s right to free speech. Harmonisation between both the rights has
to be made since no amount can redeem the loss suffered due to the adverse impact
on an individual’s reputation. It is most humbly submitted that, Man being a social
animal thrives on the fact that one's reputation and dignity go hand in hand for
making life worth living. The Supreme Court in Kiran Bedi & Ors vs Committee
Of Inquiry & Anr 5held that a good reputation was an element of personal
security and is protected by the Constitution under Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution. In Sukhwant Singh v. State of Punjab6 The Supreme Court
reiterated that the right to reputation is a person's valuable asset and is a facet of
his right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

5. It is most humbly submitted that in the Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay
v. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni 7wherein it was observed that right to
reputation is a facet of right to life of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution.
He has also referred to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
1965 (ICCPR), recognising the right to have opinions and the right of freedom of
expression subject to the right of reputation of others. The Covenant provides:

i. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

ii. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include
freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless
of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any
other media of his choice.

iii. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it
special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain

4
Swami Ramdev vs Juggernaut Books Pvt Ltd & Ors, 1989 AIR 714, 1989 SCR (1) 21
5
Kiran Bedi & Ors vs Committee Of Inquiry & Anr, 1989 AIR 714, 1989 SCR (1) 20
6
Sukhwant Singh v. State of Punjab, 1995 AIR 1380, 1995 SCC Supl. (2) 262
7
Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni, 1983 AIR 109, 1983 SCR (1) 828
MEMORIAL OF PETITIONER
 MULTI MOOT - JULY 2023

restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary

(a) for respect of the rights or reputations of others;

(b) for the protection of national security or of public order

"Therefore, it is most humbly submitted that these well-supported contentions are crucial in
uncovering the reasons why Mr. Abhay, despite his steadfast dedication to transparency
and authenticity in his NGO endeavours, is experiencing adverse consequences. This
situation leads to a violation of his fundamental rights to life and personal liberty,
attributable to the news aired and articles published by the era of Ms. Ira."

1.2 DEFAMATION BY MEDIA PUBLICATION HOUSES IN BREACH OF

ARTICLE 21.

6. It is humbly submitted to the honourable court, that Section 499 of the Indian Penal
Code 1860 deals with defamation of a company or collection of persons, reads as
follows;

It is humbly submitted that,“Whoever by words either spoken or intended to be read or by

signs or by visible representation makes or publishes any imputation concerning any
person intending to harm or knowing or having reasons to believe that such imputation will
harm, the reputation of such person, is said except in the case here in after expected to
defame that person”.

Explanation 1: it may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person, if

the imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be
hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives.

Explanation 2: It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company

or an association or collection of persons as such.

Explanation 3: An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may

amount to defamation.

Explanation 4: No imputation is said to ham a person's reputation, unless that imputation

directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character
of that person, or lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his
calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that
person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful.

Hence, It is humbly submitted that, the following submissions made in consonance to

defamation are the judicial precedents that substantiate Abhay’s indirect defamation by the
publications made therefore.
MEMORIAL OF PETITIONER
 MULTI MOOT - JULY 2023

7. Likewise, in the case of Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, Min. of Law

(2016)8

- Any person cannot, in the name of freedom of speech and expression, cannot defame
others, and hence, the Court held that, “it is difficult to come to a conclusion that the
existence of criminal defamation is absolutely obnoxious to freedom of speech and
expression”

- Furthermore, the Court stated, “protection of reputation is a fundamental right. It is

also a human right. Cumulatively, it serves the social interest. Thus, we are unable to
accept that provisions relating to criminal defamation are not saved by doctrine of
proportionality because it determines a limit which is not impermissible within the
criterion of reasonable restriction.

8. It is humbly submitted that, In the case of Mohammad Abdulla Khan v. Prakash

K9 (2018) The Supreme Court set aside the judgement of the High Court and
observed the following: “The extent of the applicability of the principle of vicarious
liability in criminal law particularly in the context of the offences relating to
defamation requires a serious examination in appropriate cases because the owner
of a newspaper employs people to print, publish and sell the newspaper for a
financial gain out of the said activity”.Hence It was made distinct in this case that
both owner and printer of the newspaper and the persons who offer to sell could be
liable for the offence of defamation under Section 501 of the Indian Penal Code.

9. It is humbly submitted that, In the case of S.N.M. Abdi vs Prafulla Kumar

Mohanta10, an article published in a newspaper allegedly defamed plaintiff has
been considered as libel by the Orissa High Court and it was said that the plaintiff is
entitled to get compensation from the defendant. Likewise in Nemchand vs
khemrajn11 it was held by Rajasthan High court that the publication is to be
considered defamation only when it decreases the reputation of someone before
other persons. Hence it is humbly submitted that the petitioner Mr. Abhay has been
defamed in as the preceding submissions have supported the same .

8
Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, Min. of Law (2016),
9
Mohammad Abdulla Khan v. Prakash K (2018),
10
S.N.M. Abdi vs Prafulla Kumar Mohanta (A.I.R. 2002 Orissa 75)
11
Nemchand vs khemrajn (Air 1973 raj. 200)
MEMORIAL OF PETITIONER
 MULTI MOOT - JULY 2023

ISSUE 2: DOES THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION, AS

GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(A) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,
ENCOMPASS THE 'RIGHT NOT TO READ'? FURTHERMORE, CAN THIS
RIGHT BE RESTRICTED WHEN IT CLASHES WITH AN INDIVIDUAL'S
RIGHT TO REPUTATION AND DIGNITY?

It is humbly submitted before the Honorable High Court of Valluvanadu that Freedom of
speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) is exercised neglecting the reasonable
restriction mentioned under the Article 19(2) of the Indian constitution. Right not to read is
respectively addressed as the publications made where of the publics right to read or to not
read and does not create any obligation on the readers or the publishers to force them to
read the publications which raised questions on the creditability of the NGO.

2.1 IRA’S RIGHT TO SPEECH AND EXPRESSION ARE NOT ABSOLUTE

10. It is humbly submitted that, The article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India states
that, "all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression". The
philosophy behind this Article lies in the Preamble of the Constitution, where a
solemn resolve is made to secure to all its citizens, liberty of thought and
expression. The exercise of this right is, however, subject to "reasonable
restrictions" for certain purposes being imposed under Article 19(2) of the
Constitution of India.

11. It is most humbly submitted that , Article 19 (2) states that nothing in sub clause (a)
of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from
making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the
exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause in the interests of the
sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with
foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court,
defamation or incitement to an offence.

12. It is most humbly submitted that the following contentions and cases cited are in
consonance with how the right of Ira of speech and expression is not an absolute
right and is subjected to reasonable restrictions. In the case of State v. Charulata
Joshi12, the Supreme Court held that "the constitutional right to freedom of speech

12
State v. Charulata Joshi, (1999) 4 SCC 65
MEMORIAL OF PETITIONER
 MULTI MOOT - JULY 2023

and expression conferred by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution which includes the
freedom of the press is not an absolute right.

13. It is humbly submitted that, In the case of Sunaina Holey Vs State Of

Maharashtra13The Bombay High Court on Friday said freedom of speech and
expression under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution is not an absolute right, and
directed State not to take coercive steps against her for making derogatory
comments on Twitter against Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray and his son and
Cabinet Minister Aditya Thackeray.

14. Hence it is most humbly submitted that when the right to life and personal liberty is
questioned nobody’s given the absolute right to use their speech and expression
right to impute another be it for any cause.

2.1 WILL RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION ENCOMPASS

“THE RIGHT NOT TO READ”

15. It is humbly submitted that The "right not to read" is not a specific legal or
constitutional right but rather a concept associated with the broader principles of
freedom of expression and individual autonomy. It refers to an individual's freedom
to choose not to read, view, or engage with particular content or information. This
concept is closely related to the idea that individuals have the right to make choices
about the information they access and consume.In the context of freedom of
expression and information, the "right not to read" emphasises that individuals are
not compelled to read or listen to specific content or viewpoints if they choose not
to. It acknowledges that people have the autonomy to decide what they wish to
engage with and what they prefer to ignore or avoid.In this case it is articulated in a
way where the publications made do not need to be read by every public eye.

16. The contention made here is that media the fourth pillar of democracy plays a vital
role in circulating information and likewise in this case implemented apprehension
in the minds of the marginalised communities, hence creating a collective
derogatory effect on the NGO.

17. the Noida Double Murder case14 (2008) is an example of the media’s exceeding
bounds. The murder of Aarushi Talwar and Hemraj Banjade aroused a lot of
interest from the public as the girl’s parents were accused of double murder. The
case was riddled with speculations and rumours, and the media left no stone

13
Sunaina Holey Vs State Of Maharashtra
14
Dr. (Smt.) Nupur Talwar vs State Of U.P. And Anr.
MEMORIAL OF PETITIONER
 MULTI MOOT - JULY 2023

unturned in using it to their advantage.

18. Hence, it is humbly submitted that the right not to read even though not an
exclusive part of article 19(1)(a), implies that it might not be of compulsion to read
or to not read the publications made by Ira but the power exhibited by media as
mentioned in the previous submission creates wide spread havoc especially when it
comes to sensitive topics like defamation and misappropriation of funds for people
believing in NGOs. This reiterates a taint on those non governmental organisations
that operate with full authenticity.

MEMORIAL OF PETITIONER
 MULTI MOOT - JULY 2023

PRAYER

WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND

AUTHORITIES CITED, IT IS HUMBLY REQUESTED THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY
BE PLEASED:

1. To provide compensation for the damage in reputation caused to Abhay

2. To hold that the respondent violated the right to reputation, dignity and personal integrity
of the petitioner.
3. To hold that the respondents impugned the reputation of Mr.Abhay hence defaming him.

AND/OR

ANY OTHER ORDER AS IT DEEMS FIT IN THE INTEREST OF EQUITY, JUSTICE AND
GOOD CONSCIENCE. FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE APPELLANT SHALL BE DUTY
BOUND FOREVER.

MEMORIAL OF PETITIONER