1

TEAM CODE:

IN THE APPEALS CHAMBER OF THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF

(UNDER ART. 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SARVIA)

RAJENDRA JATAV

(APPELLANT)

V.

STATE OF M.P.

(RESPONDENT)

Memorial submitted to:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of INDIA

Memorial filed on behalf of:

The Petitioner

Counsel appearing on behalf of:

The Petitioner

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER-

 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS - - - - - - 04

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES - - - - - -

 DECISIONS OF COURTS - - - - - - 05
 BOOKS AND DIGESTS - - - - - - 06

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION - - - - - - 07

STATEMENT OF FACTS - - - - - - 08

ISSUES PRESENTED - - - - - - - 10

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS - - - - - - 11

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED - - - - - - 13

PRAYER - - - - - - - - 30

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER-

 3

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

1. & : And
2. AIR : All India Reporter
3. Art. : Article
4. No. : Number
5. p. : Page
6. para : Paragraph
7. SC : Supreme Court
8. SCC : Supreme Court Cases
9. SCC : Supreme Court of Canada
10. SCR : Supreme Court Reports
11. v. : Versus
12. Vol. : Volume
13. Hon’ble : Honorable
14. Govt : Government
15. M.D. : Managing Director
16. HC : High Court
17. CAG : Comptroller and Auditor General
18. Ors. : Others
19. WP : Writ Petition
20. IA : Interim Application
21. SEBS : Securities Exchange Board of Sarvia
22. U/A : Under Article
23. I&B : Information & Broadcasting
24. Sec : Section
25. R/W : Read With
26. F.I.R : First Information Report
27. Cri LJ : Criminal Law Journal

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

[DECISIONS OF MUNICIPAL COURTS]

1. M.C. Mehta v. U.O.I [(1987) 1 SCC 395]

2. Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum v. U.O.I [(1995) 1 SCC 14,21]
3. M.C. Mehta v. U.O.I [(1992) 1 SCC 358]
4. K.K. Kochunnimoopil Nayar v. The State of Madras & Ors. [AIR (1959) SC 725]

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER-

 4

5. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu [(1994) 6 SCC 632]

6. Rajendra Sail v. MP High Court Bar Assn [AIR 2005 SC 2473]
7. Surya Prakash Khatri v. Madhu Trehan [2001 Cri LJ 3476]
8. E.S.P. Rajasthan v. Union of India [1977 AIR 1361]
9. Sukhdev Singh Sodhi v. Teja Singh [AIR 1954 SC 186]
10. Dayaram v. Sudhir Batham Case [(2012) 1 SCC 333]
11. A.K. Gopalan v. Noordeen [1970 AIR SC 1694]
12. Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1967 SC 1]
13. Dinesh Trivedi v. Union of India [1997 (4) SCC 306]
14. Anukul Chandra Pradhan v. Union of India [1996 (2) SCC 199]
15. S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal [AIR 2010 SC 3196]
16. Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2010 6 SCC 1]
17. Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Proprietors of Indian Express Newspaper
[AIR 1989 SC 190]
18. Aniruddha Bahal v. State [2010 172 DLT 269]
19. Pushpadevi M. Jatia v. M.L. Wadhawan [(1987) 3 SCC 367]
20. Antulay’s case [1988 (2) SCC 602]

[BOOKS AND DIGESTS]

1. Facets of Media Law, by Madhavi Garadia Divan

(First Edition, 2006)

2. Telecom, Media & Press Laws

(Second Edition, 2012)

3. Law of the Press, Durga Das Basu

(Fifth Edition, 2010)

4. V.N. Shukla’s Constitution of India, by Mahendra P. Singh

(Eleventh Edition, 2010)

5. Introduction to Constitution of India, by Dr. D.D. Basu

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER-

 5

(Nineteenth Edition Reprint 2007)

6. Indian Penal Code, by B.M. Gandhi

(Third Edition, 2010)

7. Supreme Court Cases

8. All India Reporter

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER-

 6

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Special Leave Petition

A.136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant
special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any
cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order passed
or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER-

 7

STATEMENT OF FACTS

(1) Dr. Rajesh Sharma (hereinafter “Dr. Sharma”) is a Cardiac Surgeon, residing with his two
daughters namely Neha and Shweta along with his wife Mrs. Neeta Sharma in Satkar
Residency, Vivekanand Nagar, Indore (M.P.).

(2)Within the same locality, Mr. Ravindra Jatav (hereinafter Mr. Jatav) and his wife along
with his son Rajendra used to stay.

(3) These two families used to frequently visit each other’s residence and had a very good
family. During several meetings, Rajendra became friendly with Neha, and soon this
friendship transformed into love. They used to meet frequently. They were madly in love with
each other. And Jatav family was awared about this fact.

(4) on fine morning on 04/05/2014, Mr. Jatav made a telephonic call to Dr. Sharma and told
him that his son Rajendra and Dr. Sharma’s daughter Neha are in love, so he wishes to vist
him to discuss about the marriage . Dr. Sharma not only declined the proposal but also
insulted the Mr. Jatav on ground of caste. Mr. Jatav replied in the same tone and warned him
to repent for the words.

