MOOT COURT EXECRISE AND INTERNSHIP

Shri Shivaji Maratha Law College

425, Sathe Colony, Shukrawar Peth, Pune, Maharashtra - 411002.

Mr. Joe Zee

ROLL NO: 76, LLB-3, SEM – VI

PRACTICAL TRAINING PAPER IV – MOOT

COURT EXECRISE AND INTERNSHIP

INDEX

Page 1 of 11
 MOOT COURT EXECRISE AND INTERNSHIP

INTRODUCTION 3
MOOT COURT - I 4
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 4
STATEMENT OF FACTS 5-6
ISSUES 7
SUMMARY ARGUMENTS 7-11
PRAYER 11

Introduction:

Page 2 of 11
 MOOT COURT EXECRISE AND INTERNSHIP

Participants take part in simulated court or arbitration proceedings, usually involving

drafting memorials or memoranda and participating in oral argument. In many countries,
the phrase "moot court" may be shortened to simply "moot" or "mooting".

It is an artificial Court which is especially made for the lawful students to have the practical
knowledge of drafting, pleading and conveyance. In the moot court an artificial problem was
given to the students for which they have to prepare their arguments and present it before
an expert.

The participation in moot Courts develops among the students the ability to identify legal
issues, accumulate legal material, prepare arguments, plaints, framing issues, citing
reference, marking documents, examination and cross-examination (in theoretical aspect),
presentation skills, Court etiquettes, and so on.

Moot courts are mock courts in which fictitious cases are heard to train law students. This
set-up creates a real-life experience of an actual court proceeding. In 14th century England,
it was common to witness moot court in the Inns of Courts and Chancery.

The first-ever moot court recorded in the world was in the year 1997. It was a common
feature of “Inns of Courts and Chancery” in the fourteenth century. The focus was not only
to understand the law but also the culture, art, and other essentials presiding in human life.

MOOT COURT - I

Page 3 of 11
 MOOT COURT EXECRISE AND INTERNSHIP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL WRIT JURISDICTION WRIT

PETITION (CRL.) NO. A238 OF 20220.

IN THE MATTER OF:

MR. ROHAN …….. PETITIONER

Versus

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA …….. RESPONDANT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY EXERCISES JURISDICTION TO

HEAD AND ADJUDICATE OVER THE MATTER UNDER ARTICLE 226 (1) OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950.

ARTICLE 226(1) of the Constitution of India, 1950 reads as:

ARTICLE 226 – POWER OF HCs TO ISSUE CERTAIN WRITS (1) Not withstanding anything in
Article 32, every HC shall have powers, throughout the territories in relation to which it
exercise jurisdiction, to issue any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any
Govt., 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 purposes.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Page 4 of 11
 MOOT COURT EXECRISE AND INTERNSHIP

1. Mr. Rohan was prosecuted and convicted for culpable homicide amounting to murder of
Ms.Surahi, the daughter of a well-known political leader Mr. Kodi. KAB, a media channel
owned BK Corporation has prepared a special report and heightened the issues, pieces of
evidence, problems in investigation and pointed the possibility of corruption by investigating
officer.

2. The Session and District Court suo-moto ordered a fresh investigation and asked
for evidences (special report and other footage) pointed out by the KAB television channel.
The investigator unwillingly collected some of the evidences ordered by the court. Based on
the report, the court ordered the municipal corporation to produce CCTV footage. The judge
also visited the location of the murder in order to find out the probable evidences. The court
in its judgment highly relied upon the evidences ordered and CCTV footage
independently submitted by the municipal corporation.

3. The CCTV footage was not scrutinized by either of parties and therefore, there was no
argument with respect to the validity of CCTV footage. KBA channel in its reported that
Mr.Kompraj, the owner of the tea stall was present at the time of the murder.
However, the prosecutor did not call him as a prosecution witness. The judge suo moto
called Mr. Kompraj and recorded his statement. In a press conference, Mr. Romul, a leader
of the opposition made the statement that Mr. Kodi is known for managing the press in
order to get favor in election campaigns and must have used the same strategy in this case.

4. With a private television channel, Mr. Rohan pointed out that the case shall not be
discussed by the media when the matter is sub judice. He said it may change the perception
of the judge and the judge may be biased and there is no scrutiny about the
truthfulness of the media report since it is not verified by any independent and reliable
authority. The media has a tendency to reproduce the facts and issues with added flavour in
order to get TRP. Therefore, it is completely unreliable. Mr. Rohan alleged that the court
relied upon an unauthentic report of the media.

5. Further, the court has given undue weightage to the evidences ordered by the court while
arriving at a conclusion. Mr. Rohan had alleged that the court acted on media trial and
ordered production of evidences and called for independent eye witness and this type of
initiative by the court is against basic tenets of the common law system. The report was
uploaded on YouTube and it was opened by the judge involved in the case on his computer.

6. Mr. Kodi made the statement in his public speech that the court is empowered to take
these actions under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The CEO of BK media said that
“transparency, good governance and justice are the basic tenets of the rule of law.
Promotion of democratization and the objectives of the Constitution are pre-conditions of
the rule of law. In a democratic state, it’s an inherent compulsion of media to act in
furtherance with democratization and objectives of the Constitution.”

7. Mr. Rohan filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the Bombay High Court.

Page 5 of 11
 MOOT COURT EXECRISE AND INTERNSHIP

ISSUES:

1. Are there limitations on media trial when case/matter is sub judice?

Page 6 of 11
 MOOT COURT EXECRISE AND INTERNSHIP

2. Are suo-moto actions and activism by a judge in the present case against basic tenets of
the common law system and the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973?

3. Is judgment in the absence of argument on evidences valid?

SUMMARY ARGUMENTS:

ISSUE 1:

It is contented on behalf of the petitioners that there are limitations on media trial when a
case or matter is Sub judice. Sub-judice intends to protect a person from multiplicity of
proceedings and to avoid conflict of decisions. In the present case when the matter at
hand is sub judice, the media must not interfere and discuss the facts, issues and
evidences on a public platform where in it hampers the judgment. Firstly, the interference
of the media when a matter is sub judice is a violation of the principles of Natural justice. A
trial primarily aimed at ascertaining truth has to be fair to all concerned which includes the
accused, the victims and society at large. Under the Indian Constitution the right to get a fair
trial is a basic fundamental/human right.The accused has a right to defend himself as a part
of his human as also fundamental right as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India.

Further, the basic principle of the right to a fair trial is that proceedings in any criminal case
are to be conducted by a competent, independent and impartial court. In the present case,
the involvement of KAB Television Channel wherein it prepared a special report and
heightened the issues, pieces of evidence, problems in investigation, etc4 has been
considered strong evidence by the Session and District Court. This clearly depicts the
involvement of media in the trial procedure and has influenced the discernment of the
Judges. The veracity and truthfulness of the media report is also very questionable
considering it is not verified by any independent and reliable authority. The media also
has a tendency to reproduce the facts and issues with added flavour in order to get higher
TRP. Therefore, it is completely unreliable and hence the court must not reply upon an
unauthentic report.

In the case of Vijay Singhal and Ors. vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and
Anr., 2013 5, it was held by the Court that the trials’ objective is to meet the ends of
justice, and if, there is a competition in order to meet that end between the right to
freedom of expression against the right to a free trial, the right to free trial would trump
upon the right to freedom of expression. Hence, there is a clear limitation on media trial in
the present case.

Whether the media trial involved in the present case amounts to Contempt of Court under
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971?

Page 7 of 11
 MOOT COURT EXECRISE AND INTERNSHIP

It is contended by the counsel on behalf of the Petitioners that the media trial conducted by
KAB channel (owned by BK Media Corporation) amounts to Contempt under section 3
of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. As per section 3(1) of the Act6, a person shall be
guilty of contempt of court on the ground that he has published any matter which
interferes or obstructs with the course of justice in connection with a criminal proceeding
knowing that the proceeding is still pending. The intention behind S. 3 is that in the event
of the public being swayed by the stance of the media on a particular case, their belief on
the judiciary reduces drastically and hence in such cases, a situation of contempt arises. The
media, through these trials tends to sway public opinion to showcase one side of the
story and make it seem that one set of people are the perpetrators. In the
decision of In Re: PC Sen7, the Supreme Court held that the effect of the publication on
justice should be given precedence over the intention of the publication. It is contended
that even though the intention of the media corporation is honest, the media trial shall
affect the adjudication of the judge while the trial is still pending.

In the present case the intrusion of KAB channel wherein it produced/published

several media reports and pieces of evidence while the matter at hand was sub-judice.
Therefore, it clearly violates the Contempt of Courts Act and hence it is a limitation on the
media trial conducted in this case.

ISSUE 2:

2. Are suo-moto actions and activism by a judge in the present case against the basic tenets
of common law system and CrPC?

It is contended that the suo -moto actions and activism by the judge in the present
case were against the basic tenets of common law system and CrPC. As per section 4 of
CrPC8, the basic principle of fair trial mentions a trial in which bias or prejudice for or
against the accused; witnesses or the cause which is being tried is eliminated.

In Sushil Sharma v. The State (Delhi Administration) and Ors.10, 1996, the Delhi High Court
held that no conviction will be based upon the media report but upon the facts that have
been placed on record. It is supposed that the Judge dealing with the case should be
neutral. If the decision is based upon the accepted news items, the petitioner will insist
upon denial of a fair trial because it would cause aspiration on the Judge of being not
neutral. Even if there is less report or no report available, the charge should be framed on
the basis of material available on record. The Media is expected to bring matters in the view
of the society, and not to pass judgement on the guilt and innocence of persons.
However, most people would agree that the Media often tends to overstep the
principles of innocent until proven guilty and proving beyond reasonable doubt and they
give their judgement in matters which are sub judice and those which must be decided by
the Courts.

Page 8 of 11
 MOOT COURT EXECRISE AND INTERNSHIP

In Saibal Kumar Gupta and Ors. v. B.K. Sen and Anr.11, 1961, the Supreme Court held,
there’s no doubt that it would be mischievous for a newspaper to intrude into a crime and
execute an independent investigation for which the accused or suspect has been arrested
and then to publish the outcomes of that investigation. This is mischievous because when
there is an ongoing trial by one of the regular tribunals of the country then trial by
newspapers must be prohibited. This is based upon the view that such action by the
newspaper of doing an investigation tends to interfere with the course of justice. There
is interference by the media in the role of the judiciary in most of the cases instead of just
stating the case facts. The underlying foundation of the judicial system has been eaten by
the termite of corruption in the largest democratic set-up. Unethical steps are followed
by the litigants in order to save the accused from conviction through bribing the public
authorities to distort the evidence, pressurize the defence to withdraw the case, etc. Due to
this enormous institutional imbalance, there has been pre-emptive media coverage of
criminal trials.

Media has been successful in making a prejudicial stance in the minds of the public by their
sensational style of journalism. Even Judges come within the purview of criticism which can
either be on their judicial conductor conduct in a purely private capacity. But it becomes a
matter of concern when the criticism about the Judges is ill-informed or entirely not on the
foundation which may have a tendency to undermine the faith of the people in the
judiciary. A Judge has to protect himself from such media pressure which can
‘unconsciously’ influence the juries or the judges and as human beings, the judges
are prone at least subconsciously or unconsciously to such indirect influences. In the
case of State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi12, 1997, the Supreme Court
held that a trial by electronic media, press or by way of public agitation is anti-thesis to the
rule of law and can lead to a miscarriage of justice. Article 21 of the Constitution of India
guarantees the right to a fair trial as it has been considered to be part of the right to life and
liberty. In A.R. Autulay v. Nayak13, the Supreme Court observed that the Constitution must
provide a procedure which is fair, reasonable and just14. The criminal justice system sticks
to the ‘presumption of innocence’ that is, unless proven guilty, a person is presumed to be
innocent by the competent court.

Interference or prejudice with the judicial process: This prerequisite owes its origin to the
principle of natural justice. Every accused has the right to a free trial which is clubbed with
the principle of ‘Justice may not only be done it must also seem to be done’. In multiple
ways, attempts are made in order to prejudice a trial. If such cases where prejudice takes
place, are permitted to be successful then the result will be that most of the people
will be convicted of offences which they have never committed. Contempt of court has
been initiated to curb such unfair and unjust trials. Any publication of news that is
circulated with an intention to poison the minds of the accused, witnesses, or the jurors or
to create such an atmosphere where the administration of justice would become difficult or
impossible, amounts to contempt. Contempt of Court also includes commenting

Page 9 of 11
 MOOT COURT EXECRISE AND INTERNSHIP

on the pending cases or abuse of party only when a case is tribal by a judge. No right
lies with the media to play the role of an investigator, in any case, to try to prejudice the
court.

Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the suo moto actions and activism by a judge shows
that he had a bias towards the accused and was influenced by the media reports. Such a
behaviour proves the violation of the right to have a fair trial and the interference of media
in the judicial process.

ISSUE 3:

Is judgment in the absence of argument on evidences valid?

It is contended that a judgment in the absence of argument on evidences is not valid.(1) The
credibility of the evidences and the witness produced was not established. It is contended
before this Hon’ble court that the credibility of the witness and evidences on which
the Session and District Court heavily relied upon was never established. Witness is not
permitted to deliver a speech to the court but is meant only to answer the questions asked
by the legal representatives of the parties. The court cannot just rely upon the
statements of the witnesses and the evidences produced; the court has to be a neutral
party and it cannot get influenced by the media reports.15 However in the present case,
the inferior court got influenced by the media reports and even called upon
independent witness and ordered evidences which were not found during the
investigation. Mr. Kompraj, who was allegedly present at the time of the incident was never
examined by either of the parties after his statement was recorded; even the CCTV footage
was not scrutinized by either of the parties16 leaving the doubt that it might be fabricated.
Their credibility could only be established through their examination which is missing in the
present case.

The non-adherence of Section 207 of Cr.PC violates the petitioner’s Rights to a fair
trial enshrined in article 21 of the Indian Constitution: It is humbly contended that the
Lower courts’ incompliance of Section 207 robs the petitioner of his fundamental right of a
fair trial and it is prayed that such decree of the lower is quashed. Under Section 207, it is
stated that the copies of relevant documents are to be furnished to the accused. The
Magistrate shall furnish various documents to the accused which include the
statements recorded under sections 200 and 202 examined by the Magistrate, statements
under Section 161 recorded by the police agency as also statements and confessions, if any,
without the provision of documents, any accused will be unable to defend himself, and any
trial conducted in violation of S.207 Cr.P.C will be unfair. It was held that in the case of
Roopesh v. State Rep.17 , that the magistrate has no discretion in the matter of document
supply under Section 207(v) Cr.P.C. -And as such, the failure to furnish to the accused by the
prosecution at the pre-charge stage all documents gathered during investigation will be a
violation of the right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. It is thus

Page 10 of 11
 MOOT COURT EXECRISE AND INTERNSHIP

submitted that the decree of the lower court ought to be quashed as the Section 207 of the
Cr.P.C was contravened and thus, if allowed to stand, irreparable damage would be caused
to the petitioner and his family.

Therefore, it is contended before this Hon’ble Court that neither the eye witness nor the
CCTV footage was examined by the parties which was an essential for the just
decision of the case. Thus, the judgment is unjust and shall be struck down.

Prayer

In light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this Hon’ble
Court be pleased to:

a) Declare that there are limitations on media trial when the case is sub-judice.
b) Declare that the suo moto actions and activism by the judge in the present case is
against the basic tenants of the common law system and the Criminal Procedure
Code.
c) Issue directions to declare the judgment passed by the District court to be set aside.

AND/OR PASS

ANY OTHER ORDER, DIRECTION OR RELIEF THAT IT DEEMS FIT IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE
PETITIONER SHALL DUTY BOUND FOREVER PRAY.

Filed by

Sagar Bhosale
Advocate for the Petitioner
Mumbai
10th March 2022

Page 11 of 11