A-39

Gujarat National Law University

First Intra Moot Court Competition, 2019

In The Honourable High Court of Purva Pradesh

CS(OS) No. 245of 2019

Under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India

In the Matter of

Ms. Titli Tiktiki………………………………………Petitioner

v.
ABC News & Ors ..………………..…………………Respondents

Written Submission on Behalf of the Petitioner

Memorandum on the behalf of the Petitioner

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................... III

2. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................... V
3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ............................................................. VII
4. STATEMENT OF FACTS .......................................................................... VIII
5. ISSUES RAISED ............................................................................................X
6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ................................................................... XI
7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ......................................................................... 1
 That the defendant have published and broadcasted news which contain
defamatory material against the plaintiff………......................1
o Exposed the plaintiff to hatred, contempt, ridicule or obloquy. ..........1
o Tend to injure him in his profession or trade…………………………
 That the defendants have infringed with the Plaintiff’s privacy, which is a
guaranteed right under Article 21 of the Constitution ...........................

 The plaintiff is entitled to compensation or damages, to be payable jointly

or severally by the defendants. ............................................................

 The plaintiff is entitled to preventive injunction restraining the defendants

from publishing any content relating to the investigation of Mr. Totapuri’s
death, or otherwise containing any material which may portray the plaintiff
in a bad light and prejudice the ongoing
investigation…………………………………………………………
8. PRAYER……………………………………………………………………

Memorandum on the behalf of the Petitioner

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Books
1. 25th, Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Laws Of Torts ( LexisNexis 2009)
2. M.P Jain

Cases
1. John v.MGN Ltd.(1996) 2 ALL ER 35(CA).
2. Kaleidoscope P Ltd. v. Phoolan Devi
3. Kharak Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 1295.
4. Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1967 SC 1.
5. R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 SCC 632.
6. R.K Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court, (2009)
7. R.v. Savundranayagan (1968) 3 All ER 439n.
8. Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Proprietors of Indian Express Newspaper, Bombay
Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. AIR1989SC190.
9. Reynolds v. Times News Paper Ltd., (1999) 4 ALL ER 609.
10. State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi, (1997) SCC 386.
11. Swatanter Kumar v. The Indian Express Ltd.
12. Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Botsford 141 US 250.

Statutes
1. The Specific Relief Act, 1963.
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And

AIR All India Reporter

ALL
Co. Company
ER
HL House Of Lords

Hon’ble Honourable

Ltd. Limited
v. Versus
SC Supreme Court
SSC Supreme Court Cases
Ms. Miss
PDF Purvanchal Democracy Front
SCBA Supreme Court Bar Association
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Counsel of the Plaintiff have approached this Honourable High Court of Purva
Pradesh under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India to file a
suit against the ABC News & Ors.
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The present case concerns a claim by Ms. Titli Tiktiki (Petitioner) on the publishing and
broadcasting of defamatory material and infringement of her right to privacy guaranteed
right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

2. Ms. Titli Tiktiki became a Solicitor General of the SC when PDF came into power in
2019 which made many people unhappy. Before the commencement of SC vacations
Ms. Titli Tiktiki and Mr. Tim Totapuri also a senior advocate in the SC had a heated
argument. Mr. Totapuri and Ms. Tiktiki were arch-rivals well known amongst the legal
fraternity. The SCBA President, Mr. Gulmukh Gulati was unhappy about the public
spat that took place and arranged for a meeting between the two at the Mario Hotel at
8pm.

3. In the presence of Mr. Gulati both the parties spoke freely about their issues and agreed
to treat each other with respect and dignity. After the dinner both the parties dropped
Mr. Gulati to his car and then carried on with their discussion. Mr. Totapuri apologized
and stated he regretted his decision of leaving Ms. Titli as that led to an unhappy
marriage and a messy divorce. Then they parted ways on a cordial note as Mr. Totapuri
had to attend a party at the Gymkhana Club. The next morning Mr. Totapuri’s dead
body was found next to the swimming pool of Hotel Mario.

4. According to the eyewitnesses Ms. Tiktiki was the last person to have seen Mr.
Totapuri alive which made her one of the prime-accused in the murder but no charges
were pressed upon her. The incident caused a national wide debate on Ms. Tiktiki’s
position.

5. Various news channels raised questions on her position by calling her lewd women not
fit for the position of the Solicitor General. She was accused to kill Mr. Totapuri with
the help of her Irish physiotherapist. Ms. Tiktiki was defamed as rumors on her
character started circulating.

6. In the TRP channel the anchor called her a hooligan and broadcasted her to be guilty for
committing the murder. For the entire duration of the interview the words “Tweet live
with #Above the law” was being displayed on the bottom panel of the screen.
7. This affected her profession as there was reduction in the number of briefs that she was
getting to argue on behalf of briefing counsels. There was also a sense of hostility and
disrespect prevailing against the petitioner in the court corridor because of which Ms.
Tiktiki’s reputation suffered a major setback.

8. Ms. Tiktiki resigned from the post of the Solicitor General for a fair and impartial probe
and filed a civil suit before the High Court of Purva Pradesh.

9. The next day most of the news channels at 7 a.m. prime time shows were broadcasting
a series of camera recordings that contained private footage of Ms. Tiktiki in her office
and her home. The news broadcasted read “unseen footage of Ms. Tiktiki’s extravagant
lifestyle” and “do we deserve such questionable professions to occupy important
offices”.

10. The broadcasts aimed to show Ms. Tiktiki’s as a rich and powerful lawyer. The news
channels also broadcasted the CCTV footage of Hotel Mario from the evening when
Ms. Tiktiki and Mr. Totapuri had met for dinner.

11. Ms. Tiktiki lawyer who had been her junior filed an application for amendment to the
CS(OS) No. 245 of 2019 on the morning of 19 June 2019 against ABC News and
others.
 ISSUED RAISED

I. That the defendants have published and broadcasted news which contains
defamatory material against the plaintiff.
II. That the defendants have infringed with the plaintiff’s privacy, which is a
guaranteed right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

III. The plaintiff is entitled to compensation or damages, to be payable jointly or

severally by the defendants, for defaming the plaintiff.

IV. The plaintiff is entitled to a preventive injunction restraining the defendants from
publishing any content related to the investigation of Mr. Totapuri’s death, or
otherwise containing any material which may portray the plaintiff in a bad light
and prejudice the ongoing investigation against her.
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. That the defendants have published and broadcasted news which contains
defamatory material against the plaintiff.

The defendants in their respective channels have defamed the plaintiff by

broadcasting derogatory and defaming news of the plaintiff that led to adverse
effect on her professional as well as personal life as there was a sense of
hostility and disrespect prevailing against her in the court corridors. She was
condemned to be guilty of the murdering Mr. Totapuri by the media even
though there was no charges pressed and the investigation was still in process.

II. That the defendants have infringed with the plaintiff’s privacy, which is a
guaranteed right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The defendants have broadcasting private footage of the plaintiff on her home
and her office. The purpose of the news broadcasted was completely
unrelated to the plaintiff’s professional life. Repeated references were made to
her personal life in order to create misplaced and misconceived notions about
her. The news channel also broadcasted the CCTV footage of Hotel Mario
from the evening when Ms. Tiktiki and Mr. Totapuri had met for dinner.
Therefore, the defendants have infringed the plaintiff’s privacy.

III. The plaintiff is entitled to compensation or damages, to be payable jointly

or severally by the defendants, for defaming

The defendants are conducting their own ‘mini-trial’ and while the
investigation is in process. Media being accessible to mass is able to
easily influence the decision of the public and investigating officers. The
news had already affected her professional and personal life. Therefore the
plaintiff is entitled to compensation and damages for defaming and infringing
the right to privacy of the plaintiff.
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. That the defendants have published and broadcasted news which contain
defamatory material against the plaintiff

Any words will be deemed defamatory which:

A. Expose the plaintiff to hatred, contempt, ridicule or obloquy1 ,
1. Every man has a right to have his reputation preserved inviolate. This right of
reputation is acknowledged as an inherent personal right of every person as part of
the right to personal security. It is a jus in rem, a right good against the entire world.
A man’s reputation is his property, more valuable than other property2 .

2. No one has a right to cause loss to the reputation of other with mala fide intention.
The existing law relating to defamation is a reasonable restriction on the
fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression conferred by article 19(1)
(a) of the Indian Constitution and is saved by clause (2) of article 19.

3. The Hon’ble SC of India in the matter of R.K Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High
Court3, (2009) held that:

“….The impact of television and newspaper coverage on a person’s reputation by

creating a widespread perception of guilt regardless of any verdict in a court of law.
During high publicity court cases, the media are often accused of provoking an
atmosphere of public hysteria akin to a lynch mob which not only makes a fair trial
impossible but means that, regardless of the result of the trial, in public perception
the accused is already held guilty and would not be able to live the rest of their life
without intense public scrutiny…”

4. It is humbly submitted that the right to freedom of expression guaranteed under

Art.19(1)(a) is subject to reasonable restrictions provided under Art.19(2) with
regard to defamation.

5. The Petitioner was alleged to be guilty of committing the crime of murdering Mr.
Totapuri by the ‘mini- trial’ conducted by the media which exposed the plaintiff to
hatred and contempt as there is sense of hostility and disrespect prevailing against
her.
1

1. 25th , Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The law of torts 263 ( LexisNexis2009).

2. Id. at 263.
3. R.K Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High Court

[Type here]
B. Tend to injure him in his profession or trade

1. In Reynolds v. Times News Paper Ltd4., (1999), Lord Nichollas set out:

“(1)The seriousness of the allegation. The more serious the charge, the more the
public is misinformed and the and the individual harmed, if the allegation is not true.
(2) The nature of the information, and the extent to which the subject matter is a
matter of public concern. (3) the source of the information. Some informants have no
direct knowledge of the events. Some have their own axes to grind, or are being paid
for their stories. (4) The steps taken to verify the information. (5) The status of the
information. The allegation may have been already been the subject of an
investigation which commands respect. (6) The urgency of a matter. News is often a
perishable commodity. (7) Whether comment was sought from plaintiff. He may have
information others do not possess or have not disclosed. An approach to the plaintiff
will always be not necessary. (8) Whether the article contained the gist of the
plaintiff’s side of the story.(9) The tone of the article.(10) The circumstances of the
publication, including the timing.”

2. In Swatanter Kumar vs The Indian Express Ltd. & Ors.5 , author being Mr.Manmohan
Singh the following was argued:

Mr.Rohatgi, learned senior counsel argued that the plaintiff has his hard earned
reputation and integrity before the legal fraternity as well as in the society at large as
he is still holding the responsible position as a presiding officer of the significant
tribunal. It was argued that the defendant by their irresponsible acts cannot simply
proceed to injure the reputation of the plaintiff and damage the same by publicity
against which the enquiry is yet to be commenced and completed. He has argued that
allowing the defendants to continue to flash the name and photograph of the plaintiff
in the print media or on internet or on news channels and continue to connect him
with such allegations, creating adverse atmosphere in the public would definitely
damage his reputation in the society and such damage is irreversible in nature which
has to be prevented. As per, such damage is actionable and the same is required to be
prevented by way of prohibitory orders of the Court.

4. Reynolds v. Times News Paper Ltd (1999) 4 ALL ER 609.

5. Swatanter Kumar v. The Indian Express Ltd., 2016 I AD ( Delhi ) 288.
[Type here]
 As per Mr.Rohatgi, learned Senior counsel the freedom of press as envisaged
under Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India is not absolute right and the same is subject to
the reasonable restrictions provided under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. It has been
argued by Mr.Rohatgi that excessive adverse publicity beyond fair reporting not merely
injures the reputation of the person but also affects the fair administration of justice and in
such cases, the inherent power vests with the superior Courts including High Court to
interdict power and pass interim orders including the postponement of the publications as
per the well settled law.

3. The defamatory and derogatory news affected Ms. Tiktiki’s professional life as ever
since the murder, there had been a reduction in the number of briefs that she was
getting to argue on behalf of briefing counsels. The news had affected her
professional life and created adverse environment in the public as there was hostility
and disrespect prevailing against her in the court corridors. She was also shunned by
her neighbors. Therefore, she had to resign from her position of the Solicitor General
of Purvanchal.

II. That the defendants have infringed with the plaintiff’s privacy, which is a
guaranteed right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

1. Article 21 of our Constitution provides that-

“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to
the procedure established by law”

Right to Privacy is an integral part of right to life guaranteed under Art. 21 of the
Constitution. Once the facts in a given case constitute a right to privacy, Article 21
is attracted. The said right cannot be curtailed except according to procedure
established by law. Right to Privacy is also a fundamental right recognized in by the
supreme court in the case Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Ret'd) and Anr v. Union of India
and Ors.6
3

6. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 2017 SC 4161.
[Type here]
 Privacy underpins human dignity and other key values such as freedom of
association and freedom of speech. It has become one of the most important human
rights issues of the modern age. Privacy is the most cherished of freedoms in a
democracy, and he was concerned that it should be reflected in the Constitution7.

2. The Supreme Court in R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu8 has held that :

The right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and liberty guaranteed to the
citizens by article 21. It is a "right to be let alone". A citizen has a right to
safeguard the privacy of his own, his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood,
child bearing and education among other matter.

None can publish anything concerning the above matters without his consent
whether laudatory or critical. If he does so, he would be violating the right to
privacy of the person concerned and would be liable in an action for damages.
Position may, however, be different, if a person voluntarily thrusts himself into
controversy or voluntarily invites or raises a controversy. The news channels also
broadcasted the CCTV footage of Hotel Mario from the evening when Ms. Tiktiki
and Mr. Totapuri had met for dinner.

3. In Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Botsford9 it was observed, “ No right is held more
sacred or is more carefully guarded by the common law than the right of every
individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or
interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law.”

4. It is further submitted that, in India the right to privacy was first raised in Kharak
Singh's10 case. In this case Subba Rao, J. had observed that: "the the right to
personal liberty takes in not only a right to be free from restrictions placed on his
movements, but also free from encroachments on his private life. It is true our
Constitution does not expressly declare a right to privacy as a fundamental right,
but the said right is an essential ingredient of personal liberty”.

4
5. The news channel have infringed the right of privacy of the Ms. Tiktiki

7. W. Samuel and L. Brandeis, The right to privacy, 4 HLR., p. 193 – 200 (1890).
8. R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994) 6 SCC 632.
9. Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Botsford, 141 US 250.

[Type here]
 broadcasting series of camera recordings that contained private footage of Ms.
Tiktiki in her office and her home .The news broadcasted read “unseen footage of
Ms. Tiktiki’s extravagant lifestyle” and “do we deserve such questionable
professionals to occupy important offices.” Repeated references were made to
Ms. Tiktiki’s alleged affair with her Irish physiotherapist in order to create
misplaced and misconceived notions about her, which would also affect the officers
who were investigating the murder of Mr. Totapuri.

6. The news channels also broadcasted the CCTV footage of Hotel Mario from the
evening when Ms. Tiktiki and Mr. Totapuri had met for dinner.

III. That the plaintiff is entitled to compensation or damages, to be payable jointly

or severally by the defendants, for defaming the plaintiff.

1. A trial by press, electronic media or public agitation is an antithesis to the rule of

law. It can only lead to miscarriage of justice11.Therefore, it may be contempt to
publish an interview with the accused or a potential witness12 because there is
always a likelihood that the trial is prejudiced by these publications or broadcasting.
If the media in the process of reporting adds anything in excess to the actual
proceedings in the Court, it no doubt amounts to interference with justice.

2. The court of appeal has laid down the principles on which compensatory and
exemplary damages should be allowed in an action of libel. As regards
compensatory damages the principles are: “The successful plaintiff in a defamation
action is entitled to recover, as general compensatory damages, such sum as will
compensate him for the wrong he has suffered.

10. Kharak Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 1295.

11. State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi, (1997) S.C.C. 386.
12. R.v. Savundranayagan (1968) 3 All ER 439.
[Type here]
 That sum must compensate him for the damages to his reputation; vindicate his
good name; and take account of the distress, hurt and humiliation which the
defamatory publication has caused. In assessing the appropriate damages for injury
to reputation the important factor is the gravity of libel; the more closely it touches
to the plaintiff’s personal integrity, professional reputation, honour, loyalty and the
core attributed of his personality, the more serious it is likely to be13.

3. The plaintiff being the Solicitor General of Purvanchal was defamed by the
defendants news channel even though no charges were pressed against her. Due to
the publicity the hard earned reputation of the plaintiff was adversely affected. The
plaintiff had to resign from the post of the Solicitor General for a fair and impartial
probe in the murder investigation and the news had also affected her professional
life as the number of brief she was getting to argue was reduced.

4. The news channel broadcasted a series of private footage of the plaintiff in her home
and office. The purpose of the news broadcasted was completely unrelated to the
plaintiff’s professional competence. They created misplaced and misconceived
notions about her.

5. Therefore the defendants, jointly and severally, to pay a sum of INR 2,00,00,000 as
damages to the plaintiff for defaming her, causing loss of reputation and infringing
her privacy.
6

13. John v.MGN Ltd.(1996) 2 ALL ER 35(CA).

[Type here]
 IV. The plaintiff is entitled for a preventive injunction restraining defendant from
publishing any content against her.

1. The Supreme Court again in the case of Sahara India14 reconsidered the
position in law relating to passing of the prior restraint order against the
publication and has proceeded to lay down the guidelines as to under what
circumstances the prior restraint order can be passed, what are factors, which
fall for consideration prior to the passing of such interim order and other
aspects necessarily required to be satisfied for the grant of the interim order
or postponement of the publication.

2. The judgment of the Reliance Petrochemicals15 and proceeded to observe

that the prior restraint against publication is vested in the form of inherent
powers of the superior Courts including High Court under the provisions of
Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure wherein the Court can proceed
to pass such restraint orders if the administration of justice so warrants
approving the judgment of Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of
Maharashtra1. It has also been held by the Supreme Court that the right to
open justice which is free and unprejudiced is a basic right that has to be
balanced vis-a-vis the right press and expression of ideas which is the facet
of the right to speech and expression.

3. In Kaleidoscope Pvt. Ltd. v. Phoolan Devi17, where Phoolan Devi, one of

India’s most dreaded dacoit at one time, sought an injunction to8restrain the
exhibition of the controversial biographical film “Bandit Queen” in India

14. S.E.B.I v. Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. and Ors. JT 2014(7) SC 279.
15. Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Proprietors of Indian Express Newspaper, Bombay Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
AIR 1989 SC 190.
16. AIR 1967 SC 1.
17.
18. Ratanlal and Dheerajlal, The law of torts,
[Type here]
 and abroad. The Court stated that the film infringed her right to privacy.
Though she was a public figure, whose private life was exposed to

the press and though she had assigned her copyright in her writings to the
film producers, still private matters relating to rape or the alleged murders
committed by her could not be commercially exploited as news items or as
matters of public interest.

4. As to the remedies for defamation a suit for damages may be brought. The
publication of defamatory statements may be restrained by injunction either
under sec 38 or 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 196318.

[Type here]
 PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the questions presented, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, the Petitioner requests the Honourable High Court to find, adjudge and declare
that:

(a) The defendant have published and broadcasted news which contain

defamatory material against the plaintiff.

(b) The defendant have infringed with the plaintiff’s privacy, which is a
guaranteed right under Article 21 of the constitution.

(c) The plaintiff is entitled to compensation or damages, to be payable jointly or

severally by the defendants.

(d) The plaintiff is entitled to a preventive injunction restraining the defendants

from publishing any content related to the investigation of Mr. Totapuri’s

death, or otherwise containing any portray the plaintiff in a bad light and
prejudice.

In respectful submission before the High Court of Purva Pradesh,

Counsels on behalf of Ms. Titli Tiktiki (Petitioner)

[Type here]