(5) On date 08/05/2014 , Dr.Sharma and his wife went for morning walk at 6:15 AM and
came back at 7:15 they found their daughters Neha and Shweta dead.

(6) A FIR was lodge before Police Station Vijya Nagar, Indore for offence under Section 302
(2 counts) and 449 of the I.P.C. During preliminary investigation, police recovered the knife
and bloodstained clothes from the bushes, behind Holkar Hospital.

(7) Jai Prakash Jain (PW-3), lived opposite to the house of Dr. Sharma, alleged that he saw
Rajendra Jatav jumping from the compound wall in the morning. A team was sent to Bhopal
to arrest Rajrndra Jatav under S.I. C.K. Verma but he was not found there and the Police was
informed that accused went to Mumbai to his sister’s place.

(8) Accused was taken into custody from Mumbai on 10/05/2014 by Sub Inspector
C.K.Verma from her sisters’s house. He was produced before an Executive Magistrate at
Mumbai, where he allegedly confessed the offence. Then accused was formally arrested at
Indore by Inspector Prithipal Singh.

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER-

 8

(9) At the time of arrest accused showed the train ticket from Bhopal to Mumbai for the night
of 07th – 08th May 2014. A golden chain was also recovered from him. Memo under sec. 27 of
I.E.A. 1872 was prepared for knife and bloodstained clothes, in which he confessed the act
and disclosed that he kept the bloodstained clothes and the weapon( knife) in bushes behind
holkar Hospital. On this statement a fresh Seizure Memo for both the articles was also
prepared along with other documents.

(10) accused was charged under sec. 302 I.P.C. 1860 separately for murder of two girls under
section sec. 449 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. During the trial, accused denied the charges
and took the plea of alibi. He also denied the confession before Executive Magistrate at
Mumbai. All the witness deposed in their testimony in line with the record.

(11) But the officer C.K. Verma, who brought the accused from Mumbai was not examined
by learnt trial court. Further, the accused filed an application to call T.T.E. of North- Central
Railway, Bhopal along with the travel record of s-6 Coach of Punjab Mail of 07/08/2014 but
his application was rejected. And the sister of accused smt. Mahima Kadam in her deposition
confirmed that accused reached her place at Mumbai on 08/05/2014 at around 10 a.m. and
stayed with her till C.K. Verma reached her residence and took the accused with him.

(12) The learned trial court adverted to the vchain of following circumstances to establish
accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt:

(a) Intention /Motive to commit crime i.e. the accused failed in love affairs, so was the reason
committing crime.

(b) he was seen by PW-3 Jai Prakash Jain, running from the scene, just after the incident.

(c) Seizure of the chain from the possession of the accused and the identification of the same
by the mother and father of the deceased.

(d) Disclosure statement given by the accused under sec.27 of the I.E.A. 1872 of the knife
and bloodstained clothes, not pursuant to the same but before the same in the process of
search of crime scene & nearby places by the investigation team, the same was approved by
the memo prepared u/s 27 by the accused.

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER-

 9

(e) Presence of human blood in the chemical examination of the knife and bloodstained
clothes seized from the accuse.

(f) Confession of the accused as was made before the executive magistrate in Mumbai with
respect to the instant matter.

(13) The session court convicted the Accused and sentenced him to life imprisionment. And
Aggrieved by the decision of trial court, appeal was preferred to the High Court. Division
Bench of Hon’ble High Court of M.P. upheld the decision of Session Court.

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER-

 10

ISSUES PRESENTED

I. WHETHER THE WRIT PETITIONS FILED BY MR. MADHUKAR VATS ARE

MAINTANABLE OR NOT?
II. WHETHER THE LICENCE OF JANAVANI AND JANAVANI NEWS IS LIABLE TO
BE CANCELLED UNDER THE APPROPRIATE LAW?
III. WHETEHR THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OUGHT TO FORMULATE THE
NECESSARY GUIDELINES FOR REPORTING OF CASES PENDING BEFORE
COURTS OR REGARDING MATTERS WHICH ARE SUB-JUDICE?
IV. WHETHER THE REVERSE STING OPERATION CARRIED OUT BY ANB NEWS
VIOLATES RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND AMOUNTS TO INTERFERENCE WITH
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE?

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER-

 11

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER-

 12

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. THE WRIT PETITIONS FILED BY MR. MADHUKAR VATS ARE

MAINTANABLE.
The WP no. 1328 of 2012 filed by the petitioner, Shri Madhukar Vats before the Hon’ble
SC of Sarvia praying for cancellation of licence of Janavani as well as Janavani News is
maintainable under the following grounds:
1.1. Right conferred to citizens U/A 321 of the Constitution of Sarvia.
The constitution of Sarvia, U/A 32 provides the people with the right to move to the SC in
case of infringement of their fundamental rights. The SC shall have the power to issue
directions or orders or writs whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of
the rights conferred by this part2.
“The power of the Court is not only injunctive in ambit, i.e., preventing the infringement
of a Fundamental Right, but it is also remedial in scope, and provides relief against
breach of a Fundamental Right already committed.” 3 In exercise of such wide power the
Court has directed the state to lay down broad guidelines for the protection of working
women4; to provide and facilitate environmental awareness and education through public
and private media and school curriculum5, etc.
Keeping in view, the above instances, it is submitted that the SC has the power to provide
remedy in the present case as there are no particular remedies provided under any press
law regarding this matter.

K.K. Kochunnimoopil Nayar v. The State of Madras and Others6

Held that right to enforce a fundamental right conferred by the Constitution was itself a
fundamental right guaranteed by Art 32 of the Constitution and this court could not refuse
to entertain a petition under that Article simply because the petitioner might have any
other adequate, alternative, legal remedy.

1.2. Infringement of Right to Privacy U/A 217 of the Constitution.

1
Art 32 (1) – The right to move Sc by appropriate proceeding for the enforcement of the right conferred by this
Part (Part III) is guaranteed.
2
Art 32 (2)
3
M.C. Mehta v. U.O.I, [(1987) 1 SCC 395]
4
Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum v. U.O.I, [(1995) 1 SCC 14,21]
5
M.C. Mehta v. U.O.I, [(1992) 1 SCC 358]
6
[AIR (1959) SC 725]

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER-

 13

The petitioner’s fundamental Right to Privacy as recognised by Art 21 of the Constitution

of Sarvia has been breached by inaction of the Janavani and Janavani News the latter
broadcasted an interview of Coal Secretary and CAG of Sarvia, wherein they estimated
the loss due to coal allocation scam to be 18000Crores. Also Janavani on the next
morning published a defamatory article titled “ANB involved in the largest scam in the
history of Sarvia”
The aforementioned publication was not a public concern and was clearly an attack on the
petitioner, infringing his Right to Privacy U/A 21 of the constitution.
In Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu8, the SC held that the press had the right to publish
what they claimed was the autobiography of Auto Shankar in so far as it appeared from
the public records, even without his consent or authorisation. However if the publication
went beyond the public record and published his life story, that would amount to an
invasion of his Right to Privacy. Further it was held that it is the right to be let alone, and
a citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy of his own, his family, marriage, procreation,
and education among other matters. No one can publish anything concerning the above
matters without his consent, whether truthful or otherwise, and whether laudatory or
critical.
1.3. Infringement of Right to Reputation and Right to fair and unbiased trial U/A 21
of the Constitution.
The petitioner’s fundamental Right to Reputation and Right to a fair and unbiased trial
before a court of law which is recognised as a constituent right of the Right to Life &
Personal Liberty protected by Article 21 of the Constitution of Sarvia, have been breached
by inaction of the Janavani and Janavani News. Since the aforementioned rights are
fundamental rights guaranteed to every citizen of Sarvia under part III of the constitution,
therefore, on their infringement the petitioner has a right to move the SC in order to avail
an appropriate remedy.
The judges cannot keep their eyes and ears closed to the events happening outside the
court. They may naturally get affected by such out-of-court happenings which might
influence them in formulating their judgement. Therefore, the news publications by
Janavani and Janavani News could have brought biasness in the court proceedings, which
was a violation of the right of fair and unbiased proceeding inferred to the petitioner U/A
21 of the Constitution.

7
Art. 21 - No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established
by law.
8
[(1994) 6 SCC 632]

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER-

 14

1.4. Infringement of Right to carry on any Trade or Business U/A 19(1)(g)9

Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of Sarvia confers to every citizen of Sarvia the right to
practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business. Due to the
inaccurate and defamatory publications by Janavani & Janavani News, the shares of ANB
Industries and ANB Collieries Ltd. Dropped by 65% and 87% respectively, it’s lowest in
the last decade. These losses had directly affected the trade and business of the
petitioner’s industry, vitiating the abovementioned right of the petitioner and therefore he
has a right to move the SC for such violation. Therefore the writ petition filed by him is
submitted to be maintainable.

1.5. Absence of any remedies under I&B Ministry and Press Council Act, 1978.

Due to absence of procedure prescribed by I&B Ministry and also by the Press Council
Act, Janavani & Janavani News had misused the power of the press and used it against
the petitioner not once but on many occasions which in turn caused trouble to the
petitioner in exercise of his Fundamental Rights.

Therefore, an order to cancel the licence of Janavani & Janavani News must be passed by
the Apex Court to prevent further breaches of the abovesaid fundamental rights of the
petitioner.

Further, the issues involved are so grave and involve matters of such great general public
importance that the matters merit a direct hearing by the Apex Court of the land, so that
the Hon’ble Apex Court may settle the law on these matters of grave and substantial
public importance for the whole country.

Hence, it is respectfully submitted since the fundamental rights of the petitioner have been
breached by the inaction/improper actions of the abovesaid media, a writ petition lies directly
to the Hon’ble Supreme Court U/A 32 of the Constitution of Sarvia.

2. THE LICENCE OF JANAVANI AND JANAVANI NEWS SHOULD BE

CANCELLED.
The reporting, both in print as well as electronic media by Janavani and Janavani News was
not only derogatory to the goodwill and business of ANB Group and other companies but had
also caused prejudice towards the petitioner in the criminal case pending against him in the
said coal block allocation case. It is the duty of the press to report fair and accurate
9
Art. 19(1)(g) - To practice any profession, or to carry out any occupation, trade or business.

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER-

 15

information as the press is the eyes and ears of the general public. Janavani and Janavani
News on the contrary published defamatory and inaccurate piece of information about ANB
Group not once but on several occasions.

2.1 Fundamental right to fair trial breached10

Presumption of innocence is held to be a human right and in case of sub-judice matter where
the petitioner was not held guilty of any offence if the appropriate court finds infringement of
such presumption by excessive prejudicial publicity by the newspapers, then under inherent
powers, the courts of record suo motu or on being approached can, U/A 12911 pass orders for
cancellation of licence of such newspapers.
Since the actions of Janavani and Janavani News have resulted in breaching the petitioner’s
fundamental right to a fair trial which is protected under Art. 21 of the Constitution, this
Hon’ble Court should cancel their licences, so that they are prevented for further breaching
the petitioner and other citizens’ fundamental rights. Hence a writ of mandamus12 should be
issued to the Licensing Authority to cancel the abovesaid licences.

2.2 Fundamental right to Reputation Breached: Media is the eyes and ears of the public
and this power has been misused by janavani and janavani news.
Media functions as the eyes and ears of the public and it is the duty of the media that in such
capacity it must report only fair and accurate information to the public. Janavani & Janavani
News published various inaccurate and defamatory articles against the undertakings of the
petitioner. It was evident that the publications by janavani and janavani news were fabricated
and were based on false assumptions and with the intent to defame and cause harm to the
petitioner and his reputation.
Injury of official reputation affords no more warrant for repressing speech that would
otherwise be free than does factual error. Since the reputation of the petitioner and ANB
Group has been jeopardised and their fundamental right to reputation protected by Article 21
has been breached by false publication by Janavani and Janavani news, hence it is reason
enough to cancel the licence of the latter.

10
Art. 21 of the constitution of Sarvia.
11
Art 129 – The SC shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power
to punish for contempt of itself
12
Mandamus is a judicial remedy - in the form of an order from a superior court, to any government subordinate
court, corporation, or public authority - to do (or forbear from doing) some specific act which that body is
obliged under law to do (or refrain from doing) — and which is in the nature of public duty, and in certain cases
one of a statutory duty.

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER-

 16

In the case of Rajendra Sail v. MP High Court Bar Assn13 , the Supreme Court warned the
media against sensationalism and to stress the need for self regulation;
“The power and reach of the media, both print as well as electronic is tremendous. it
has to be exercised in the interest of public good. A free press is one of the very
important pillars on which, the foundation of rule of law and democracy rests. At the
same time, it is also necessary that freedom must be exercised with utmost
responsibility. It must not be abused; it should not be treated as a licence to denigrate
other institutions. Any attempt to make news of nothing jut for the sake of
sensationalism has to be deprecated. Such temptation has to be resisted, and if not, it
would be the task of the law to give clear guidelines as to what is and what is not
permitted”.
In the present case also, media had misused its power in order to sensationalise and create
news out of nothing in order to belittle the reputation of the petitioner’s company.
Also in the case of Surya Prakash Khatri v. Madhu Trehan 14, the Delhi High Court held
that any reporting by news channels and newspapers must be fair and accurate.

2.3. Reporting of sub-judice matter adversely affects administration of justice and

amounts to contempt of court U/A 129 of the constitution.

Janavani and Janavani News have committed contempt of court by interfering with the
administration of justice by reporting and adversely affecting a sub judice matter. The media
reports judicial proceedings to inform the public of matters of public interests. The media
are the eyes and ears of the general public. They act on behalf of the general public. The
media's right to know and their right to publish is neither more nor less than that of the
general public as they are trustees of the general public for this purpose.

The media has thus an important role in a democratic Constitution to inform the public
by fair reporting of every public activity including judicial proceedings. This right is
expressly recognized as a part of the freedom of speech given to citizens under Article
19(1)(a)15 of the Indian Constitution.

It is a fundamental feature of the Constitution that there must be fairness in the

administration and conduct of a trial, and no outside power or force should influence the
fairness of a judicial proceeding. The public has as much interest in obtaining
13
[AIR 2005 SC 2473]
14
[2001 Cri LJ 3476]
15
Art 19 (1) (a) - All citizens have the right to freedom of speech and expression.

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER-

 17

information of judicial proceedings as maintaining the fairness in administration of the

judiciary. But a complex problem is that the media at times by its irresponsible reporting
prior to the trial and during trial not only at times affects the administration of justice but
also prejudices the rights of citizens in a judicial proceeding such as parties to litigation,
the accused in a trial and witnesses in judicial proceedings. Therefore, the problem is not
merely the concern of the judiciary to safeguard its administration from reporting by the
media but also safeguarding individual rights of citizens by media reporting which
prejudices them in the judicial proceeding. Any conduct by the media which is
prejudicial to the fair administration of justice and undermines the public confidence in
the judiciary would in fact be contempt of court. Significantly Article 19(2) 16 of the
Constitution states that freedom of speech can be limited by a reasonable restriction in
the interest of contempt of court. The contempt of court proceedings are in such cases
taken for the protection of the administration of justice.

The SC, U/A 12917 is a court of record having such inherent power to punish for its contempt.

2.4. Fundamental Right to Privacy18 of Petitioner Breached

In the Union of Sarvia, the right to privacy is not a specific fundamental right, but has
nevertheless gained constitutional recognition. ‘Privacy’ is not enumerated amongst the
various ‘reasonable restrictions’ to the right to freedom of speech and expression enlisted U/A
19(2). However, this lacuna has not prevented the court from carving out a constitutional
right to privacy by a creative interpretation of the right to life U/A 21 and the right to freedom
of movement U/A 19(1)(d).
Under the constitutional law, the right to privacy is implicit in the fundamental right to life
and personal liberty guaranteed by Art 21 of the constitution 19. This would include the right to
be let alone.

2.5 Inherent power of the supreme court to pass such an order.

16
Art 19 (2) 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
17
Art 129-The Supreme Court shall be a court of record & shall have all the powers of such a court including
the power to punish for contempt of itself.
18
Art 21 of the constitution of Sarvia.
19
Rajgopal v. State of Tamil Nadu [(1994) 6 SCC 632]

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER-

 18

This court has inherent powers to pass such orders is necessary for doing complete justice in
any case or matter pending before it. Article 14220 read with Article 129 and Article 32 21
given a unique power to the Apex Court to make orders in the interest of justice, and to
punish for its contempt.

In E.S.P. Rajasthan v. Union of India 22 a five member bench of the S.C. of India has held
that U/A 142 the S.C. has power to pass such decree or make such order an is necessary for
doing complete justice in any case or matter pending before it. The provision contains no
limitation regarding the causes or the circumstances in which the power can be exercised. The
exercise of the power is left completely to the discretion of the highest court of the country
and its order or decree in made binding on all the courts and tribunals throughout the territory
of India.

The action of the Janavani News in publishing Articles prejudice to the ANB group caused a
substantial loss to them and in the interest of justice it is necessary to cancel the license of
Janavani & Janavani News.

In the case of Sukhdev Singh Sodhi v. Teja Singh 23, it was held that the jurisdiction to
punish for contempt is something inherent in every court of record.

The SC, U/A 12924 is a court of record having such inherent power to punish for its contempt.

2.6 In the absence of clear rules/procedure for licensing either by I&B Ministry or by
press council act, the SC being a guardian to the Constitution may frame such rules.

No rule has been laid down for the disciplinary conduct of the news channel, neither by I
& B Ministry nor by Press Council Act. There have been guidelines framed by the above
in reference to their terms and conditions of working as well as their No Objection
Certificate, but there is nothing specifically mentioned about the disciplinarian or

20
Art 142- The SC in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for
doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it,& any decree so passed or orders so made shall
be enforceable throughout the territory of India in such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made
by Parliament
21
Art 32- The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights
conferred by this Part is guaranteed
22
[1977 AIR 1361]
23
[AIR 1954 SC 186]
24
Art 129-The Supreme Court shall be a court of record & shall have all the powers of such a court including
the power to punish for contempt of itself.

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER-

 19

behavioural conduct of the news channel. Therefore the above task may be covered
under the ambit of the SC

Supreme Court has always been the guardian of constitution and the state, it has through
its various interpretations always filled the vacuum or lacuna in any legislation and it
would not be ultra-vires for the S.C. to step into the shoes of legislature if contingency
arises.

3. THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT SHOULD FORMULATE THE NECESSARY

GUIDELINES FOR REPORTING OF CASES PENDING BEFORE COURTS OR
REGARDING MATTERS WHICH ARE SUB-JUDICE

The publication of the news article in Janavani & Janavani News caused a substantial loss to
the ANB Industries & ANB Collieries as their shares dropped by 65% and 87% and caused an
unwanted unrest among the debenture holders of the aforementioned which ought to be
checked.

3.1 The SC has power U/A 32 R/W 142 (2) of the constitution.
The constitution U/A 32 read with Art. 142 (2) 25 confers a power upon the SC to pass any
order subject to the provisions of law made by parliament. In the absence of any law being
enacted in this regard this court has an inherent power to frame guidelines for reporting of the
cases.

No law has been enacted by any legislative body within the state regarding the guidelines
about publication of matter of a sub- judice case. This court exercising its inherent powers
U/A 142 of the constitution can formulate such guidelines.

“The judgement of Dayaram v. Sudhir Batham Case26 well describes the importance
of guidelines which the SC formulates. It was held that, “the framework of guidelines
will be well within the inherent powers of the sc specially U/A 142 of the constitution as
it would assist the media itself as well as all other courts, both civil and criminal, in
upholding life and personal liberty U/A 21 of the constitution”

25
ART 142 (2) subject to the provisions of any law made in this behalf by Parliament, the Supreme Court shall,
as respects the whole of the territory of India, have all and every power to make any order for the purpose of
securing the attendance of any person, the discovery or production of any documents, or the investigation or
punishment of any contempt of itself.
26
[(2012) 1 SCC 333]

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER-

 20

Any such guidelines which the SC formulates shall be helpful in prevention of repeated
publication of defamatory, unfair or unjust material in future. The SC can frame guidelines
for securing the ends of justice, the rights of the accused and also for the guidance of the
media, to be informed through guidelines enunciated by this Court as to when publishing
matters relating to cases which a sub-judice, interferes with or obstructs or tends to obstruct
with the due course of justice.

A.K. Gopalan v. Noordeen27

In this case A.K. Gopalan made a statement on 20.9.1967 implicating leaders from opposition
parties in the murder of one C.P. Karunakaran. The FIR had been lodged on 12.09.1967. On
23.09.967, K.P. Noordeen was arrested. A Malayalam Daily published on 25.09.1967,
A.K.Gopalan’s statement. The Kerala High Court convicted both, A.K.Gopalan and Govinda
Pillai (editor) for contempt. The SC reversed the conviction of Gopalan because;

“ 7. It would be an undue restriction on the liberty of free speech to lay down that
even before any arrest has been made, here should be no comments on the facts of
particular case.”

Whereas. The SC upheld the conviction of editor Pillai as he published the statement after the
arrest when, proceedings in court were imminent.

The SC of India in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra28 has overridden

principle of open justice by holding a trial in camera. It held that the inherent power must be
exercised with great caution, and only if the court is satisfied beyond a doubt that the ends of
justice themselves would be defeated if a case is tried in open court that it can pass an order
to hold the trial in camera.

In Dinesh Trivedi v. Union of India29 the court observed that it is difficult to accept that
judges are not affected by what they have read, heard or seen outside court. Discussion on

27
[1970 AIR SC 1694]
28
[AIR 1967 SC 1]
29
[1997 (4) SCC 306]

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER-

 21

evidence is wrong and pre – trail sounding of trumpet is contrary to public policy. We must
not allow trial by news papers.

3.2 Protection of rights U/A 21 R/W Art 19(1)(a) of the constitution.

There is a need for the SC to issue certain guidelines for the manner, extent and limitation of
publication by a media house as it would protect the rights conferred to the people U/A 21 of
the Constitution of fair trial and freedom of life and personal liberty. Hence, it is necessary in
public interest for this Hon’ble Court to enunciate such guidelines with clarity and precision
to determine the degree of immunity to be enjoyed by the media against action of libel in
matter of material received from or derived from court proceedings, and also to enunciate
what constitutes impermissible intrusion into the rights of the citizens to fair trial U/A of the
constitution.

The SC of India in Anukul Chandra Pradhan V. Union of India30 held that presumption of
innocence of an accused is a legal presumption and should not be destroyed at the very
threshold through the process of media trial and that too when the investigation is pending. In
that event, it will be opposed to the very basic rule of law and would impinge upon the
protection granted to an accused U/A 21 of the constitution.

Similarly in S. Khushboo V. Kanniammal31 the supreme court observed that there is danger,
of serious risk of prejudicing if the media exercises an unrestricted and unregulated freedom
such that it publishes photographs of the suspects or the accused before the identification
parades are constituted or if the media publishes statements which out rightly hold the suspect
or the accused guilty even before such an order has been passed by the court. Despite the
significance of the print and electronic media in the present day, it is not desirable of the
persons of the field, to ensure that trial by media does not hamper fair investigation but
investigating agency and more importantly does not prejudice the right of defence of the
accused in any manner whatsoever.

Even in cases where a private person whose reputation is affected brings an action for
defamation (civil/criminal), the allegations would have to be defended by the publisher by,
inter alia, establishing the truth- the defence that they were merely carried from an affidavit
placed in the court would not be available.
30
[1996 (2) SCC 199]
31
[AIR 2010 SC 3196]

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER-

 22

Similar is the situation in the present case, where the petitioner’s right of fair trial and right to
live with dignity have been infringed due to the defamatory publication by Janavani and
Janavani News. Hence there is a need of formulation of clear guidelines by this court in order
to protect these rights.

3.3 Falls within the ambit of Sec 2 (c) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971.

The articles published in the media have often the capacity to prejudice the decision of
the court and can cause contempt of court as mentioned U/S 2 of the Contempt of the
Court Act32 and no law is being enacted specifying rules regarding the publication of
matters about a sub – judice case, this court exercising its inherent powers U/A 142 of the
constitution can frame guidelines in such matters in the interest of justice.

The guidelines framed by the court would not be an unreasonable restriction as right to
freedom of speech and expression mentioned U/A 19(1)(a)33 is not absolute and subject to
restrictions mentioned U/A 19(2)34 of the constitution.

The clause of ‘contempt of court’ in the above mentioned article gives a constitutional
validity to the guidelines framed by the SC U/A 142 as if court frames some guidelines
for the media for printing materials about sub judice case it would be a reasonable
restriction covered under the clause of contempt of court mentioned U/A 19(2).

In Manu Sharma V. State (NCT of Delhi) 35 the apex court held freedom of speech and
expression sometimes may amount to interference with the administration of justice as the
articles appearing in the media could be prejudicial, this should not be permitted.

32
Sec 2 (c) (iii) criminal contempt means the publication (whether by words. spoken or written, or by signs, or
by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which) interferes
or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.
33
Art 19 (1) (a) - Freedom of speech and expression.
34 2
Art 19(2) - 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
35
[2010 6 SCC 1]

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER-

 23

Former Chairman of Law Commission of India, Justice Jagannadha Rao has emphasized
that there is a need to restrict press publication if it results in interference of sub judice
proceedings. Such restrictions are necessary for maintaining authority and impartiality of
judiciary. Press cannot be permitted to influence parties, witnesses, judges because if that
was allowed they poison the fountain of justice before it begins to flow.

In Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Proprietors of Indian Express Newspaper 36 passed

an order of injunction restraining publication of a sub judice matter.

3.4 Necessary in order to avoid publication of false and inaccurate information in

future.
It is an urgent requirement for the court to formulate guidelines on reporting matters which
are sub-judice. Since there is no other authority defining such procedures, the guidelines
formulated by the Apex Court are the only remedy available for the petitioner. The guidelines
thus so formulated by the Apex Court will be binding 37 on all media houses of the Union of
Sarvia setting a framework within which they shall work as far as report of sub judice matters
are concerned. They would have a procedure prescribed for the same which shall be accepted
and applicable all throughout the territory of Union of Sarvia and that would prevent the
publication of false and inaccurate information in the future.

4.THE REVERSE STING OPERATION CARRIED OUT BY ANB NEWS DOES NOT
VIOLATE RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND DOES NOT AMOUNT TO INTERFERENCE
WITH ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

The sting operation undertaken by Anb News does not violate right to privacy and does not
amount to interference with administration of justice.

IV.1 Duty U/A 51 A (b)38 of the Constitution.

The Delhi High Court in Aniruddha Bahal v. State39 held, that “it is built-in duties that
every citizen must strive for a corruption free society and must expose the corruption
36
[AIR 1989 SC 190]
37
Art 141 of the constitution of Sarvia – The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts
within the territory of India.
38
Art 51A (b) states that it is the duty of every citizen to cherish and follow the noble ideals that inspired the
national struggle for freedom
39
[2010 172 DLT 269]

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER-

 24

whenever it comes to his or her knowledge and try to remove corruption at all levels more so
at higher levels of management of the State.” Thus, it said that conducting a sting operation is
a legitimate exercise by any citizen. The Court opined that for fulfilment of this duty there
has to be corruption free State and if any sting operation is carried out exposing any
corruption then it is allowed. Reasoning: There is no explicit law which allows conducting of
sting operations. But the Court in the above stated case derived the right to conduct sting
operation to expose corruption under Article 51A (b) of the Constitution of India. The Article
provides that it is the duty of every citizen to cherish and follow the noble ideals that inspired
the national struggle for freedom. The Court opined that for fulfillment of this duty there has
to be corruption free India and if any sting operation is carried out exposing any corruption
then it is allowed. The effect of such judgment is that though there is no explicit law which
allows sting operations but the same have been recognized by the Indian Courts as a means of
exposing corruption in a number of cases. Thus, journalist can conduct such operations.

Furthermore, the result of sting operation is valid evidence in a court of law.

In, Pushpadevi M. Jatia v. M.L. Wadhawan40, the SC held that that court need not concern
itself with the method by which the evidence in question was obtained. The mode of
entrapment should be given less importance while admitting a sting operation as evidence.
Emphasis should be laid on the fact that offence has been committed. In the Indian context,
the law has been unclear as to whether a sting operation involving a fictitious transaction
could make the person exposed guilty of wrongdoing and whether the journalist using a sting
operation is equally liable for prosecution.

Reference can be made to the opinion of Justice M. Katju about sting operation which is
that “I totally agree with sting operations. There should be more sting operations. Corrupt
elements can be brought to light by these sorts of operations.”

Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra of the New Delhi High Court opined as under;

The constitution of India lays down certain Fundamental Duties for the citizens of this
country and Art 51A(b) provides that it is the duty of every citizen of India to cherish and
follow the noble ideas which inspired a national struggle for freedom. I consider that one of
the nobles of a national struggle of freedom was to have an independent and corruption free

40
[(1987) 3 SCC 367]

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER-

 25

India. The other duty assigned to the citizens by the constitution is to uphold and protect the
sovereignty, unity and integrity of India. I consider that sovereignty; unity and integrity of
this country cannot be protected and safeguarded if the corruption is not removed from this
country.

Another duty of every citizen is to defend the country and render national service when called
upon to do so. I consider that a country cannot be defended only by taking a gun and going to
border at the time of war. The country is to be defended day in and day out by being vigil and
alert to the need and requirements of the country and to bring forth the corruption at higher
levels.

3.5 Action of Janavani prejudice to petitioner’s sub-judice matter pending in court as

well as contempt of court.

The continuous telecast and publication of news articles by Janavani and Janavani news was
not only derogatory to the goodwill and business of ANB Group and other companies but had
also caused prejudice towards the petitioner in the criminal case pending against him in the
said coal block allocation case. Therefore, the sting operation conducted by ANB news was to
bring into light the mala fide intention of Janavani and Janavani news which was required in
the public interest.

The provision U/S 2(c)41 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 states that the publication of any
matter about a sub-judice case can be a criminal contempt if it tends to prejudice the court or
interferes with the administration of justice. But the said sting operation is solely directed
towards bringing into light the corrupt practices of Janavani and Janavani News which was
not sub-judice and the court could take cognizance of such only when it has a prima facie
case and the said sting operation would help the judiciary with the administration of justice.

3.6 Does not amount to interference with the administration justice.

41
Sec 2 (c) of the riminal contempt Act - Criminal contempt means the publication (whether by words, spoken
or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any act
whatsoever which-

i) scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or
ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere the due course of any judicial proceeding; or
interferes, or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct the administration of justice
in any manner.

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER-

 26

The reverse sting operation carried out by ANB NEWS does not violate right to privacy and
does not amount to interference with the administration of justice.

The action of ANB News is to bring into light the corrupt practices of Janavani and Janavani
News, wherein the conversation of Deputy Editor of Janavani News stating that the said news
channel shall not be carrying out any news about the coal scam of companies who would
ensure them 70% of their advertisement revenue, was recorded and released by the petitioner
in a press conference. The said sting operation was conducted with the intent to expose the
corruptive practices of the news channel. It does not amount to interference with
administration of justice in turn it facilitates the judiciary to proceed in the right direction
with proper evidence in the form of footage attained by sting operation.

In a recent Judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld the validity of the sting
operation carried out by a leading news channel NDTV. A Bench comprising of Justices B.N.
Agrawal, G.S. Singhvi and Aftab Alam, in its judgment in the ‘R.K. Anand’ case, said:

“The telecast of the sting operation was in public interest and it has rendered important
serviced to protect and salvage the purity of the course of justice”. Writing the judgment,
Justice Alam said: “The program may have any other fault or weakness but it certainly did
not interfere with or obstruct the due course of the BMW [hit-and-run case] trial42. The
program telecast by NDTV showed to the people as well as the court that a conspiracy was
afoot to undermine the BMW trial. What was shown was proved to be substantially true and
accurate. The program was thus clearly intended to prevent the attempt to interfere with or
obstruct the due course of the BMW trial.”

The sting operations have thus become part of daily practice of professional journalism.
Hidden television cameras, secret operations, trapping the individuals concerned all are part
of the game. This has become almost a specialization in television journalism especially
investigative reporting. It raises many ethical, moral and professional questions. The Tehelka
expose which saw top BJP leaders caught on cameras accepting bribe has become a
controversy for alleged use of unfair means in the process of carrying out the sting operation.
More recently, the sting operation that unraveled the cash for votes scam raised questions on
parliamentary practice. The cash for questions scam brought to the notice of the world how
our parliamentarians work.
42

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER-

 27

3.7 Fundamental rights of public overrides the right to privacy of an individual.

The Freedom of Speech and Expressions as enshrined U/A 19 (1) (a) of the constitution
also includes the people’s right to know. A citizen has a fundamental right to use the best
means of imparting and receiving information and as such to have an access to telecasting
for the purpose.

The fundamental right of the public to know can override the fundamental right of an
individual of privacy. The citizens of Union of Sarvia have a fundamental right to know
which if violates the fundamental right of privacy of Janavani and Janavani News (by the
conducted sting operation) can be upheld, as the right of the masses overrides the
individual’s right to privacy.

Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji in Antulay’s case43 observed as under;

“I consider that it is the fundamental right of the citizens of this country to have a clean
incorruptible judiciary, legislation, executive and other organs and in order to achieve this
fundamental right, every citizen has a corresponding duty to expose corruption wherever
he finds it, whenever he finds it and to expose it, if possible, with proof, so that even if
the State machinery does not act and does not take action against the corrupt people when
time comes, people are able to take action either by rejecting them as their
representatives, or by compelling the State by public awareness to take action against
them.”

Sting operations certainly are serving public purpose in many instances. The sting
operations have to be welcomed if they serve a public purpose whatever may be the
motive behind conducting these operations. Ends justify the means.

PRAYER

43
[1988 (2) SCC 602]

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER-

 28

Wherefore, in light of the facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, the Hon’ble SUPREME COURT may be pleased:

1. Adjudge and declare that the petition is allowed; and

2. Acquit Mr. Rajendra Jatav of the offence of murder and committing House Trespass
under sec. 302/449.

AND PASS ANY OTHER ORDER THAT IT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, EQUITY, AND

GOOD CONSCIENCE. ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Place: S/d_________________

Date: (Counsel on behalf of the Defence)

-MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER-