879 - Pratik Bakshi - Respondent

NUALS INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2014
Memorial for the Respondents Page 1

Participant Code: ____________

IN THE
HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF CIDIA
2014

Maya & Anr. v. Union of Cidia & Anr.
WITH
Jan Mukthi Andolan v. Union of Cidia
&
Ms. Salma v. News Broadcasters Association of Cidia

Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of Cidia

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS


List of Abbreviations
Index of Authorities
Book and Commentaries
Cases Cited
Acts, Rules and Instructions
Reports of Committees
Dictionaries
Statement of Jurisdictions
Statement of Facts
Questions Presented
Summary of Pleadings
Pleadings and Authorities
Prayer

TABLE OF CONTENTS


1. &: And
2. A.P. : Andhra Pradesh
3. AIR: All India Reporter
4. Art. : Article
5. Co. : Company
6. Corp. : Corporation
7. Cri. : Criminal
8. Cri. L.J./ Cr L.J. : Criminal Law Journal
9. Ed./ Edn. : Edition
10. HC : High Court
11. Honble: Honourable
12. Ltd.: Limited
13. M. P. : Madhya Pradesh
14. No. : Number
15. Ors. : Others
16. p. : Page
17. pp. : Pages
18. Pvt. : Private
19. SC: Supreme Court
20. SCC: Supreme Court Cases
21. SCR: Supreme Court Reports
22. Sec. : Section
23. Supp. : Supplementary
24. T.N: Tamil Nadu
25. U.P. : Uttar Pradesh
26. UK: United Kingdom
27. v. : Versus
28. Vol. : Volume

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS


Books and Commentaries

1. Chaudharis Law of Writs, Fifth Edition 2003, Law Publishers (India) Private
Limited.
2. Dr. J. N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India, Forty Fourth Edition 2007, Central
Law Agency.
3. Durga Das Basu, Law of the Press, (4
th
Ed. 2002), Wadhwa Nagpur.
4. G Ramachandran, Law of Writs, Vol I & II, Sixth Edition, Eastern Book Company.
5. H. M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India, Vol 1 & 2, Fourth Edition, Reprint 2006,
Universal Law Publishing Company.
6. M P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, Fifth Edition, Reprint 2003, Wadhwa &
Company Nagpur.
7. P M Bakshi, The Constitution of India, Ninth Edition 2009, Universal Law Publishing
Company.
8. V N Shukla, Constitution of India, Tenth Edition, Reprint 2003, Eastern Book
Company.

CASES CITED

1. Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. Union of India
2. R.Rajagopal v. State of T.N.
3. Kharak Singh v. State of U.P.
4. PUCL v. UOI & Anr.
5. Govind v. State of M.P.
6. Sharda v. Dharmpal
7. State of Haryana and Ors. v Mahabir Vegetable Oils Pvt. Ltd.,
8. Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. Union Of India
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES


9. Major G.S Sodhi v. Union of India
10. Mylapore Club v. State of Tamil Nadu
11. Ram Krishna Dalmia v. S.R. Tendolkar
12. Municipal Committee v. State of Punjab
13. Commissioner of Central Excise Jamshedpur v. Dabur (India) Ltd.
14. A.K. Roy v. Union of India
15. Federation of Railway officers Association v. Union of India
16. Naraindas v. State of M.P.
17. Peoples Union of Civil Liberities v. Union of India
18. Ramkrishna Dalmia v. Tendolkar
19. Pannalal v. Union of India
20. Naraindas v. State of M.P.
21. Ramkrishna Dalmia v. Tendolkar
22. Confederation of Ex-serviceman Association v. Union of India
23. Om Kumar v. Union of India
24. Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab
25. ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla
26. Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab
27. Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra
28. Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration)
29. Md. Shahabuddin v State of Bihar
30. Zahira Habubulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat

ACTS, RULES & INSTRUCTIONS

1. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
2. Constitution of India
3. Information Technology Act, 2000
4. Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008
5. Prasar Bharti (Broadcasting Corporation of India) Act, 1990
6. Supreme Court Rules, 1966


7. Supreme Court Procedure and Practice Information Handbook

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS

1. Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
2. International Covenant on Cultural, Civil and Political Rights, 1966.

DICTIONARY

1. Blacks Law Dictionary, (8
th
ed., 2004)



The respondents Union of Cidia & Anr. hereby submits its written response to the petition
filed by Maya & Anr.
The respondents Union of Cidia hereby submits its written response to the petition filed by
Jan Mukhti Andolan
The respondents News Broadcasting Association of Cidia, hereby submits its written
response to the petition filed by the Ms. Salma.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION


1. Crombay is the capital city of Saurashtra, a state in the Union of Cidia. With the
mushrooming of immoral activities within Crombay, the State of Saurashtra
appointed a Committee to conduct an enquiry into the reasons behind the sudden
increase in the immoral activities within the city. The findings of the Committee
showcased that a large number of unlicensed bars were operating illegally and without
complying with the rules framed under section 33 of the Crombay Police Act, 1951,
which is similar to the Bombay Police Act, 1951. It further stated that many young
women were trapped into human trafficking and prostitution under the semblance of
dance bars.
2. In order to confront the menace, the Saurashtra Legislative Assembly passed the
Crombay Police (Amendment) Act 2014, inserting sections 33A and 33B in the
Crombay Police Act, 1951, which empowered the police to take steps for the closure
of dance bars within the state of Saurashtra, with a view to prevent women from
falling prey to sex rackets. The new law did not provide any alternative source of
livelihood to women who were employed in such dance bars, and so as reported by a
newspaper daily named Saurashtra Patrika, nearly twenty thousand women within
Crombay itself lost their means of livelihood, of which nearly seventy-five percent
were the sole bread winners for the families.
3. On 10
th
January 2014, a news channel of the Broadcasting Corporation of Cidia
carried a news report containing a two minutes video of two dancers named Maya and
Mohini dancing and soliciting their clients in full zeal and vigour. The news item did
not reveal the names of the two women but the visuals were clear enough to reveal the
identities of the two women. On 13 January 2014, Maya and Mohini moved the
Supreme Court of Cidia under Article 32 of The Constitution of Cidia alleging that
the Broadcasting Corporation of India has through the visuals infringed their Right to
Privacy. They claimed compensation from the Union of Cidia and apology by way of
scroll continuously for two days in all channels of Broadcasting Corporation fo Cidia.
4. Ms. Salma, who had tweeted her discontent in the governmental move on banning
dance bars was arrested by the Crombay Police alleging her of committing an offence
STATEMENT OF FACTS


under section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The arrest attracted deep
public furore and the media projected it as an illustrative episode of the breakdown of
rule of law in the State of Saurashtra. At the backdrop of this sentimental outcry, the
Crombay Metropolitan Magistrate released Salma on bail. The Crombay Metropolitan
Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and the trial commenced after the
completion of investigation by police in accordance of the Information Technology
Act, 2000 and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 2000.
5. In the light of these developments, Jan Mukthi Andolan, an NGO filed a Petition
under Article 32 of the Constitution of Cidia challenging the constitutional validity of
Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
6. In the meanwhile, Ms. Salma moved a Writ Petition in The Supreme Court of Cidia
alleging that the fairness of her trial has been prejudiced by the unusual participation
of the media. She prayed for the issuance of a postponement order temporarily
gagging the media from interfering in the trial and reporting on the case.



1. Whether the writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of Cidia
maintainable before this Honourable Court and whether right to privacy is an
absolute right?
1.1. Whether right to privacy is an absolute right?
1.2. Whether the petition filed is maintainable?

2. Whether Section 66A of the Information Technology Act 2000 infringes the
fundamental right as guaranteed under the Constitution?

3. Whether the case is maintainable and whether the media should be temporarily
gagged from covering the case?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED


1. Case 1: Right to Privacy is not an absolute fundamental right and in the present
case there has been no violation of the specified right and they are not liable for
compensation or apology.

Right to privacy is not an absolute fundamental right under the Constitution of Cidia
and thus it can be reasonably infringed. As the fundamental right has not been
violated the petition is not maintainable.

2. Case 2: Section 66A is constitutional and does not violate any of the fundamental
rights
The terms used in this Act are not vague as they can only be defined only in a case by
case manner and thus it cannot be termed as unconstitutional.

3. Case 3: The petition is not maintainable
News Broadcasters Association of Cidia (NBAC) is not a state under Article 12 of the
Constitution of Cidia and also there has been no violation of the Right to free trial
under Article 21 of the Constitution of Cidia and thus this petition is maintainable.

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS


PLEADINGS AND AUTHORITIES

THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF THE PETITIONERS HAS NOT BEEN
INFRINGED AND SO THE CASE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE.

3.1 Right to Privacy is not an absolute right.

Article 32 of the Constitution of Cidia confers to its citizens the right to move to the
Supreme Court for the enforcement of the fundamental rights conferred by the Part III of the
Constitution. But in cases where there is no question of the enforcement of a fundamental
right, Article 32 has no application
1
.The Constitution of Cidia is identical to that of India and
therefore, the arrangement of Articles must be identical. Here in the instant case, the said
petition has been filed under the Article 32 of the Constitution of Cidia saying that the
petitioners fundamental right right to privacy has been infringed upon by the Broadcasting
Corporation of Cidia. Under constitutional law, the right to privacy is implicit in the
fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed by the Article 21 of the Constitution
2
. But the
right to privacy flowing from Article 21 must, however, be balanced against the fundamental
right of the media to publish any matter of public interest. There could be no right to protect
mere personal sensitiveness of an individual; the infringement of fundamental right must be
both direct as well as tangible
3
.
The right to privacy falls under the broad ambit of the Article 21, and is open to judicial
interpretation based on the facts of the said case.
4
Assuming that the fundamental rights
explicitly guaranteed to a citizen to have penumbral zones and that the right to privacy is
itself a fundamental right that fundamental right must be subject to restriction on the basis of
compelling public interest.
5
The facts of the said case clearly suggest that the Broadcasting
Corporation of Cidia carried out the story in good faith to portray the plight of the women
who were earlier employed as dancers in the dance bars. The Broadcasting Corporation of
India also gets the benefit of Section 28 of the Prasar Bharti (Broadcasting Corporation of

1
Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. Union of India,AIR 1951 SC 41.
2
R.Rajagopal v. State of T.N., (1994) 6 SCC 632
3
Kharak Singh v. State of U.P.,AIR 1963 SC 1295
4
PUCL v. UOI & Anr., (1997) 1 SCC 301.
5
Govind v. State of M.P., 1975 2 SCC 148


India) Act 1990, which states that: No suit or other legal proceeding shall lie against the
Corporation, the Chairman or any Member or officer or other employee thereof or the
President or a member of the Broadcasting Council or a member of a Regional Council or a
Recruitment Board for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done in
pursuance of this Act or of any rules or regulations made there under.
The right to privacy is not absolute and may be recognised if the benefit to society
outweighs the costs of keeping the information private
6
. Thus, it is respectfully submitted
before this Honourable Court that the present case largely being in furtherance of a bona fide
policy meant to benefit the people, should not be questioned in a court of law.
7

Lastly, as there have been no proven mala fide intentions on part of the Broadcasting
Corporation of Cidia in carrying out the news report it is respectfully submitted before this
Honourable Court that the right to privacy of the petitioner has not been infringed upon.

1.2. Petitioner lacks the requisite locus standi to approach this Honourable Court and
thus the petition is not maintainable.

Locus Standi in Latin refers to a place of standing and it is defined as the right to bring
an action or to be heard in a given forum.
8

Article 32 of the Constitution of Cidia provides a platform to its citizens to directly
approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights. However, where
there is no scope of the enforcement of fundamental rights conferred on the Part III of the
Constitution, Article 32 has no application
9
. Further it is a question of fact whether the
fundamental right of right to privacy of the petitioner has been infringed upon or not.
Ordinarily under Article 32 the Court does not enter into questions of fact
10
.
Therefore, it is humbly submitted before this Honorable Court that the petitioner in
the instant case does not have the required locus standi to invoke the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court.

6
Sharda v. Dharmpal (2003) SCC 493
7
State of Haryana and Ors. v Mahabir Vegetable Oils Pvt. Ltd.,
8
Black's Law Dictionary, (8th ed. 2004) at p. 952.
9
Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. Union Of India, AIR 1951 SC 41
10
Major G.S Sodhi v. Union of India,(1991) 2 SCC 382.


2. The Section 66(A) of IT Act 2000 is constitutional

A statute cannot be struck down merely because the Court thinks it to be arbitrary or
unreasonable. Any such ground of invalidity must be related to a Constitutional provision,
such as, Articles 14, 19 or 21. Challenge on ground of wisdom of legislation is not
permissible as it is for the legislature to balance various interests
11
. The Legislature
appreciates and understands the needs of the people, that it knows what is good or bad for
them, that the laws it enacts are directed to problems which are made manifest by experience,
that the elected representatives in a legislature enact laws which they consider to be
reasonable, for the purposes for which these laws are enacted and that a legislature would not
deliberately flout a constitutional safeguard or right
12
. In Municipal Committee v. State of
Punjab, it was held that a law cannot be struck down as violative of a Fundamental Right
merely on the ground that it is vague
13
.
The Supreme Court has observed that no enactment can be struck down by just saying
that it is arbitrary or unreasonable. Arbitrariness on the possibility that a power may be
abused, despite the guidelines, in the provisions providing for such power cannot be held to
be arbitrary and unreasonable
14
. Some constitutional infirmity has to be found before
invalidating an Act. It cannot be declared invalid on the ground that it contains vague or
uncertain or ambiguous or mutually inconsistent provisions
15
. The expressions such as
grossly offensive, menacing, annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstructions,
insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred and ill-will which are
present in Section 66A also appear in other legislations such as Section 20 (b) of the Indian
Postal Act 1998, Sections 503, 504, 507, 295, 298, of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). In many
of these cases under the IPC, imprisonment or fine or both can be levied and therefore they
cannot be said to be vague and arbitrary. The Supreme Court has observed in that no
enactment can be struck down by just saying that it is arbitrary or unreasonable. Some
constitutional infirmity has to be found before invalidating an Act. It cannot be declared

11
Mylapore Club v. State of Tamil Nadu (2005) 12 SCC 752
12
Ram Krishna Dalmia v. S.R. Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 638
13
Municipal Committee v. State of Punjab, (1969) 1 SCC 475
14
Commissioner of Central Excise Jamshedpur v. Dabur (India) Ltd., (2005) 3 SCC 646
15
A.K. Roy v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 711


invalid on the ground that it contains vague or uncertain or ambiguous or mutually
inconsistent provisions
16
.
Controlled discretion exercisable according to a policy for purpose clearly enunciated
by a statute does not suffer from the vice of conformant of unrestricted discretion
17
. A
discretionary power is not necessarily a discriminatory power and abuse of power is not
easily to be assumed.
18
A statute carries with it a presumption of constitutionality. Such a
presumption extends also in relation to a law which has enacted for reasonable restrictions on
the fundamental right. A further presumption may also be drawn that the statutory authority
would not exercise the power arbitrarily
19
. Section 66A is the substantive law whereas the
safeguards against its improper use have been adequately provided in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1974.
Further, the bare possibility that the discretionary power may be abused is no ground
for invalidating a statute
20
. The presumption is that public official will discharge their duties
honestly and in accordance with the law
21
. If the power is actually abused in any case the
exercise of the power is actually abused in any case, the exercise of the power may be
challenged as discriminatory or mala fide
22
, but the statute will not fail on that ground.
23

The amendment was brought in Section 66(A) to tackle the problems of wrongful
emails, messages and campaigns on the social media like Facebook, Twitter, etc. Section 66
A of the IT Act gives widest powers to stop any kind of objectionable email, messages on the
social media, SMS etc. Due to the misuse of the modern communication device and increased
incidents of sending hate messages, threatening SMS, threatening Email to politicians, VIPs
in politically charged environment, the legislature introduced Section 66A Information
Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008. Hence Section 66(A) does not violate the objective of
Article 14.
Also there cannot be uncontrolled inexhaustible arbitrary freedom of speech and
expression for that would lead to anarchy. Individual rights cannot be absolute in a welfare

16
A.K. Roy v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 711
17
Federation of Railway officers Association v. Union of India, AIR 2003 SC 1344
18
Naraindas v. State of M.P. AIR 1974 SC 1232
19
Peoples Union of Civil Liberities v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 1442
20
Ramkrishna Dalmia v. Tendolkar AIR 1957 SC 532
21
Pannalal v. Union of India AIR 1957 SC 397
22
Naraindas v. State of M.P. AIR 1974 SC 1232;
23
Ramkrishna Dalmia v. Tendolkar AIR 1957 SC 532


state. It has to be subservient to the Rights of the public at large
24
. The Constitution itself laid
down under Article 19(2), the state may make a law imposing reasonable restrictions on the
exercise of the right to freedom of speech and expression in the interests of the securities of
the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency, morality, sovereignty
and integrity of India, or in relation to co1ntempt of Court, defamation or incitement to an
offence. What constitution therefore attempts to do is to strike down balance between
individuals rights and social control.
In Santosh Singh v. Delhi Administration,
25
it was held that the test of reasonableness
of restriction has to be considered in each case in the light of the nature of the rights
infringed. There can be no abstract standard of reasonableness and our Constitution provides
reasonably precise general guidance in that matter. Hence the restriction imposed by Section
66(A) are reasonable and falls under the ambit if Article 19(2).
Individual rights cannot be absolute in a welfare state. It has to be subservient to the
Rights of the public at large
26
.The right of life and liberty so guaranteed under Article 21 is
also subject to the rule of proportionality
27
. Liberty is the right of doing an act which the law
permits
28
.Liberty is confined and controlled by law as it is regulated freedom. It is not an
abstract or absolute freedom. The safeguard of liberty is in the good sense of the people and
in the system of representative and responsible Government which has been evolved. Liberty
is itself the gift of law and may bye-law be forfeited or abridged
29
. Section 66A imposes
social restraint on the liberty of an individual since an individuals liberty is subordinated to
the Liberty of the society
30
. It will ensure for the liberty of the greater number of the members
of the society at the cost of one or a few.
Every individual in the society has been guaranteed the rights under Article 21
however since the interests and necessities of the collective, i.e. the society as a whole takes
precedence over the singular interests of one person, any law which prescribes specific limits
on the exercise of the rights enshrined under Article 21 with the end being the continuation of
peaceful public life cannot be said to be violative of Article 21. Since Section 66A has been

24
Confederation of Ex-serviceman Association v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 399
25
AIR 1973 SC 1091
26
Confederation of Ex-serviceman Association v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 399
27
Om Kumar v. Union of India, (2001) 2 SCC 386
28
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569
29
ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, AIR 1976 SC 1207
30


enacted to achieve that end which is tantamount to peaceful interactions between members of
the society without violating public order, it does not transgress Article 21.
Hence it is submitted to the Honourable Court that Section 66(A) is not violative of
any rights guaranteed under the Part III of the Constitution and is reasonable and falls under
the ambit of Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

3. The case is not maintainable and also the acts of the respondent was in greater public
interest.
Article 12
31
, 13
32
and 32
33
of the constitution confers that the fundamental rights given in the
Part III are available only against state i.e. against the actions of the State. In one of its early
decision, P.D. Shamadasani v. Central Bank of India Ltd.
34
, the Supreme Court confirmed
this position. In that case the petitioner sought the protection of the court to enforce his rights
in Articles 19(1) (f) and 31 (now repealed) against the Central Bank of India Ltd. The court
dismissed the petition and said:

31
In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires, the State includes the Government and Parliament of
India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the
territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.
32
(1) All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution, in so
far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void.
(2) The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any law
made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void.
(3) In this article, unless the context otherwise requires,
(a) law includes any Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having in the
territory of India the force of law;
(b) laws in force includes laws passed or made by a Legislature or other competent authority in the territory of
India before the commencement of this Constitution and not previously repealed, notwithstanding that any such
law or any part thereof may not be then in operation either at all or in particular areas.
1[(4) Nothing in this article shall apply to any amendment of this Constitution made under article 368.]
33
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights
conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of
habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the
enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2), Parliament may by
law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers
exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this
Constitution.
34
AIR 1952 SC 59


The language and structure of Article 19 and its setting in Part III of the Constitution clearly
show that the article was intended to protect those freedoms against the state action [...]
Violation of rights of property by individuals is not within the purview of the Article.
In another case
35
, Patanjali Sastri CJ said:
The whole object of Part III of the Constitution is to provide protection for the freedoms and
rights mentioned therein against arbitrary invasion by the state.
Hence, it is humbly submitted to this Honourable Court that this petition is not maintainable.
Many times it is argued that the Privacy of litigants requires that the media and public be
excluded from court proceeding. It is now well established, however, that covertness is the
exception and openness the rule. Public confidence in the integrity of the court system and
understanding the administration of justice are thereby fostered.
It is not only in the public interest to see proper conduct in the administration justice, but
more importantly, there is a therapeutic value to the pubic seeing criminal laws in operation
purging society of the outrage experienced with the commission of crimes.
36

Openness and publicity are the sine qua non of the right to a fair trial under Article 21.
Openness and publicity help to ensure fairness of the trial. The Supreme Court has recognised
and endorsed the open justice rule in several rulings, including Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v.
State of Maharashtra
37
, Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration)
38
and Md. Shahabuddin
v State of Bihar
39
. In particular, the Supreme Court has recognised that the purpose of the
open justice rule is to ensure that the accused is fairly tried and not unjustly condemned, In
open dispensation of justice, the people may see that the State is not misusing the State
machinery like the police, the prosecutors and other public servants. The people may see that
the accused is fairly dealt and not unjustly condemned.
40

Here, in this case the discontent on governmental move may result in misusing the State
machinery. In India, the overriding public interest in maintaining public confidence in the

35
State of W.B. v. Subodh Gopal Bose, AIR 1954 SC 92
36
37
AIR 1967 SC 1
38
(1988) 3 SCC 609
39
(2010) 4 SCC 653
40
Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), (1988) 3 SCC 609


administration of justice, over and above the interest of the individual has been recognised in
Zahira Habubulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat.
41

This Court has often emphasized that in a criminal case the fate of the proceedings
cannot always be left entirely in the hands of the parties, crimes being public wrongs in
breach and violation of public rights and duties, which affect the whole community as
community and are harmful to the society in general.

41
(2004) 4 SCC 158


CONCLUSION AND PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the facts of the case, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, it is submitted that the Honourable Supreme Court of Cidia may be pleased to adjudge
and declare that:

1. There has been no infringement of Right to Privacy
2. Section 66A of Information Technology Act, 2000 is not unconstitutional
3. That News Broadasters Association of Cidia is not a part of State and that there has
been no violation of fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of Cidia.

879 - Pratik Bakshi - Respondent

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

879 - Pratik Bakshi - Respondent

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

NUALS INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2014

Memorial for the Respondents Page 1

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen