THE NATIONAL MOOT COURT Competition

TEAM CODE: TC-03
THE NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024
25TH – 27TH APRIL 2024
BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF INDRAPRASTHA
SOCIETY FOR INDEPENDENT PRESS (PETITIONER)
V.
STATE OF INDRAPRASTHA (RESPONDENT)
ON SUBMISSION TO THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT
OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF INDRAPRASTHA
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
1
National moot court Competition 2024
TABLE OF CONTENTS
[1]. LIST OF ABBRIVATION….......................................................................................................3
[2]. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………..………4
[3]. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………….………7
[4]. STATEMENT OF FACTS……….…………………………..….……………….8
[5]. STATEMENT OF ISSUES………………..………………………………….10
[6]. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…..……………………………………….…11
[7]. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED…………………………………………………13
[8]. PRAYER……………………………………………………………………30
2
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
S.NO. ABBREVIATION EXPANSION
1. AIR All India Report

2. Anr. Another
3. Art. Article
4. Acc. According
5. Bom Bombay
6. CrPC Code of Criminal Procedure
7. Edn Edition
8. Hon’ble Honourable
9. IPC Indica Penal Court
10. LR Law Reporter Law Reporter LR
11. Ors. Others
12. P.O, Bill Post office,Bill
13. S Section
14. SC Supreme Court
15. SCR Supreme Court Reports
16. SUPP Supplementary
17. UAPA Unlawful Activities(Prevention) Act
18. UOI Union of India
19. Vs Versus
20. Vol. Volume
21. & And
3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
I. L I S T OF S T A T U T E S
1. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
2. THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973
3. UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT, 1967.
4. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000
5. INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.
6. POST OFFICE BILL,2023
7. TELECOMMUNICATION BILL, 2023
II. LIST OF CASES REFERRED

• International cases
1. Whitney v. Colifornia,274 U.S 357 (1927).
2. Mulcahy v. R. (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 306.
• Indian cases
1. Deepak Bajaj vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 628.
2. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. the Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802.
3. Veerappa Pillai v. Raman and Raman Limited, AIR 1952 SCR 583.
4. Chandigarh Administration v. Manpreet Singh, AIR 1992 SCC 435.
5. Common Cause v. the Union of India, (2006) 9 SCC 304.
6. Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2010 SCW 5126.
7. Abdul Rehman Antbulay’s case, AIR 1992 SC 1701.
8. Kehar Singh and others v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1998 SC 1883.
9. Prakash Singh vs. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 1.
10. Romesh Thappar v. The State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 124.

4
11. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain, 1975 SCR (3) 333.
12. Sriniwas Vs State of Madras AIR 1951, Madras 79.
13. Virendra Vs State of Punjab, AIR. 1957 S.C. 896.
14. Express Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India, AIR. 1958 S.C. 57.
15. Rajagopal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1995 SC 264.
16. State of Madras v. V.G. Row, AIR 1952 SC196.
17. Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India v. Cricket
Association of Bengal, (1995) 2 SCC 161.
18. Bennett Coleman vs. Union of India, AIR1973 SC 106.
19. Govt. of AP vs. P.L Devi, AIR 2008 SC 1640.
20. Union of India vs. Naveen Jindal, AIR 2004 SC 1559.
21. Re: D.C. Saxena, 1996 5 SCC 216.
22. D.R. Tuljapurkar vs. State of Maharastra, AIR 2015 SC 2612.
23. Printers (Mysore) Ltd. v. CTO, 1994 SCC (2) 434.
24. Justice K.S Puttaswamy & Another vs. Union of India, AIR 2017 SC 4161.
25. R. vs. Cole 2012 SCC 53.
26. Jamiruddin Ahmed VS State of West Bengalru, 2009 WB 1535.
27. Ram Ramaswamy and ors. Vs. Union of India, AIR 2021 SCC 138.
5
LIST OF BOOKS REFFERED
S.NO. BOOK TITLE
1. Dr. JS Pandey, Constitutional law of India
2. Krishan keshav, Constitutional law of India, 11th Edition
3. Dr. Narendra Kumar, Constitutional law of India, 11th Edition
4. Universal’s The Constitution of India (Bare Act)
5. S.N Mishra, The code of Criminal Procedure
6. Krishan keshav, The code of Criminal Procedure
7. Krishan keshav, Indian Penal Code
8. KD Gaur, Textbook on Indian Penal Code
9. Unlawful Activities(Prevention) Act
6
ONLINE REFERENCE:
1. www.indiankanoon.org
2. www.livelaw.in
3. www.lawoctopus.com
4. www.lawaudiance.com
5. www.journal.indianlegalsolution.com
6. https://www.barandbench.com/
7. https://www.manupatrafast.com/
8. https://www.scconline.com/
9. https://lawtimesjournal.in/
10. https://www.legalbites.in/
JOURNALS REFERENCES:
1. Law teller on Jan 2023/ Journal on arrest without application of mind amounts to
an abuse of power.
2. Law teller on Aug 2023/ Journal on Police must not mechanically apply the law
without referring the factual position.
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND RESEARCH PAPERS
1. Article19, Constitution of India,1950

2. Article 21, Constitution of India,1950
3. Article 226, Constitution of India,1950
4. A study on Freedom of Press in India: with reference to Article 19 by B.Mugundhan
and C. Renuga., Saveetha Universty.
5. Freedom of Press in India: A Fundamental Right? By Tauseef Jawed, Alliance
University, Bengaluru.
REPORTS
1. The world Press Freedom Index published by ‘Reporters without borders’.

2. United Nation Journal assembly report on Press Freedom.
7
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Petitioner humbly submits this memorandum for the petition filed before this Honourable
Court. The petition invokes its writ jurisdiction under Article 2261 of the Constitution of
Indica. It sets forth the facts and the laws on which the claims are based.
1. Article 226 (1) clearly states that every High Court shall have the powers
throughout the territories in relation to which it exercised jurisdiction to issue
writ or orders to any person or authority.
8
FACTS OF THE CASE
1. That, the Republic of Indica is one of the leading economy and world’s largest
population with different cultures, customs, language, religion, castes, and ethnicity
upholding the principle of unity in diversity.
2. That, the constitution of Indica guarantees fundamental rights to its citizen which is
based on principles of Equality, liberty, fraternity and justice. The people of Indica
adore the democratic principles and always strive for a more democratic, liberal and
transparent system of governance.
3. That, the Supreme court of Indica in its landmark ruling in the matter of T.S.
Puttaswamy and Anr. Vs Union of Indica and Ors. held that right to privacy is
protected as a fundamental right under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the constitution of
Indica.
4. That, Mr. Prashanto Roy, a leading journalist who runs an online news portal called
‘News Flick’ with a team of more than thirty Journalist having its registered office in
the city of Indraprastha, the Capital of Indica.
5. That, at the dawn of 3rd October 2023, a special cell of the Indraprastha police held
searches at the office of the online news portal NewsFlick and Journalist associated
with it. The searches were conducted at different sites of news portal, among those
raided were NewsFlick editor-in-chief Mr. Prashanto Roy who is a well-known and
renowned figure in the media world. His personal laptop, mobile phone and some
other electronic and documentary data has been seized by the Police.
6. That, some of the other journalists were remotely associated with this news portal
were also raided and taken to the special cell’s office in Indraprastha for further
interrogation. The police also recovered dump data from laptop and mobile phones of
some of the journalists.
7. That, several opposition leaders, press bodies and civil society members gathered at
the Press Club of Indica to register their protest against the state and condemned the
police action and called it an attack on the freedom of press.
9
8. That, on the other hand the Indraprastha Police has stated that the action has been
taken on the basis of a case registered on previous month under the stringent Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act and section 153A (promoting enmity between two
groups), 120B (Criminal Conspiracy) of the Indica Penal Court and also claimed that
the action has been taken on the basis of strong evidence of money laundering.
9. That, the entire episode has led to an uproar in the country concerns has been raised
regarding the freedom of Press and right to privacy of individual in a democratic state.
10. That, it is also claimed by a senior journalist working with the news portal that they
have been specifically targeted by the ruling dispensation as they were running a story
revealing the failure of the Government policies and questioning regarding the
transparency of the funding received by the different political parties.
11. That, in the recent story the portal has criticized the latest amendment to the P.O
Bill,2023 and Telecommunication Bill,2023 and called it authoritative, arbitrary and
in breach of right to privacy.
10
ISSUE RAISED
ISSUE1
WHETHER THIS WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE

HIGH COURT OF INDRAPRASTHA?
ISSUE II
WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE POLICE HAS VIOLATED THE

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF “FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION”
GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 19 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDICA?
ISSUE III
WHETHER THE SEIZURE OF LAPTOPS AND MOBILE PHONES OF

JOURNALIST IS IN VIOLATION OF RIGHT OF “RIGHT OF PRIVACY”?
11
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE1
WHETHER THIS WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE

HIGH COURT OF INDRAPRASTHA?
It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the writ petition filled by the petitioner is
maintainable. Firstly the existence of an efficacious alternative remedy in the UAPA 1967
would not oust the petitioner from filling the writ petition as the fundamental rights have
been infringed. Secondly the fundamental rights were infringed by the action of the special
cell of Indraprastha Police which shows that there is gross violation of Fundamental rights
enshrined in Indica Constitution.
As the action taken by the special cell of Indraprastha Police on

3rd Oct 2023 in which they seized the electronics of the reputable online news portal namely
NEWSFLICK. During the raid the personal laptops, mobile phone and some other electronic
and documentary data of the editor-in-chief Prashant Roy also has been seized by the Police.
Analysing the action of the Police can be concluded that the motive behind the raid was to
suppress the voice of media.
ISSUE II
WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE POLICE HAS VIOLATED THE

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF “FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION”
GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 19 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDICA?
It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the action that were taken by the
Indraprastha Police were clear violation of Fundamental rights of Freedom of speech and
expression guaranteed under Article 19 of Indica Constitution. Firstly, the constitution
makers have not specify freedom of press separately under Part III of Indica Constitution
because they believe that the freedom of press is covered under the umbrella of Article
19(1)(a).
12
Secondly, Article 19(1) (a) forbids state monopoly either in print and electronic media. A
monopoly over broadcasting whether by Government or anybody else, was inconsistent with
free speech right.
In the words of Nelson Mandela2 “a free press is one of pillar of democracy”. Thus the
actions of Indraprastha Police were an attack on fourth pillar of democracy of Indica and it
would cause serious injury to the foundation of our democracy.
ISSUE III
WHETHER THE SEIZURE OF LAPTOPS AND MOBILE PHONES OF

JOURNALIST IS IN VIOLATION OF RIGHT OF “RIGHT OF PRIVACY”?
It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the seizure of laptops and mobile phones
of Journalist is in violation of right of “Right of Privacy”. Firstly the seizing of personal
Laptop, Mobile phone and other electronic and documentary data of editor-in-chief of
Newsflick is violation of fundamental right of privacy. Secondly, the action taken by
Indraprastha Police were arbitrary because they cease the personal Laptop, Mobile phone and
other electronic and documentary data which violates the guidelines laid down by the hon’ble
Supreme Court under the case of Ram Ramaswamy and ors. Vs. Union of India3.
Therefore, the action against the Newsflick was “orchestrated, illegal and unconstitutional”
and these actions of Indraprastha Police also have diminished the image of the democratic
country at the world platform.
2. South African anti-apartheid leader and world human right activist.

3. AIR 2021 SCC 138.
13
ARGUMENT ADVANCE
ISSUE1
1. THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH

COURT OF INDRAPRASTHA
(1.) The writ petition filled by the Petitioner against the action taken by the Indraprastha
Police under UAPA4 is maintainable. [A] Further there is infringement of Fundamental rights
[B] and therefore the Constitutionality of the action of Indraprastha Police is being
challenged.
A. The Writ is independent of the existing alternative remedies
(2.) The existence of an alternative remedy does not operate as an absolute bar on the writ
court as it is a process that the court chooses to opt out of convenience and discretion. Under
special circumstances the High Court may grant writ remedies to a petitioner even with the
existence of an alternative remedy.
B. Writ Petition is maintainable when there is infringement of Fundamental rights
Article 226 of the Indian Constitution gives High Courts the power and ability to enforce
any of the basic fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution of Indica, or for
any other reason.
According to Article 226(1), each High Court within Indica’s territorial jurisdiction has the
ability and power to issue orders, instructions, and writs, to any individual or authority,
including the government, for the enforcement of Part III of the Indian Constitution or basic
fundamental rights and other legal rights within its own jurisdiction.
4. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967.

5. Deepak Bajaj vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 628.
14
Article 226(2) empowers the High Courts with the authority to issue orders, instructions, and
writs to any government authority or any individual, outside their own local jurisdiction in
circumstances when the cause of action is completely or partially within their local
jurisdiction despite the fact that such government or authority’s seat or the individual’s
domicile is not within the territory.
According to Article 226(3), when an interim order is issued against the respondent under
Article 226 in the form of an injunction or a stay without:
1. Providing the respondent with a copy of the petition and any relevant evidence; and
2. Providing the respondent with an opportunity to be heard.
In Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. the Union of India6, it was held that Article 226 has a much
broader scope than Article 32, as it gives the High Courts the power to issue orders,
directions, and writs not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights but also for the
enforcement of legal rights that are granted to the disadvantaged by statute and are just as
important as the fundamental rights.
In Veerappa Pillai v. Raman and Raman Limited7, it was held that the writs referred to in
Article 226 were clearly intended to enable the High Court to issue them in cases where
subordinate bodies or officers act without jurisdiction, or in excess of jurisdiction, or in
violation of natural justice principles, or refuse to exercise a jurisdiction vested in them, or
there is an obvious error on the face of the record, and such act, omission, error, or excess has
resulted in injustice. Regardless of how broad the jurisdiction is, it does not appear to be
sufficiently broad or large to allow the High Court to turn it into a Court of Appeal and
evaluate for itself the accuracy of the contested decisions and determine what the right
position to be taken is or the order to be issued.
6. AIR 1984 SC 802

7. AIR 1952 SCR 583
15
In Chandigarh Administration v. Manpreet Singh 8, it was decided that the High Court
does not sit and/or function as an appellate authority over the orders/actions of the
subordinate authorities when working under Article 226. Its authority is purely supervisory.
One of the jurisdiction’s key goals is to keep the government, as well as a number of other
agencies and courts, inside their particular jurisdictions. While performing this job, the High
Court must ensure that it does not go beyond the well-defined boundaries of its own
jurisdiction.
In Common Cause v. the Union of India 9, the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that the High
Court has been given the power and jurisdiction to issue appropriate writs in the nature of
mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, quo warranto, and habeas corpus for the enforcement of
fundamental rights or for any other purpose under Article 226 of the Constitution. As a result,
the High Court can issue relief not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights but also for
“any other reason,” which might include the enforcement of public responsibilities by public
authorities.
C. The illegal action of Indraprastha Police is violation of Human Rights
The relationship between law enforcement and human rights has long been a topic of concern
and debate. While police play a vital role in maintaining public safety and order, instances of
their violation of human rights have sparked widespread scrutiny and calls for reform. From
cases of excessive use of force to discriminatory practices, these violations not only infringe
upon individuals' fundamental rights but also erode trust in the justice system. Understanding
the complexities of this issue is essential for fostering a society where law enforcement
agencies uphold human rights while fulfilling their mandate to serve and protect.
8. AIR 1992SCC 435

9. (2006) 9 SCC 304
16
One of the important purposes of the UN charter is to promote and encourage human rights
and fundamental freedom which is also included in International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Article 3 of the UDHR provides,

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security.
Similarly, Article 6(1) of the ICCPR provides:
Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one
shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.
Article 5 of the UDHR provides:

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment.
Further right to equality before law and right to effective remedy for acts violating the
fundamental right have been guaranteed Article 9 of the Declaration provides:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. Everyone is entitled in full
equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the
determination of his rights and obligation and of any criminal charge against him. Everyone
charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty
according to law in public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his
defence
Article 7 of the ICCPR further provides:

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or
scientific experimentation.
It has been further provided that everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No
one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty
except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law. The
right of fair hearing and equality before the courts has also been guaranteed.
17
In Babubhai v. State of Gujarat10, the Supreme Court reiterated that not only fair trail but
fair investigation is also part of constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 20 and 21 of
the Constitution of India.
Thus, from Abdul Rehman Antbulay’s case11 to Babubhai’s case the Supreme Court
affirmed categorically that speedy investigation is an integral part of speedy trial, and hence
delaying investigation process by the police is against constitutional right of the accused.
Otherwise the very purpose of constitutional right of speedy trial would be meaningless.
As the action taken by Special cell of Indraprastha Police were taken in such a manner that
violated the fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution, as they were not given the
opportunity to be heard by the investigation agency and no prior information regarding
detention was given to any journalist who were taken into detention by special cell in the
name of Interrogation.
D. The Present Petition is maintainable as there is ignorance of law.
As mentioned in the memorial that the action that was taken based upon case registered
under certain section of UAPA and section 153A and 120B of Indica Penal Court but further
no clarification of grounds was given by the Indraprastha Police under which such action
have been taken.
a) Section153A deals with Promoting enmity between different groups on ground of

religion, race, place of birth, residence, language etc. and doing acts prejudicial to
maintenance of harmony. Further stated that nothing has been stated that could
concrete the imposition of this section.
10. AIR 2010 SCW 5126.

11. AIR 1992 SC 1701.
18
b.) Section 120B deals with Punishment of Criminal Conspiracy. For the further
clarification Criminal Conspiracy(Section120A) means an illegal act or an act which is
not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy. But in
the memorial there is nothing that indicates any illegal act done by the petitioner. The
petitioner is only engaged in his profession that is Journalism.
c.) Certain section of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 also have been imposed
on the Petitioner not admitting the fact that the Petitioner was engaged in such activities
even though the procedure followed by the Indraprastha Police was against the due
procedure of law. As in Chapter VI, section 43A, section 43B (2) of UAPA was not
followed.
The House of Lords in Mulcahy v. R.12 stated that “A conspiracy consists not merely in the
intention of two or more but in the agreement of two or more to do an unlawful act by
unlawful means.
Kehar Singh and others v. State (Delhi Administration) 13
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in this case, has held that the most important ingredient of the
offence of conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act. Such
an illegal act may or may not be done in pursuance of the agreement, but the very agreement
is an offence and is punishable.
In Prakash Singh vs. Union of India14, the Supreme Court held that the decision deals
primarily with three facets of policing, organizing, flexibility, transparency and efficacy.
12. (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 306.

13. AIR 1998 SC 1883.
14. (2006) 8 SCC 1.
19
ISSUE II
THE ACTION OF THE POLICE HAS VIOLATED THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

OF “FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION” GUARANTEED UNDER
ARTICLE 19 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDICA?
The action of the Indraprastha Police has violated the fundamental right of freedom of speech
and expression as [A] Freedom of speech and expression is core component of Press freedom
and important for a democratic society, [B] therefore, no pre stoppage of publication in
newspaper of Article or matter of public importance given under Constitution of Indica. [C]
The press having the freedom of circulation, [D] and Article19 (1) (a) forbids state monopoly
either in print or electronic media. [E] Article19 (1) (a) also talks about the liberty of press or
media.
A. Freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of press and media
Press freedom is a fundamental principle that allows journalists and media organizations to
operate without censorship or government interference. It is a core component of Freedom of
expression and is essential for a democratic society.
Freedom of press or media refers to the rights given by the Constitution of Indica under the
freedom and expression of speech in Article 19(1) (a). It encourages independent journalism
and promotes democracy by letting the people voice their opinions for or against the
government’s actions.
o Article 19 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights enshrined that everyone has

the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold
opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas
through any media and regardless of frontiers.
20
o “Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited
without being lost” is stated by Thomas Jefferson to define the importance of
freedom of the press.
o England's Bill of Rights 1689 adopted freedom of speech as a constitutional right
and still in effect.
o The French Revolution in 1789 adopted the Declaration of Rights of Man and of
Citizen. This further affirmed the Freedom of Speech as an undeniable right.
o The Declaration of Freedom of Speech in Article 11 states:
The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the right
of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write and print with freedom, but shall
be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.
o John Milton says that “give me the liberty to know, to argue freely, and to utter
according to conscience, above all liberties”.
In 1950, the Supreme Court in Romesh Thappar v. The State of Madras15 observed that
freedom of the press lay at the foundation of all democratic organizations. The freedom of
speech and expression includes freedom to propagate ideas which is ensured by freedom of
circulation of a publication, as publication is of little value without circulation.
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain16 has held that Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution
guarantees the freedom of speech and expression to all citizens in addition to protecting the
rights of the citizens to know the right to receive information regarding matters of public
concern.
Sriniwas Vs State of Madras17: Madras High Court held that the freedom of speech and
expression is not limited to the publicity of views. It includes the publicity of views of others
also which is possible by freedom of press only.
15. AIR 1950 SC 124.

16. 1975 SCR (3) 333.
17. A.I.R 1951 Madras 79
21
Virendra Vs State of Punjab18

The Supreme Court has said that, preventing any newspaper from publishing any article of
current importance is encroachment of the freedom of speech and expression.
Express Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India19

The following activities diminishing the freedom of Press were held unconstitutional:
a. Pre-censorship of newspaper,
b. Prohibition on circulation of Newspaper,
c. Prohibition in start of newspaper
d. Government aid to be compulsory for the continuity of newspaper, etc
e. Justice Louis Brandies had made a classic statement on the freedom of speech in the
context of the U.S Constitution in the case of Whitney v. California20
“Those who won our independence believed that courage is the secret of liberty and liberty is
the secret of happiness. These people believed that freedom to think, freedom to speak and
freedom to assemble wilfully for discussion is futile and of no use. But the public discussion
is a political duty and it should be the fundamental principle of the government of America.”
[B] No pre stoppage of publication in newspaper of Article or matter of public

importance given under Constitution of Indica.
The Newsfilck has always been a lawful critic of those Government policies which are either
not transparent or are not in public welfare. In a recent story, covered by the Newsfilck portal
I which they criticized the latest amendments to the Post Office Bill, 2021 and the
Telecommunication Bill, 2023 and called it authoritative, arbitrary and breach of right of
privacy.
18. A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 896

19. A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 57
20. 274 U.S 357 (1927)
22
In Virendra vs. State of Punjab, 21 the Supreme Court held that banning of publication in
the newspaper of its own views or the views of correspondents about the burning topic of the
day was “a serious encroachment of the valuable cherished right to freedom of speech and
expression.”
Likewise, in Rajagopal vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 22 the Supreme Court held that the neither
the government nor the official had any authority to imposed a prior restraint upon the
publication of material on the ground that such material is likely to be defamatory of them.
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India 23 In this landmark
case, the Supreme Court of India affirmed the freedom of the press as an integral part of the
right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian
Constitution. The court held that prior restraint on publication could only be justified in
exceptional circumstances, such as national security concerns. This case further strengthened
the protection of freedom of the press in India.
State of Madras v. V.G. Row 24: This case established the "Doctrine of Proportionality"
where the Supreme Court held that restrictions on freedom of speech and expression must be
proportionate to the reasons for imposing them.
[C] The press having the freedom of circulation
Freedom of Speech and Expression includes the freedom of propagation of one’s ideas or
views and this freedom is ensured by the “freedom of circulation”.
As mentioned in the memorial, the Police seized the Laptop, mobile Phones of the journalist
associated with Newsflick which indeed led to a bar on circulation of views or ideas of the
news portal as all the essentials to do so were seized.
21. AIR 2022 P&H.

22. AIR 1995 SC 264
23. AIR 1986 SC 515.
24. AIR 1952 SC196.
23
In Romesh Thaper vs. State of Madras25, The Court, while ruling on the validity of the
impugned order that banned the entry and circulation of the weekly magazine into certain
parts of Madras, held that the freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of
propagation of ideas that can only be ensured by circulation.
There would be violation of liberty of the press not only where there is direct ban on the
circulation of a publication as was the case in the Romesh Thaper, but also when some action
on the part of the Government adversely affect the circulation of publication.
In Lovell vs. City of Guiffin26, the court held that the liberty of circulation is essential to the
freedom as a liberty of publication indeed without circulation; the publication would be of
little value.
[D] Article19 (1) (a) forbids state monopoly either in print or electronic media.
In a democratic society, neither any private body nor any governmental organization can
claim any monopoly over print or electronic media. The Indica Constitution also forbids it. A
citizen has fundamental right to use the best means of imparting and receiving
communication and as such have an access to telecasting for the purpose. The Supreme Court
widened the scope and extent of the right to freedom of speech and expression and held that
the government has no monopoly on electronic media and a citizen has under Art. 19(1)(a) a
right to telecast and broadcast to the viewers/listeners through electronic media television and
radio any important event.
Therefore, the action taken by special cell of Indraprastha Police are clear violation of
Fundamental right and highlight the motive behind the raid was to suppress the voice and not
let people to know the other prospective of bills which could have hampered the government
politically.
25. AIR 1950 SC 124.

26. 303 U.S. 444 (1938).
24
Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India v. Cricket

Association of Bengal27. The Supreme Court expressly held that the right to freedom of
speech and expression, under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India, includes the right
to impart and receive information via electronic media. The government had no monopoly on
electronic media that a citizen had under article19 (1) (a), a right to telecast and broadcast to
the views/listeners through electronic media, television and radio, any important event. It has
held that a monopoly over broadcasting whether by Government or anybody else was
inconsistent with free speech right. No monopoly of this media could be conceived for the
simple reason that the article 19(2) didn’t permit state monopoly unlike of clause 6 of
Article19 vis-s-vis the right guaranteed by Article19 (1) (g).
[E] Article19 (1) (a) also talks about the liberty of press or media.
The freedom of the press, protected by the First Amendment, is critical to a democracy in
which the government is accountable to the people. A free media functions as a watchdog
that can investigate and report on government wrongdoing. It is also a vibrant marketplace of
ideas, a vehicle for ordinary citizens to express themselves and gain exposure to a wide range
of information and opinions.
Bennett Coleman vs. Union of India28 held that the freedom of Press had both quantitative
and qualitative elements. The Supreme Court ruled that the policy’s quantitative controls,
such as page limits, unjustifiably restricted freedom of the press and expression.
Govt. of AP vs. P.L Devi29, Freedom of speech and expression has been held to be basic and
indivisible for a democratic polity, the citizen’s most cherished and sacred right, the “prized
privilege”.
27. (1995) 2 SCC 161.

28. AIR1973 SC 106.
29. AIR 2008 SC 1640.
25
Union of India vs. Naveen Jindal30, it was held that the freedom of speech and expression is
said to be a cornerstone of functioning of the democracy. It is the foundation of a democratic
society.
In Re: D.C. Saxena31, the court held that the freedom of speech and expression is essential to
the rule of law and liberty of citizen.
D.R. Tuljapurkar vs. State of Maharastra32, the court held that the phrase “speech and
expression” is of very wide cannotation “Expression” naturally presupposes a second party to
whom the ideas are expressed or communicated. The freedom of expression, thus, includes
the freedom of the propagation of ideas, their publication and circulation.
ISSUE III
THE SEIZURE OF LAPTOPS AND MOBILE PHONES OF JOURNALIST IS IN

VIOLATION OF RIGHT OF “RIGHT OF PRIVACY”?
The action of Indraprastha police of seizure of Laptops and mobile phones of Journalist is in
violation of Right of Privacy.[A] as citizen right to privacy is a fundamental right enshrined
in Indica Constitution.[B] Therefore, the seizure of Personal laptops is violation of Right of
Privacy. [C] Which shows arbitrariness and ignorance of law by special cell of Indraprastha
police.
[A] Citizen right to privacy: a fundamental right.
As mentioned in the memorial that the personal laptops, mobile phones and documentary data
has been seized by the Police. Even, the Police also recovered dump data from laptops and
mobile phones of some of the Journalist which shows the gross violation of Right to
Privacy33 enshrined under Article 21 of Indica Constitution.
30. AIR 2004 SC 1559.

31. 1996 5 SCC 216
32. AIR 2015 SC 2612.
33. Distt. Registrar & Collector v. Canara Bank, 2005 (1) SCC 496; Sharda v. Dharmpal, AIR 2003 SC
3450.
26
Internationally the right to privacy has been protected in a number of conventions. For
instance, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 (UDHR) 34 under Article 12
provides that:
"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or
correspondence, or to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the
protection of the law against such interference or attacks."
The UDHR protects any arbitrary interference from the State to a person's right to privacy.
Similarly, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1976 (ICCPR) under
Article 17 imposes the State to ensure that individuals are protected by law against arbitrary
or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful
attacks on his honour and reputation.
In Printers (Mysore) Ltd. v. CTO35 the Supreme Court has reiterated that though freedom
of the press is not expressly guaranteed as a fundamental right, it is implicit in the freedom of
speech and expression. Freedom of the press has always been a cherished right in all
democratic countries and the press has rightly been described as the fourth chamber of
democracy.
Justice K.S Puttaswamy & Another vs. Union of India and Others 36 , The Court in a
landmark judgement ruled that privacy is a fundamental right, and that the right to privacy is
protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty, as a part of the freedoms
guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution. The Bench also ruled that the right to privacy is not
absolute, but is subject to reasonable restrictions (as is every other fundamental right).
[B] The seizure of Personal laptops is violation of Right of Privacy.
As mentioned in the memorial, the police raided and seize the Personal Laptop, mobile phone
and electronic and documentary data of editor-in- chief, Prashant Roy and took it with
themselves. This shows the gross violation of Article 14, 19 and 21 of Indica Constitution.
34. UDHR was adopted be UN General Assembly on 10 Dec, 1948.

35. 1994 SCC (2) 434.
36. AIR 2017 SC 4161.
27
Justice K.S Puttaswamy & Another vs. Union of India and Others 37, The nine Judge
Bench in this case unanimously reaffirmed the right to privacy as a fundamental right under
the Constitution of India. The Court held that the right to privacy was integral to freedoms
guaranteed across fundamental rights, and was an intrinsic aspect of dignity, autonomy and
liberty.
In R. vs. Cole38, the Court held that the warrantless search and seizure of the laptop by the
police violated the respondent's right to privacy, as the lawful possession of the laptop by the
school for administrative purposes did not give the police a derivative power to access it for
an investigation.
Jamiruddin Ahmed VS State of West Bengalru39, RAID WITHOUT REASON NOT

OKAY: A division bench ruled that search/seizure without recording valid reasons violates
the right to privacy.
[C] There are arbitrariness and ignorance of guidelines given by Karnataka High
Court
Ceasing of laptop, mobile phones and documentary data shows the arbitrariness by
Indraprastha Police and the manner in which the action were taken shows the ignorance of
guidelines given by Karnataka high court which indeed resulted in violation of fundamental
rights of the petitioner.
37. AIR 2017 SC 4161.

38. 2012 SCC 53.
39. 2009 WB 1535.
28
Ram Ramaswamy and ors. Vs. Union of India Case40 Guidelines,
The petition seeks clear guidelines from the Centre with regards to seizure, examination and
preservation of personal digital and electronic devices and their contents thereof and also
focuses on right to privacy, right against self-incrimination, protection of privileged
communication, integrity of electronic material and the return of copies of seized material to
the accused or person under the investigation.
In March 2021, Justice Suraj Govindaraj of the Karnataka High Court while dealing with a
petition (Writ Petition no. 11759/2020) laid out certain guidelines for seizure of electronic
devices in much detail:
Personal computer/Laptop
1. When carrying out a search of the premises as regards any electronic equipment smart phone
or e-mail account the search team to be accompanied by a qualified forensic examiner.
2. When carrying out a search of the premises the investigating officer should not use the
computer or attempt to search a computer for evidence. The usage of the computer
and/or search should be conducted by a properly authorized and qualified person like a
properly qualified forensic examiner.
3. At the time of search the place where the computer is stored or kept is to be photographed in
such a manner that all the connections of wires including power network etc. are captured in
such photographs etc.
40. AIR 2021 SCC 138.
29
PRAYER
Therefore, in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
most humbly prated that this hon’ble court may be pleased to adjudge and declare that;
• The Writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Indica Constitution.
• The action of the Special cell of Indraprastha Police should be declared as

violation of Fundamental Rights.
• The ceasing of personal laptops, mobile phone and documentary data should be declared as
the gross violation of Article 21 guaranteed under part III of Indica constitution.
And pass any other order that it deems fit in the interests of justice, equity and good
conscience. All of which is respectfully submitted.
30

THE NATIONAL MOOT COURT Competition

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE NATIONAL MOOT COURT Competition

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE NATIONAL MOOT COURT Competition

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TEAM CODE: TC-03

THE NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2024

25TH – 27TH APRIL 2024

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF INDRAPRASTHA

SOCIETY FOR INDEPENDENT PRESS (PETITIONER)

STATE OF INDRAPRASTHA (RESPONDENT)

ON SUBMISSION TO THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT

OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF INDRAPRASTHA

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

[1]. LIST OF ABBRIVATION….......................................................................................................3

[2]. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………..………4

[3]. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………….………7

[4]. STATEMENT OF FACTS……….…………………………..….……………….8

[5]. STATEMENT OF ISSUES………………..………………………………….10

[6]. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…..……………………………………….…11

[7]. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED…………………………………………………13

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

S.NO. ABBREVIATION EXPANSION

1. AIR All India Report

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

II. LIST OF CASES REFERRED

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

LIST OF BOOKS REFFERED

S.NO. BOOK TITLE

1. Dr. JS Pandey, Constitutional law of India

2. Krishan keshav, Constitutional law of India, 11th Edition

3. Dr. Narendra Kumar, Constitutional law of India, 11th Edition

4. Universal’s The Constitution of India (Bare Act)

5. S.N Mishra, The code of Criminal Procedure

6. Krishan keshav, The code of Criminal Procedure

7. Krishan keshav, Indian Penal Code

8. KD Gaur, Textbook on Indian Penal Code

9. Unlawful Activities(Prevention) Act

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND RESEARCH PAPERS

1. Article19, Constitution of India,1950

1. The world Press Freedom Index published by ‘Reporters without borders’.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

FACTS OF THE CASE

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

WHETHER THIS WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE

WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE POLICE HAS VIOLATED THE

WHETHER THE SEIZURE OF LAPTOPS AND MOBILE PHONES OF

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

WHETHER THIS WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE

As the action taken by the special cell of Indraprastha Police on

WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE POLICE HAS VIOLATED THE

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

WHETHER THE SEIZURE OF LAPTOPS AND MOBILE PHONES OF

2. South African anti-apartheid leader and world human right activist.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

1. THE WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH

A. The Writ is independent of the existing alternative remedies

B. Writ Petition is maintainable when there is infringement of Fundamental rights

4. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER