IN THE MATTERS OF

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA APPELLANT

VERSUS

VOICE OF PEOPLE RESPONDENT

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF MAHARASHTRA UNDER

SECTION 499 OF THE CRPC

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

DRAWN AND FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS.......................................................................................................2

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................................4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES................................................................................................. 6

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION..................................................................................... 9

STATEMENT OF FACTS.................................................................................................... 10

STATEMENT OF ISSUES....................................................................................................12

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS...........................................................................................13

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED................................................................................................15

CONTENTION 1: Whether VoP's publication of the investigative report constitutes protected

speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech
and expression?

CONTENTION 2: Whether the government's restrictions on media reporting to prevent

dissemination of information that may affect public order are justified in the context of the
Indian Constitution?

CONTENTION 3: Whether the State of Maharashtra's lawsuit against VoP violates the
principle of freedom of the press?

THE PRAYER
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS WORDS

§ Section

& And

¶ Paragraph

A.I.R. All India Reporter

ANR. Another

ART. Article

CH. Chapter

CL. Clause

ED. Edition

ET. AL. And Others

ETC. Et cetera

HON’BLE Honourable

I.E. Id Est (that is)

LD. Learned

LTD. Limited

NO. Number

ORS. Others

PARA/ ¶ Paragraph
PT. Part

SC Supreme Court

TIP Test Identification Parade

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

INDIAN CASES PAGE NO.

Ankush Maruti Shinde V. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 16.

Nanu Singh V. State of Bihar, (1985) 17.

Joseph V. State of Kerala, (1964) 17.

Hussainara Khatoon V. State of Bihar, (1980) 20.

Mohd. Hussain V. State (Govt. NCT Of Delhi), (2012) 20.

State Of Rajasthan V. Om Prakash, (2002) 21.

Mohd. Farooq Abdul Gafur V. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 21.

Pradeepan V. State of Kerala, (2005) 21.

Budhsen V. State Of U.P, (19 22.

Munshi Singh Gautam V. State of M.P., (2005) 23.

Lala V. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 23.

Jatinder Nath Gupta V. Province of Bihar, (1949) 26.

Panama Refining Co. V. Ryan, (1935) 26.

Swadeshi Cotton Mills V. Union of India, (1981) 26.

Madan Lal Chandak & Anr V. State of Bihar & Ors, (1975) 26.
Collective Farming Society Ltd. & Ors V. State of M.P. & Ors,
26.
(1974)

Kharak Singh V. State of U.P., (1964) 26.

K.S. Puttaswamy V. Union of India, (2017) 26.

Knaimozhi Karunanidhi V. Thiru. P. Varadarajan, (2018) 30.

Nilesh Navalakha V. Union of India, (2021) 30.

Indrani Pratim Mukerjea v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 31.

Sahara India Real Estate Corporation V. SEBI, (2014) 31.

 BOOKS S.NO.

Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, Law of Evidence, 2019 (27th edn.). 1.

Batuk Lal, Law of Evidence, 2020 (23rd edition). 2.

Mp Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 2018 (8th edn.) 3.

Sarkar Law Of Evidence, 2021 (20th Edition) 4.

JOURNALS & ARTICLES PAGE NO.

P.M. Bakshi, Press Law: An Introduction, (Btfri Publications, 1985) 32.

Workshop On Conduct of Test Identification Parades for Suspects and
19.
Property Recovered During Investigation, Workshop – 2017-18
Helena Machado And Filipe Santos, “The Disappearance of
Madeleine Mccann: Public Drama and Trial by Media in The 29.
Portuguese Press”, Crime Media Culture,

Trial By Media Prejudicing the Sub Judice, 30.

Adam Carlyle Breckenridge: The Right to Privacy, 30.

Smt. L. Devi Rathna Kumari, Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Spl.
20.
Mobile Court, Srikakulam, Test Identification Parade,
Arpan Banerjee, “Judicial Safeguards Against ‘Trial By Media’:
32.
Should Blasi's ‘Checking Value’ Theory Apply in India?”

STATUTES S.NO.
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950.
1.
INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872
2.
BHARTIYA SAKHYA ADHINIYAM, 2003
3.
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973
4.
CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE AND CIRCULAR ORDERS,
5.
1990
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (IDENTIFICATION) ACT, 2022
6.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (IDENTIFICATION) RULES, 2022
7.
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE APPELLANT HAVE INVOKED THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE

HON’BLE SUPREME COURT UNDER SECTION 4991 OF THE CRPC

1
Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in regard to criminal matters.
(1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, final order or sentence
in a criminal proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court—
(a) has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him
to death; or
(b) has withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any court subordinate to its
authority and has in such trial convicted the accused person and sentenced him to death; or
(c) [certifies under article 134A] that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme
Court: Provided that an appeal under sub-clause (c) shall lie subject to such provisions as may
be made in that behalf under clause (1) of article 145 and to such conditions as the High
Court may establish or require.
(2) Parliament may by law confer on the Supreme Court any further powers to entertain
and hear appeals from any judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a
High Court in the territory of India subject to such conditions and limitations as may be
specified in such law.
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

BACKGROUND

1. The Voice of the People (VoP), a widely-read newspaper in the state of Maharashtra,
published an investigative report revealing widespread corruption within the state
government. The report includes detailed evidence of embezzlement of public funds by
high-ranking officials, bribery scandals, and manipulation of government contracts. The
publication of this report has sparked public outrage and calls for government accountability.
2. In response to the publication, the State of Maharashtra has filed a lawsuit against VoP,
alleging that the newspaper has violated laws governing freedom of the press. The state
argues that the publication of the investigative report has damaged the reputation of
government officials and institutions, thereby threatening public order and stability. The State
seeks an injunction against VoP and damages for defamation.
3. The investigative report published by VoP is based on extensive research and interviews
with whistleblowers within the government.
4. The report has led to widespread public protests and demands for government action against
corruption.
5. The State of Maharashtra argues that the publication of the report has caused public unrest
and threatens the stability of the government. .
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

In the present dispute, the following issues arise for the kind consideration of this Panel:

ISSUE 1: Whether VoP's publication of the investigative report constitutes protected

speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, which
guarantees freedom of speech and expression?

ISSUE 2: Whether the government's restrictions on media reporting to prevent

dissemination of information that may affect public order are
justified in the context of the Indian Constitution? .

ISSUE 3: . Whether the State of Maharashtra's lawsuit against VoP violates the principle of
freedom of the press
T
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1: Whether VoP's publication of the investigative report constitutes protected speech under
Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and
expression?

.Yes, Vop’s publication of the investigative report has the right of speech and expression
which comes under Article(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. Government cannot put any
restrictions on VOP’S publication as what they are is constitutional and they have the right to
do that.

2. Whether the government's restrictions on media reporting to prevent dissemination

of information that may affect public order are justified in the context of the
Indian Constitution?

Government's restrictions on media are completely unreasonable and they are curbing
media’s freedom . Under article 14 of Indian Constitution the VoP has the right to equality
before law which must be followed in case of VoP and must not be curbed.
 CONTENTION 3: Whether the state of Maharashtra's lawsuit against VoP violates the
principle of freedom of press?

Maharashtra’s lawsuit violates the principle of freedom of press as under Article 19(1)(a),
they have the right of freedom of speech and expression, but Maharashtra's government is
violating it as they are making baseless accusations on Vop.
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

CONTENTION 1: Whether VoP's publication of the investigative report constitutes protected

speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech
and expression?

1. According to the constitution, v.o.p has the right of expression and speech.
Maharashtra government is abusing of power and trying to supress a factual report against its
government. Under the section 19 (1(A) our report is covered in it. There have been several
instances where supreme court ruled out its verdict stating freedom of press is essential for the
working of the democracy. Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras (1950): The Supreme Court held
that freedom of speech and expression includes the freedom of the press and is essential for the
functioning of a democracy. There was another case of Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay)
Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (1985):: The Supreme Court affirmed the importance of a free press
in upholding democratic values and cautioned against government interference in media
reporting.

We have worked with the whistleblowers of the government which want to expose the
reality of maharashtrian government. Our report includes detailed evidence of
embezzlement of public funds by high-ranking officials, bribery scandals, and
manipulation of government contracts.
Many sources including high ranking official have said in there statement that many
of their colleagues which are also high-ranking officials have found embezzling of
public funds for their personal use, a part of it also goes to ministers sitting above
them.
There have been huge reported instances of bribery scandals in the Maharashtrian
government. Maharastrian government frequently used electoral bonds as their
escorting business. They have used electoral bonds as a means to take bribery.
Maharashtrian government is fully corrupted and in their tenure, bribery scandals
have been a common sight.
 5.There are also several instances of manipulation of government contracts, major
government contracts are given mostly to relatives and family members of chief
minister and top party leaders. There are also cases where the companies gave money
through electoral bonds to the maharashtrian government, for which the government
gave them government contracts. After the contract is given, there have been a huge
corruption but the government has not taken a single action because the contractors
were their relatives only as told above.
6. Vop’s publication of the investigative report falls under Article 19(1)(a)(Of Indian
Constitution)
as what they are doing is completely factual and is based on accurate information which is
curated from the whistleblowers within the government. They should also have the right to
speech and expression, and they can publish what they want which is factual.

.
CONTENTION 2: . Whether the government's restrictions on media reporting to
prevent dissemination of information that may affect public order are justified in
the context of the Indian Constitution?

1. Here the constitution gives all the citizens the right to freely express themselves ,
whatever that they feel right, they can express it in terms of writing, cartoon, speech or
image or anything. Constitutionally they have the right to give out that piece of
investigation.

2. The government is putting an arbitrary control over VoP, and violating their
19(1)(a), the government is extending its powers unconstitutionally and trying suppress
its bad deeds which is published in the paper. Vop has the right to publish anything they
want which is factual, and Maharashtrian government is stopping them from doing this
by abusing its powers and making baseless accusations on VoP, which is also defaming
VoP.

3. Maintaining the public order and unrest between the people is the duty of the
government, VoP has not done anything wrong rather than publishing a factual article
about the government, if that brings unrest between people, then its the deeds of the
maharashtrian government only which they are paying for. Vop has just published a
report which is protected by the article 19(1)(a), and they have the right to freedom of
speech and expression.
CONTENTION 3: Whether the state of Maharashtra’s lawsuit against VoP violates the
principle of freedom of the press?

1. The state of Maharashtra's lawsuit violates the Vop’s right to speech and expression which is
protected under Article 19(1)(a), from which the Maharashtrian government is snatching
away the right of Vop.

2. Maharashtrian Government is suppressing the voice of press, which violates the principle
of the freedom of press. According to it, Vop has the right to write anything which it feels
right, Maharashtra government is abusing its power and curbing the rights of Vop, which is
very dangerous for the democracy to function.

3. Vop is just expressing what it feels right, the report of it is very factual and is made by
whistleblowers within the government, how can vop be wrong, the lawsuit of maharashtrian
government is highly baseless and violates the principle of freedom of press. 9(1)(
 PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, reasons given, and
authorities cited, it is mostly humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Supreme Court of Arka
Santorin may be pleased to:

1) Deem the Defamation as not completely valid and violative of any fundamental right
2) Deem the publishing of article not violative of fundamental rights of Appellant.
3) Deem the article 19(1)(a) of the constitution , constitutional.

AND/OR

Pass any other order which the Hon’ble bench deems fit in the best interest of Justice, Equity
and Good Conscience, and for this act of kindness, the Counsel on behalf of the Appellants as
in duty bound shall forever pray.

All of which is respectfully submitted

Sd/- Counsel for

Appellants