Team 01 Moot Court
Team 01 Moot Court
Team 01 Moot Court
STATEMENT OF FACTS.
Devta Pai was the most famous and respected freedom fighter of a Republic Country
Yunesia , also unofficially known as the FATHER OF THE NATION.
Sukesh Chandra Ghosh also known as NETAJI was a popular freedom fighter who
fought the SINGLISH EMPIRE with force.
Mr. Mahendra Sitzu is a retired judge of Supreme Court of Yunesia. Mr. Sitzu was
already known to have given many controversial statements like 80% of the
Yunesians are fools, All the politicians are corrupt.
On December 2014, he posted on his Friendsbook account that Mr. Pai was a
SINGLISH AGENT and that his principles of non-violence were actually meant to
help the Singlish to continue their rule with less disturbance, he also went on to call
Mr. Pai a CUNNING FOX who helped the Singlish in their motives.
Moreover in another post he labeled Mr. Sukesh Chandra Ghosh as a Makanese Agent
and claimed that he was just a paw of Makan who were using him to fight the Singlish
and establish themselves as the master of Yunesia.
Mr. Prabhat Pai, grandson of Mr. Devta Pai filed a DEFAMATION SUIT against Mr.
Sitzu under the Yunesian Penal Code, were the Lower Court imposed a fine of
1,00,000 Yunesian Rupee on him and even the High Court upheld the decision.
Police of New Dehri under the Union of Yunesia took a suo moto action against Mr.
Rahul Pandit who liked and shared the post of Mr. Sitzu on social media and Mr.
Pandit was arrested under the Information Technology act of Yunesia.
The Union Government asked the Friendsbook Authority to delete the controversial
post of Mr. Sitzu.
Further, Mr. Sitzu filed a writ petition in Supreme Court claiming that he has a right
to express his opinion and any restriction imposed on it by the state is violation of
Right To Freedom Of Speech guaranteed under the Constitution.
The Union of Yunesia contended that Mr. Sitzu being a well-known public figure
should have been more careful while commenting on such sensitive issue for his
views may have a negative impact and corrupt the mind of the citizens of the nations.
1|Page
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
ISSUES PRESENTED.
2|Page
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1.1 All the published statement given by Mr. Sitzu fulfill all the essentials of
DEFAMATION given in law of torts.
1.2 Under Yunesian Penal Code, Sec 449 the offence of defamation has three main
essentials which has been committed by Mr. Sitzu.
3|Page
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED.
1.1 All the pub stat given by Mr. Sitzu fulfill all the essentials of defamation given in
law of torts.
1
Quoted in Deepak Kumar Bisaws v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 2006 Gau.110.
2
A.I.R 2006 Delhi. 300
4|Page
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
in the written conclusive submission, alleged that the plaintiff had been
receiving money from LTTE(a banned organization).
The stat made by the defendant against the plaintiff was held to be quite
unconnected with and irrelevant to the situation. The actual malice on the
part of the defendant was well established. Counting the professional
standing of the plaintiff and his statute in social life. The Delhi High Court
awarded damages of Rs 5 lacs.
Similarly,
In S.N.M Abdi V. Prafulla Kuar Mohanta3, In this case the article was
held to be defamatory in nature and the plaintiff was awarded damages
amounting of Rs 5 lacs.
b) The stat must refer to the plaintiff in an action for defamation. The
person has to prove that the stat of which he complains referred to him. If
the person to whom the stat was published could reasonably infer that the
stat referred to the plaintiff, the defendant is nevertheless liable.
3
A.I.R. 2002 Gauhati 75.
4
A.I.R. 1997 Raj. 170.
5
(1910) A.C. 20: Appeal from Jones v. E. Hulton & Co., (1909) 2 K.B. 444.
5|Page
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
The above essentials of defamation is clearly proved by our petitioners Post in Friendsbook
account i.e. (i) The said statement is defamatory.
It clearly shows that Mr. Sitzu is defaming Mr. Devta Pai and Mr. Sukesh Chandra Ghosh.
1.2 Under Yunesian Penal Code, Sec 449 the offence of defamation has three main
essentials which has been committed by Mr. Sitzu.
Sec. 499, Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or
by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any
person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such
6
(1939) 4 All E.R. 391 : (1940) 1 K.B. 377.
6|Page
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases
hereinafter expected, to defame that person.
2.1 The arrest was based on the IT ACT of Yunesia and it was believed that no foul
activity against the freedom fighters shall be tolerated and the govt is committed
to protect the glory of the freedom fighters.
(b) Any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of
causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury,
7|Page
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
(c) Any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing
annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or
recipient about the origin of such messages.
Shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three
years and with fine.
Explanation. For the purpose of this section, terms electronic mail and
electronic mail message means a message or information created or transmitted or
received on a computer, computer system, computer resource or communication
device including attachments in text, images, audio, video and any other electronic
record, which may be transmitted with the message.
2.2 Sharing of such posts is considered Obscene (i.e. offensive to the current
standard of morality) because their views can create negative impact and corrupt
the mind of the citizens of the Nation.
The objective behind the 2008 amendment was to prevent the misuse of info tech,
particularly through social media. Sec. 66(a) comes with extremely wide
parameter, which allows whimsical interpretations by law enforcement agencies.
It is a potential tool to gag legitimate free speech online, and to curtail freedom of
speech and expression guaranteed under the const. , on-going far beyond the ambit
of reasonable restriction on that freedom.
The Supreme Court in the preliminary hearing accepted the contention that the
provision was very widely drafted, and gave arbitrary power to the police officers
to make arrest.
Therefore this justifies the arrest of Mr. Rahul Pandit and that his sharing and
liking of post is considered Obscene.
8|Page
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
3.1 Under art 19(1)(a) of Yunesian Const guarantees the right to freedom of speech
and expression to all the citizens. But the freedom of speech and expression is not
absolute.
3.2 Under Art 19(2), the state is allowed to make laws to impose reasonable
restriction on the right of free speech in the interest of the Sovereignty and
Integrity of Yunesia.
Under Article 19(2), the state is allowed to make laws to impose reasonable
restrictions on the right of free speech in the interests of the sovereignty and
integrity of Yunesia, 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. Out of those only defamation protects a
private individual interest and all others are public interests.
9|Page
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER
PRAYER
10 | P a g e