Team Code: 14R

DR. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW

NAVITAS, 2020

Before

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDICA

FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDICA

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:

THE PETITIONER TRUTH’S GOSPEL

Versus

THE RESPONDENT UNION OF INDICA

MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT

 NAVITAS, 2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................... I

Index of Authorities ................................................................................................................. III

Index of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................. V

Statement of Jurisdiction......................................................................................................... VI

Statement of Facts .................................................................................................................. VII

Issues Raised ......................................................................................................................... VIII

Summary of Arguments .......................................................................................................... IX

Arguments Advanced................................................................................................................. 1

I. THE PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDICA ............................................................................................. 1

[1.1] THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ............................... 1

[1.2] THE PETITIONER HAS NOT EXHAUSTED ALTERNATIVE REMEDIES ...... 2

II. THE DIRECTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDICA IS NOT IN VIOLATION

OF ARTICLE 19 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDICA ................................................. 3

[2.1] THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE GOVERNMENT ARE REASONABLE .... 3

2.1.1 The Government’s Direction follows the Directive Principles of State Policy .... 4

2.1.2 The freedom is itself not absolute and can be restricted ....................................... 4

[2.2] THE DIRECTION GIVEN IS IN THE INTEREST OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC

............................................................................................................................................ 5

2.2.1 There was a threat to public order......................................................................... 5

2.2.2 Article tended to defame a person ........................................................................ 6

PAGE | I
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT TABLE OF CONTENTS
 NAVITAS, 2020

2.2.3 There was an urgency and demand for immediate action..................................... 6

III. THE CONTENT PUBLISHED IN THE TRUTH’S GOSPEL IS DEFAMATORY

UNDER THE TORT LAW ................................................................................................... 7

[3.1] THERE LIES A CAUSE OF ACTION BY THE SIDE OF THE GOVERNMENT7

[3.2] THE DEFENCES FOR DEFAMATION DO NOT WORK IN THE PRESENT

CASE ................................................................................................................................. 8

3.2.1 Truth as a defence fails ......................................................................................... 8

3.2.2 Taking the defence of public interest also cannot work ....................................... 9

3.2.3 The defence of fair comment also fails ................................................................. 9

Prayer for Relief ....................................................................................................................... 11

PAGE | II
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT TABLE OF CONTENTS
 NAVITAS, 2020

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Indian Cases

Abhudhya Sanstha v Union of India 2011 6 SCC 145 ............................................................... 2

Assam Sanmilitia Mahasangh v Union of India 2015 3 SCC 1 ................................................. 1

Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India 1984 3 SCC 161 ...................................................... 1

Chintamanrao v State of M.P 1952 SCR 759 ............................................................................ 5

Confederation of All Nagaland State Services Employees' Assn v State of Nagaland 2006 1
SCC 49 ................................................................................................................................... 2

Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2010 2 SCC 114 ............................................................ 2

Dwarka Prasad v state of U.P 1954 SCR 803 ........................................................................... 5

Gopalan v State of Madras 1950 SCR 88.................................................................................. 5

In re: Harijai Singh AIR 1997 SC 73 ........................................................................................ 4

John Thomas v Dr. K. Jagadeesan AIR 2001 SC 2651............................................................. 7

K.D. Sharma v SAIL 2008 12 SCC 481 ..................................................................................... 2

M.R.F. Ltd v Inspector Kerala Govt AIR 1999 SC 188 ............................................................ 4

R.K. Karanjia v Thackersey AIR 1970 Bom 424 .................................................................... 10

Rabindranath Bose v Union of India 1970 1 SCC 84 ................................................................ 1

Radheshyam Tiwari v Eknath AIR 1985 Bom 285 .............................................................. 8, 10

Rashid Ahmed v Municipal Board Kairana AIR 1950 SC 163 ................................................. 2

S.N.M. Abdi v Prafulla Kumar Mahanta AIR 2002 Gau 75 ...................................................... 8

Salena Dandasi v Gajjala Malla Reddy 2007 SCC OnLine AP 1021 ....................................... 9

PAGE | III
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
 NAVITAS, 2020

Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting v Cricket Association of Bengal AIR 1995
SC 1236.................................................................................................................................. 6

State of Maharashtra v Himmatbhai AIR 1970 SC 1157 .......................................................... 5

Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar 1991 1 SCC 598 .................................................................... 1

Sunil Poddar v Union Bank of India 2008 2 SCC 326 .............................................................. 2

Tilokchand Motichand v H.B. Munshi 1969 1 SCC 110............................................................ 1

Virendra v State of Punjab AIR 1958 SC 986 ........................................................................... 4

Foreign Cases

Adam v Ward [1917] 327 AC 309 ........................................................................................... 10

Berkoff v Burchill [1996] 4 All ER 1008 ................................................................................... 7

Hunt v Star Newspapers Co Ltd (1908) 2 KB 309 .................................................................. 10

Lochner v New York (1904) 198 US 45 ..................................................................................... 6

Lucas-Box v News Group Newspapers Ltd [1986] 1 All ER 177 .............................................. 9

Merivale v Carson (1888) 52 JP 261 ....................................................................................... 10

Nevill v Fine Arts and General Insurance Co [1895-9] All ER 164 ....................................... 10

R. v Kensington IT Commissioner 1917 1 KB 486 .................................................................... 2

Simpson v Robinson (1848) 12 QB 511 ................................................................................... 10

Books

Dr. D.D Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India (20th edn, LexisNexis, 2011) 101. .... 3

E Peel & J Goudkamp, Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort (19th edn, Sweet & Maxwell, 2014)
1039........................................................................................................................................ 7

E Peel & J Goudkamp, Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort (19th edn, Sweet & Maxwell, 2014)
1058........................................................................................................................................ 9
PAGE | IV
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
 NAVITAS, 2020

INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS FULL FORM

Hon’ble Honourable

Art. Article

Edn Edition

AIR All India Reporter

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Reports

Pvt Private

Ltd Limited

CO Company

Govt. Government

Gau Gauhati

Bom Bombay

AP Andhra Pradesh

US United States

AC Appeal Cases

Sol Jo Solicitor’s Journal

JP Justice of the Peace

QB Queen’s Bench

L Ed Lawyer’s Edition

LJKB Law Journal, King’s Bench

EWHC England and Wales High Court

ALL ER All England Law Reports

WLR Weekly Law Reports

PAGE | V
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS
 NAVITAS, 2020

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Union of Indica, the Respondent has the honour to submit before The Hon'ble

Supreme Court of Indica, the Memorandum for the Respondent under Article 32 of the

Constitution of Indica, 1950.

The Constitution of Indica, 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 clauses (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.’

The present memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments in the present

case.

PAGE | VI
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
 NAVITAS, 2020

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Truth’s Gospel is an English satirical weekly magazine that features cartoons, reports,

polemics, and jokes. Mr. Arnav is the Editor-in-chief of the Magazine. He was once a

member of the Alliance Party of Indica [Hereinafter, API], which is the ruling party of

Indica and the state of United Province. Mr. Arnav was also once a close ally of the present

Chief Minister of United Province, Mr. Moga. However, they drifted apart, and now Mr.

Arnav always seeks to level the score with Mr. Moga as he believes that he was cashed out

from the API by Mr. Moga because they had some personal verbal scuffle. In the past, the

magazine came under scrutiny when it had launched a vicious attack on the prevalent caste

hierarchy in Indica and had gone to the extent of urging the downtrodden to raise arms

against the establishment.

2. Indica has three major religions, namely Hindutva, Chilese and Grecian. On 02.11.2020, to

raise awareness about the rights of same-sex couples to enter into holy union, the magazine

published a cartoon that instilled a lot of anger in the followers of Chilese and the Grecians.

Meanwhile, the Magazine was also covering the elections in the United Province. In its

weekly dated 09.11.2020 published a post on Mr. Moga, which felt quite defamatory and

angered the supporters of the API. Along with the two faiths' followers, they started to

protest in a very proactive manner. They demanded the withdrawal of the column

commenting on Mr. Moga and an apology letter. Truth’s Gospel refused to do the same.

The Government of Indica was already under immense pressure due to the “content”

published and therefore directed the magazine to withdraw it. The Magazine, in its

statement, stated that the direction of the Government is in violation of the fundamental

right of speech and expression, which is enshrined in the Constitution of Indica, and filed

a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of Indica.

PAGE | VII
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT STATEMENT OF FACTS
 NAVITAS, 2020

ISSUES RAISED

I. Whether the petition filed under Article 32 is maintainable?

II. Whether the direction of the Government of Indica is in violation of Article 19 of the

Constitution of Indica?

III. Whether the content published in the Truth’s Gospel is defamatory under the tort law?

PAGE | VIII
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT ISSUES RAISED
 NAVITAS, 2020

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. THE PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDICA.

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Supreme Court that the present petition filed

before the bench is not maintainable on the grounds that the Petitioner does not have the

requisite locus standi as there was no infringement of the fundamental rights contrary to the

claims of the Petitioner. The directions of the Government of Indica are reasonable restrictions

to Article 19 of the constitution and upholds the fundamental rights of the society as a whole.

Also, the Petitioner has not exhausted other alternative remedies. Therefore, the petition is not

maintainable under Article 32 of the Constitution of Indica.

II. THE DIRECTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDICA IS NOT IN

VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 19 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDICA.

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Supreme Court that Freedom of speech and

expression & of trade and profession are fundamental rights guaranteed under Art 19(1)(a) and

19(1)(g) of the Constitution of Indica. Due to the publication of the cartoon dated 02.11.2020

and the article dated 09.11.2020 in the magazine, there was immense outrage in the public.

They began resorting to protest in a very aggressive manner, and the situation got so much

worse that the armed forces had to be called up. The fundamental rights under Article 19 are

not absolute: they are subject to reasonable restrictions that may be imposed by the state in the

interest of the general public. Hence, the restrictions do not violate Article 19 of the

Constitution of Indica.

PAGE | IX
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
 NAVITAS, 2020

III. THE CONTENT PUBLISHED IN THE TRUTH’S GOSPEL IS

DEFAMATORY UNDER THE TORT LAW.

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Supreme Court that the “Content” published

in the Truth’s Gospel is defamatory under the Tort law. The essentials including (a) the words

must be defamatory, (b) the defamatory words should directly or indirectly refer to the person

defamed, and (c) publication of the words by any medium should take place, are fulfilled. There

lies a cause of action by the government's side as the defamation of the C.M, Mr. Moga also

harms the image of the party as he is their representative. The defences for defamation include

Truth, Fair Comment and Privilege, which may be either absolute or qualified. Here, the

Content that was published does no justification to the facts of the case, and the defence of fair

comment was also shown to be weak in the present case. Further, taking the defence of public

interest also cannot work. Hence, the Content published in Truth’s Gospel was defamatory

under the Tort law.

PAGE | X
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
 NAVITAS, 2020

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. THE PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDICA

It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the present petition filed before

the bench is not maintainable. The maintainability of a petition under Article 32 of the

Constitution of Indica1 depends on the facts of each case.2 The question as to when the Supreme

Court should entertain the claim depends on the nature of the fundamental right alleged to have

been infringed and the remedy claimed.3 In the present case, the petition is not maintainable on

the grounds that there is no infringement of Fundamental Rights. [1.1] and the Petitioner has

not exhausted Alternative Remedies [1.2].

[1.1] THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

It is submitted that the instant case does not warrant an Article 32 petition since there is no

legitimate cause of action for the petitioners to move this Hon'ble Court. A petitioner whose

fundamental right has been violated or threatened to be violated has a locus standi under Art.

32.4 Now, as there is no violation, there is no locus standi for the party.5

Article 32(1) confers upon individuals the right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate

proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed. In the instant

case, there are no violations of fundamental rights contrary to the petitioners' claims. What all

steps, the direction of the government told the magazine to follow comes under the protection

of reasonable restriction.

1
Constitution of Indica is in pari materia with the Constitution of India.
2
Assam Sanmilitia Mahasangh v Union of India 2015 3 SCC 1; Tilokchand Motichand v H.B. Munshi 1969 1
SCC 110.
3
Tilokchand Motichand v H.B. Munshi 1969 1 SCC 110; Rabindranath Bose v Union of India 1970 1 SCC 84.
4
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union of India 1984 3 SCC 161.
5
Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar 1991 1 SCC 598.
PAGE | 1
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 NAVITAS, 2020

There are two lines of contention humbly submitted by the Respondent in resonance with this

sub-issue:

1) That the direction was in the interest of the general public; and

2) Such direction does not violate any statute or rule of the constitution.

Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to move this Hon'ble Court, and the petition is liable to

be set aside on the grounds that the petition is not maintainable as there is no cause of action

as mentioned above.

[1.2] THE PETITIONER HAS NOT EXHAUSTED ALTERNATIVE REMEDIES

The power to grant writs under Article 32 is a discretionary power vested in the hands of this

Hon'ble Court.6 It is a well-settled proposition of law that the existence of an adequate

alternative remedy is a factor taken into consideration in a writ petition.7

The same has been upheld in a plethora of judgments rendered by this Hon'ble Court. In the

instant case, the Petitioner has approached the Honorable Apex Court directly under an Article

32 petition despite having an alternative remedy available in Article 226 of the Constitution.

Article 226 gives the High Court to entertain the Writ petition. It is pertinent to point out that

Article 226 has a non-obstante clause with respect to Article 32. Furthermore, Article 226

empowers the High Courts of relevant jurisdictions to entertain writs as and when requires.

It the case of Confederation of All Nagaland State Services Employees' Assn. v State of

Nagaland,8 the Hon'ble Court said that writ petitions should be agitated at the first instance

before the High Court of Judicature which can exercise its power under Article 226 of the

Constitution.

6
K.D. Sharma v SAIL 2008 12 SCC 481; Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2010 2 SCC 114; Sunil Poddar v
Union Bank of India 2008 2 SCC 326; R. v Kensington IT Commissioner 1917 1 KB 486; Abhudhya Sanstha v
Union of India 2011 6 SCC 145.
7
Rashid Ahmed v Municipal Board Kairana AIR 1950 SC 163.
8
Confederation of All Nagaland State Services Employees' Assn v State of Nagaland 2006 1 SCC 496.
PAGE | 2
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 NAVITAS, 2020

In the instant case, the Petitioner has directly approached the Supreme Court, although the

petitioner should have moved to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of

Indica.9 Therefore, this Hon'ble Court must exercise its discretion to quash the instant writ on

the grounds of non-maintainability.

II. THE DIRECTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDICA IS NOT IN

VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 19 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDICA

It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the directions given by the

Government of Indica do not violate Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of Indica

as the direction only puts reasonable restrictions on the fundamental right to speech and

expression & trade and profession in the interests of the general public.

[2.1] THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE GOVERNMENT ARE REASONABLE

The Supreme Court has held that in examining the reasonableness of a statutory provision,

whether it violated the fundamental right guaranteed under Art. 1910, one has to keep in mind:

(1) The Directive Principles of the state policy

(2) The restrictions must not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature, going beyond the

requirement of the general public's interest.

(3) No abstract or general pattern or a mixed principle can be laid down so as to be of

universal application.

(4) A just balance has to be struck between the restrictions imposed and social control

envisaged by Art. 19(6).

(5) Prevailing social values as also social needs which are intended to be satisfied by the

restrictions.

9
Moot Proposition, ¶ 12.
10
Dr. D.D Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India (20th edn, LexisNexis, 2011) 101.
PAGE | 3
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 NAVITAS, 2020

(6) There must be a direct and proximate nexus or a reasonable connection between the

restrictions imposed, and the object sought to be achieved by the Act, that being so a

strong presumption in favour of the constitutionality of the Act will naturally arise.11

Now, in the present case -

2.1.1 The Government’s Direction follows the Directive Principles of State Policy

The direction follows article 38 of the constitution of Indica,12 which says the state has to secure

a social order for the promotion of the people. After the Cartoon was published on 02.11.2020,

there were massive protests by two major religious factions: the Chilese and the Grecian and

they showed their anger by taking to the streets to vent their frustration. Matters grew worse

after the article about Mr. Moga was published on 09.11.2020, and there were many acts of

rioting and hooliganism. With mounting pressure from the side of the people to withdraw the

publications, the government passed the direction to effectively bring relief to the people.

2.1.2 The freedom is itself not absolute and can be restricted

In the case of Harijai Singh,13 the Supreme Court held that unlimited and unfettered freedom

of the press at all times and in all the circumstances would lead to disorder and anarchy. Here

also, the Petitioner has crossed a certain limit. Therefore, their rights can be restricted as their

acts have led to a lot of chaos and disorder in the Society. By this notification, any further

damage can be prevented.

In Virendra v. State of Punjab,14 the court was hearing a case against an enactment of the

government of Punjab, and in that, it struck down and preserved some provisions and laid a

ground as to how can it examine when and to what extent can a particular piece of literature of

11
M.R.F. Ltd v Inspector Kerala Govt AIR 1999 SC 188.
12
Constitution of India, art 38.
13
In re: Harijai Singh AIR 1997 SC 73.
14
Virendra v State of Punjab AIR 1958 SC 986.
PAGE | 4
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 NAVITAS, 2020

the Press be prohibited for. It says, “A law which empowers the Government to prohibit, for a

temporary period, the entry of literature of a specified class, likely to cause communal

disharmony would not be held to be unreasonable if it complies with the procedural

requirements of natural justice”. Hence, even in the present case, the petitioner was given an

opportunity to implement the direction, but it blatantly refused without even considering its

social and cultural consequences and the mounting protests against its acts.

[2.2] THE DIRECTION GIVEN IS IN THE INTEREST OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC

Any modern State cannot guarantee absolute individual rights. Therefore, the guarantee of each

of the above rights is limited by our Constitution itself and it confers upon the ‘State’ a power

to impose by its laws reasonable restrictions as may be necessary for the larger interests of the

community. This is what is meant by saying that the Indican Constitution attempts ‘to strike a

balance between individual liberty and social control”.15

2.2.1 There was a threat to public order

Article 19(2)16 lays down the conditions in which we can restrict the freedom of speech and

expression. The Supreme Court has said that a restriction is reasonable only if there is a proper

balance between the rights of the individual and those of the society.1718 In the present case,

the Cartoon dated 02.11.2020 in the Petitioner’s Magazine was a threat to public order. It

tended to stir up tension between the different religions and almost ended up converting into a

full-fledged communal riot. The direction was necessary to uphold Article 25 for the people

of the society and communal harmony. It is evident that freedom of speech and expression

15
Gopalan v State of Madras 1950 SCR 88.
16
Constitution of India, art 19(2).
17
Dwarka Prasad v state of U.P 1954 SCR 803.
18
Chintamanrao v State of M.P 1952 SCR 759; State of Maharashtra v Himmatbhai AIR 1970 SC 1157.
PAGE | 5
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 NAVITAS, 2020

cannot confer upon an individual a license to commit illegal or immoral acts. No one can

exercise his right of speech in such a manner as to violate another man’s such right.19

2.2.2 Article tended to defame a person

Another condition under Article 19(2) was that if there tends to be defamation, the restriction

can be invoked. After the Article dated 09.11.2020 was published, it caused a huge uproar

mainly in the Pro-API supporters as it looked like the magazine was trying to mock the Chief

Minister Mr. Moga, and when there were calls to the magazine to pull down the article, they

declined straightaway. Within no time, this publication put a lot of pressure on the government

to act fast and effectively, and the resultant direction by the government was an answer to the

same.

2.2.3 There was an urgency and demand for immediate action

The people had lost all their calm as the Pro-API supporters, along with the followers of the

two faiths, started to protest in a very aggressive manner to showcase their resentment to the

Government. The situation soon got out of hand, and so the armed forces had to be deployed.

Therefore, the direction was given to resolve the urgency of the problem.

The following observations of Holmes can supplement the test of reasonability. J. in his classic

dissent in Lochner v. New York. “the test to be applied is not whether a judge personally

considers particular restrictions unreasonable, but whether a reasonable man would necessarily

consider them unreasonable.” The reasonableness of the restriction has to be judged not in

reference to the ground on which it can be imposed but with reference to the fundamental right

which is restricted.20 With so many citizens suffering because of the acts of the petitioner, it

can be said without a doubt, that such a direction was the need of the hour.

19
Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting v Cricket Association of Bengal AIR 1995 SC 1236.
20
Lochner v New York (1904) 198 US 45.
PAGE | 6
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 NAVITAS, 2020

Hence, the Direction of the Government does not violate Article 19 of the Constitution of

Indica.

III. THE CONTENT PUBLISHED IN THE TRUTH’S GOSPEL IS DEFAMATORY

UNDER THE TORT LAW

It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the content published in Truth’s

Gospel was defamatory under the tort law as the essentials of Defamation get fulfilled in the

present case. The essentials include (a) the words must be defamatory, (b) the defamatory

words should directly or indirectly refer to the person defamed, and (c) publication of the words

by any medium should take place.21 Here, the words like ‘beseeching’, ‘infamous red-light

area’ and statements like ‘or did he take a peek in’ signify that article dated 09.11.2020 clearly

tends to defame Mr. Moga. These words were included in an article being published to review

Mr. Moga’s work only and hence leaves hardly a doubt that it was meant for him only. Also,

What the defendant intended them to mean is irrelevant in this regard.22 So, this satisfies all

the conditions and hence, the statements were defamatory under the Tort law.

[3.1] THERE LIES A CAUSE OF ACTION BY THE SIDE OF THE GOVERNMENT

The Supreme Court itself observed in John Thomas v. Dr. K. Jagadeesan,23 that: When the

target of the defamatory statements are the individuals in the institutions, then it is the

individuals alone who can file a suit. In such a situation, the institution would have no cause

of action to file a suit. Now, in the present case, the government passed the direction as it tended

to defame the C.M, and as he is the face of the party and is its representative, we can say that

their goodwill was also affected. Hence, the government deserved to bring the direction and

21
E Peel & J Goudkamp, Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort (19th edn, Sweet & Maxwell, 2014) 1039.
22
Berkoff v Burchill [1996] 4 All ER 1008.
23
John Thomas v Dr. K. Jagadeesan AIR 2001 SC 2651.
PAGE | 7
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 NAVITAS, 2020

can’t be held liable for doing the same.

[3.2] THE DEFENCES FOR DEFAMATION DO NOT WORK IN THE PRESENT CASE

In S.N.M. Abdi v. Prafulla Kumar Mohanta,24 it was held that it is not necessary that the

statement need not show a tendency of imputation to prejudice the plaintiff in the eye of

everyone in the community or all of his associates. It suffices to establish that the publication

tends to lower him in the eyes of a substantial, respectable group, even though they are

minority of the total community or the plaintiff's associates. In this case too, an article was

published in the Illustrated Weekly of India made certain allegations of misuse of man and

muscle power by deposed Chief Minister of Assam, Prafulla Kumar Mohanta. It was held

that the article was held to be defamatory in nature, and the plaintiff was awarded damages

amounting to Rupees 5,00,000/-.

Similarly, the article dated 09.11.2020 defames the C.M of U.P. No defence should save the

petitioners from being held liable. The allegations can leave a big hole in the C.M. Mr.

Moga’s image in front of loads of his followers, avid readers of the magazine, and many

more people like that. Also, the Cartoon dated 02.11.2020 was derogatory as it unnecessarily

attached two religions in an unorthodox arrangement, which is not even legal and has created

a lot of chaos and further tries to damage the religion’s sanctity in front of its followers,

which is again an attack on freedom of religion under Article 25 of the people.

3.2.1 Truth as a defence fails

In Radheshyam Tiwari v. Eknath,25 the defendant, who was the editor, printer and publisher

of a newspaper, published a series of articles against the plaintiff, a Block Development

Officer, alleging that the plaintiff had issued false certificates, accepted bribe and adopted

24
S.N.M. Abdi v Prafulla Kumar Mahanta AIR 2002 Gau 75.
25
Radheshyam Tiwari v Eknath AIR 1985 Bom 285.
PAGE | 8
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 NAVITAS, 2020

corrupt and illegal means in various matters. In an action for defamation, the defendant could

not prove that the facts published by him were true and, therefore, he was held liable.

In the present case, the petitioner also does not have proof to show that the facts are correct

and therefore, their honest intention remains questionable.

The defendant must make clear the defamatory meaning that he seeks to justify.26 But here,

the Petitioner has made no such statements and in fact, has left a question mark for the

audience to think upon. It can always be so that some might not think negatively of the C.M

but considering the theme and structure of the article, more often than not, people will begin

to think negatively of the C.M, thereby sufficiently ruining his reputation.

3.2.2 Taking the defence of public interest also cannot work

It is irrelevant whether the statement is in the public interest. In order to clinch this defence,

the defendant does not need to show that his statement was in the public interest. If one

introduces a condition that the publication must relate to a matter of public interest, one is in

effect, creating a form of liability for invasion of privacy. So. Even if the magazine published

the statement for the public interest, it tends to defame Mr. Moga and further invades his

right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of Indica.27

In the case of Salena Dandasi,28 the court ruled that reporting of distorted and deviated

versions with comments, without proper verification of facts, might not fall within the

umbrella of protective journalism. Such defamatory statements made in the publication, the

Court said, could not be warded off under the guise of freedom of the press.

3.2.3 The defence of fair comment also fails

26
Lucas-Box v News Group Newspapers Ltd [1986] 1 All ER 177.
27
E Peel & J Goudkamp, Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort (19th edn, Sweet & Maxwell, 2014) 1058.
28
Salena Dandasi v Gajjala Malla Reddy 2007 SCC OnLine AP 1021.
PAGE | 9
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 NAVITAS, 2020

The comment cannot be fair when it is based upon untrue facts. A comment based upon

invented and untrue facts is not fair. Thus, in the review of a play when immorality is imputed

by suggesting that it contained an incident of adultery, when in fact there was no such incident

in the play, the plea of fair comment cannot be taken.29 Similarly, if in a newspaper, there is

publication of a statement of facts making serious allegations of dishonesty and corruption

against the plaintiff, and the defendant is unable to prove the truth of such facts, the plea of fair

comment, which is based upon those untrue facts, will also fail.30

In the present case, this pattern remains the same and as established earlier that what all they

have published are based on malice by the side of Mr. Arnav against Mr. Moga and is clearly

aimed at spoiling the image of the C.M before the Elections.

In the case of Nevill v. Fine Arts,31 the court said that the law does not weigh words with a

jeweller’s scales, and it does not follow that merely because the words are excessive, there is

therefore malice. The use of gratuitous language may lead to an inference of malice,32and the

evidence of malice may be found in the publication itself.

Malice may also be inferred from the relations between the parties before or after

publication.33 So, as we know that Mr. Arnav had a personal animosity towards the C.M as

he always tried to level the score with him, it can naturally be inferred that he aimed to

quench his desire of defaming Mr. Moga.

Hence, it is respectfully submitted before this court that the “content” published in Truth’s

Gospel is defamatory under Tort law.

29
Merivale v Carson (1888) 52 JP 261; Hunt v Star Newspapers Co Ltd (1908) 2 KB 309.
30
R.K. Karanjia v Thackersey AIR 1970 Bom 424; Radheshyam Tiwari v Eknath AIR 1985 Bom 285.
31
Nevill v Fine Arts and General Insurance Co [1895-9] All ER 164.
32
Adam v Ward [1917] 327 AC 309.
33
Simpson v Robinson (1848) 12 QB 511.
PAGE | 10
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 NAVITAS, 2020

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, in the light of the facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced and

authorities cited, it is most humbly and respectfully requested that the Hon'ble Supreme Court

of Indica be pleased to:

1. Declare, that the Writ Petition is not maintainable under Article 32 of the Constitution of

Indica.

&

2. Declare, that the direction of the Government of Indica is not in violation of Article 19

of the Constitution of Indica.

&

3. Declare, that the Content published in Truth’s Gospel is defamatory under the tort law.

AND / OR

The court may issue any other order as the court deems fit in the interest of justice, equity and

good conscience.

For this act of kindness, the Respondents shall be duty-bound forever.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.

PAGE | 11
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT PRAYER FOR RELIEF