2nd ANAND SWAROOP GUPTA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

R
Hon’ble High Court
Filed under section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure

Baba Satyanand……………………………………………………………………..Appellant
v.
Silbil Magazine… ..................................................................................................... Respondent

With

Amarchand… ............................................................................................................ Appellant

v.
Silbil Magazine… ..................................................................................................... Respondent

With

Silbil Magazine… ................................................................................ …………..Appellant

v.
Baba Satyanand… ................................................................................................. Respondent

Appeal against the order by the Hon’ble District Court

Submitted By:
Hargun Sandhu
Roll No. 195/15
Section D
B.COM. LL.B. (Hons.)

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1
 Contents

List of Abbreviations……………………………………………………………………………II
Index of Authorities……………………………………………………………………………..III
Statement of Jurisdiction…………………………………………………………………………1
Statement of Facts………………………………………………………………………………...2
Issues…………………………………………………………………………………………….....3
Summary of Arguments…………………………………………………………………………..4
Arguments Advanced
Whether the publication of parody amounts to defamation under tort law?.................5
Whether in the view of present condition, can permanent injunction be granted
against Silbil Magazine?......................................................................................................9
Whether the compensation of Rs. 30 lakhs granted to Baba Satyanand for personal
distress justiciable? ………………………………………………………………………11
Prayer…………………………………………………………………………………………….12
Bibliography…………………………..........................................................................................13

I
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 List of Abbreviations

& And
AII ER All England Reports
AIR All India Reporters
Anr. Another
Ch Chancery
Ed. Edition
EWCA Court of Appeal of England and Wales
i.e. That is
Ltd. Limited
N.Y.L.J. New York Law Journal
Ors. Others
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Reports
U.S. United States
WLR Weekly Law Reports

II
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 Index of Authorities

Table of Cases

Cases Referred Page No.

Bonnard v Perryman (1891) 2 Ch 269. 10
Charleston v New Group Newspaper Ltd (1995) 2 AII ER 313 6
Hustler magazine v. Falwell (1988) 485 U.S 46 8,11
In Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd. & Anr. v. The Union of India & Ors., 9
1959 S.C.R. 12
Life Insurance Corporation of India & Union of India &Anr. v. Prof Manu 8
Bhai D. Shah & Cinemart Foundation AIR 1993 SC 171
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597: (1978) 1 SCC 248. 7
Martha Greene v. Associated Newspapers Ltd., [2004] EWCA Civ 1462 10
Printers (Mysore) Ltd v. Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (1994) 2 SCC 7
434
Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950) S.C.R 594, 597, (50) A.SC. 124 7

Books
A Lakshminath & M Sridhar, The Law of Torts
Barbar Harvey & John Marston, Cases and Commentary on Tort
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Law of Torts
S.C.Sarkar, Law relating to Injunction (3rd ed. With supplements, Kolkata, 2016)

Statues and Legislations

Code of Civil Procedure, 2017

Essays, Articles and Websites-

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/5q384575#page-10
https://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-
resources/digital-journalists-legal-guide/protection-
satire-and-parody

Miscellaneous
Indian Constitution, 1950

III
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 Statement of Jurisdiction

It is humbly submitted that the appellant has approached the Hon’ble High Court under Section
96 of Code of Civil Procedure of India. The court has clubbed three appeals namely Baba
Satyanand v. Silbil Magazine with Silbil Magazine v. Baba Satyanand with Amarchand v.
Silbil Magazine under the inherent power conferred to the Hon’ble High Court under Section
151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The respondent submits to the same.

1
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 Statement of Facts

A well-known religious leader and preacher Baba Satyanand has established himself as an
influential figure through his various teachings. His followers follow him by all means and way
and have named themselves as the ‘Satyas’. Among his other mantra his main teaching behind
his popularity especially amongst women is his teaching of non-consumption of alcohol.
Silbil magazine which publishes stories, poems, cartoons and sketches mainly fictional in
nature. Amongst other columns it publishes a parody column of contemporary nature based on
factual truth. They modify the factual truth to suit the parody content.
Silbil magazine in its August issue publishes a parody describing Baba Satyanand promoting
liquor and giving its first-hand experience as a parody to his teaching of non-consumption of
liquor. Along with the parody the magazine published a disclaimer claiming the innocent use
of humour.
Hurt by the parody the followers of Baba Satyanand organized a meeting circulating the copy
of the parody to everyone present in the meet. This meet was widely covered by media and
newspapers. Subsequently Baba filed a suit against the Silbil magazine for defamation and
personal distress claiming compensation and damages of worth Rs. 1 crore and an injunction
to the August issue of the magazine. The court negated the civil liability of Silbil magazine of
defamation taking into account the use of disclaimer and also did not grant any injunction but
awarded Rs30 lakh for personal distress.
Unsatisfied with the order of the lower court both the parties to the case filled appeal in the
high court. During the pendency of the appeals, one of the follower Amarchand on behalf of
the community filled a suit claiming damages and permanent injunction for defaming their
Godly figure. His suit was dismissed by the court. He also files an appeal in the high court
against the order of the lower court.
Now the high court has clubbed all the three appeals taking into consideration the same subject
matter.

2
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 Issues

1. Whether the publication of parody amounts to defamation under tort law?

2. Whether in the view of present condition, can permanent injunction be granted

against Silbil Magazine?
3. Whether the compensation of Rs. 30 lakhs granted to Baba Satyanand for personal
distress justiciable?

3
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 Summary of Arguments

1. Whether the publication of parody amounts to defamation under tort law?

The publication of parody by Silbil magazine will not amount to defamation under tort law
because there is no injury to the reputation of Baba Satyanand as it was for a mere humour
purpose and ordinary person or reader would not take the meaning of the parody content in
its literal sense. So in the light of the facts of the present case, the magazine did not violate
its freedom of press and published the parody with innocent humor.

2. Whether in the view of present condition, can permanent injunction be granted

against Silbil Magazine?

Permanent injunction can be granted only when there is any kind of defamation, but in the
light of the given facts, there is no defamation to the Baba by the parody published in the
August issue of the Silbil magazine which was published out of innocence that is without
malice, exercising the freedom of Speech and Expression, and violative of right to trade,
and thus they are not liable to be under the grant of permanent injunction.

3. Whether the compensation of Rs. 30 lakhs granted to Baba Satyanand for personal
distress justiciable?

The specific intent to inflict personal or emotional harm enjoys no protection under any
law or precedent whatsoever. Any statement which is critical in nature has the inherent
capacity to inflict emotional distress but awarding compensation for the same will lead to
situation where there will be an indirect restriction on the publication of any critical
statement. Therefore compensation of Rs. 30 lakhs should not be awarded to Baba
Satyanand only on the grounds of personal distress.

4
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 Arguments Advanced

1. Whether the publication of parody amounts to defamation under tort law?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble High court that Silbil Magazine in its August
2015 issue, Published the parody column, containing the description of Baba Satyanand
(original plaintiff, hereinafter referred as appellant 1) in an advertisement of liquor brand as a
parody to his teaching of non-consumption of liquor. The content of the parody column
described Baba Satyanand campaigning in an advertisement of Liquor Brand and describing
about its first- hand experience. The purpose of Silbil magazine was to create mere humor but
the followers of Baba Satyanand and he himself misinterpreted the contents of the parody and
took it in a defamatory way.

A defamatory statement is one which injures the reputation of another by exposing him to
hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or which tends to lower his reputation in the esteem of right-
thinking members of society. 1The parody content will not injure his reputation because it is
for mere humor purpose and the disclaimer is also given for the same. Everyone was aware of
his character, as he was an influential public figure, and no one can take the parody in its literal
sense.
Mere insult or abuse do not by itself constitute defamation, although it may be offensive to
a man’s dignity, unless and until it is proved to have lowered his reputation in the estimation
of the others. In this case, the description of Baba Satyanand holding liquor bottle in his hand
was given under parody column, for mere humor purpose, which had a categorical heading of
parody.
The contention of defamation by Baba Satyanand will not hold any ground on the basis
that the first and the foremost essential of defamation is not getting satisfied in this case i.e.,
the words or representation should lower the reputation of the appellant in the estimation of
right thinking members of society generally. There is no defamation in this case because if the
person read the parody content as a whole and the description used in it then the ordinary
readers of ordinary diligence would think that it is for mere humor purpose and should not be
taken in its literal sense. The juxtaposition of the phrase first-hand experience with the picture
of Baba Satyanand and with reference to his teaching is merely a hyperbole. The word first
hand experience has been used as an overtly emphatic expression primarily with the purpose
of making a strong impact, impression without intending it to be taken literally.

1
Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort, Fifteenth Edition, 1998, chapter 13, p 360.
5
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 If the parody content and the word first-hand experience is viewed in this light, it can hardly
be said to be defamatory. So the meaning of words in libel action is a matter of impression as
an ordinary man gets on the first reading, not on a later analysis.

The standard of opinion is that which prevails among ordinary, reasonable people of the
time and place and not the opinion which prevailed in another time, or in another country, or
among a special class or abnormally constituted people. In reference to this, the present case
holds no ground of defamation because the standard of opinion of reasonable people with
ordinary diligence will not take this parody to be defamatory in nature. The contents of
parody do not convey any defamatory imputation in its natural meaning because the
description is innocent as it is for humor purpose only. If the defamatory statement consists of
an article with the headline and photograph the whole of the article, including the headline
and photograph has to be taken together and considered whether in its natural and ordinary
meaning which may be ascribed to it by ordinary men, it is defamatory to the plaintiff.2 In this
case, if the parody content is taken together and considered according to its natural meaning,
then it is not defamatory because it is for mocking purposes and there is no malice involved.
So there is no defamation on the part of Silbil Magazine.

Whether the publication amounts to violation of fundamental right of freedom of speech

and expression?
Baba Satyanand, being a well-known religious leader and an influential public figure, was
published as a mocking cartoon in one of the parodies of Silbil magazine. The parody was just
for mere humor purpose but the followers of Baba Satyanand and he himself took it in a
different way altogether and filed a suit for defamation against publishers. Silbil magazine took
the defense of innocent humor and right to freedom of press which is appropriate in present
circumstances.
The freedom of speech is regarded as the first condition of liberty. It occupies a preferred
and important position in the hierarchy of the liberty, it is truly said about the freedom of
speech that it is the mother of all other liberties. Freedom of Speech and expression means the
right to express one's own convictions and opinions freely by words of mouth, writing,
printing, pictures or any other mode. Expression is a matter of liberty and right. The liberty of
thought and right to know are the sources of expression. Free Speech is a live wire of the
democracy. Freedom of expression is integral to the expansion and fulfillment of individual
personality. Freedom of expression is more essential in a democratic setup of State where

2
Charleston v New Group Newspaper Ltd (1995) 2 AII ER 313.
6
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 people are the Sovereign rulers. Iver Jennings said “Without freedom of speech, the appeal to
reason which is the basis of democracy cannot be made”.
So India being a democratic country also recognizes the importance of freedom of speech
and expression. Indian constitution expressly mentions freedom of speech and expression
under Part III which deals with the Fundamental Rights given to certain types of Individuals.
Article 19 of the Indian Constitution states that all citizens shall have the right to freedom of
speech and expression. This freedom is necessary not only to promote certain basic rights of
the citizen but also certain democratic values in and the oneness and unity of, the country.
Article 19 guarantees some of the basic, valued and natural rights inherent in a person. This
right has been advisedly set out in broad terms leaving scope for its expansion and adaption,
through interpretation, to the changing needs and evolving notions of a free society. In a series
of decisions from 1950 onwards the Supreme Court has ruled that freedom of the press is
implicit in the guarantee of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (a)
of the constitution of India.
Although Article 19 (1) (a) does not mention the freedom of the press it was early settled
by supreme court decision in Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras 3 that the freedom of
speech and expression includes freedom of the press and circulation which is the fourth
estate. In Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras it was held that there can be no doubt that
freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of propagation of ideas and that freedom
is ensured by the freedom of circulation. ‘Liberty of circulation is as essential to that freedom as
the liberty of publication. Indeed, without circulation, the publication would be of little or no
value. According to the Supreme Court, it is possible that a right does not find express mention
in any clause of Article 19(1) and yet it may be covered by some clause therein. 4 This gives
an additional dimension to Article 19 (1) in the sense that even though a right may not be
explicit, it may yet be implicit, in various clauses of Article 19. According to this case, every
press agency possess the right to freedom of press.
In Printers (Mysore) Ltd v. Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, 5 the Supreme Court has
reiterated that though the 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 estate.

3
(1950) S.C.R 594, 597, (50) A.SC. 124.
4
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597: (1978) 1 SCC 248
5
(1994) 2 SCC 434.
7
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 The Supreme Court has prioritized that the freedom of the press is not so much for the benefit
of the press as for the benefit of the general community because the community has a right to
be supplied with information. The court thus realised the power of the press to make or mar a
country’s progress with its actions. Here it would also be relevant to refer to the case of Life
Insurance Corporation of India & Union of India &Anr. v. Prof Manu Bhai D. Shah &
Cinemart Foundation,6 wherein the Court held that freedom of speech to be a basic human
right in the following words:

“Speech is God's gift to mankind. Through speech a human being conveys his thoughts,
sentiments and feelings to others. Freedom of speech and expression is thus a natural right
which a human being acquires on birth. It is, therefore, a basic human right. "Everyone has
the right to freedom of opinion and expression; the right includes freedom to hold opinions
without interference and to seek and receive and impart information and ideas through any
media and regardless of frontiers proclaims the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(1948). The People of India declared in the Preamble of the Constitution which they gave unto
themselves their resolve to secure to all citizens liberty of thought and expression.”
Silbil Magazine reiterated its freedom to publish the same under freedom of press after
Baba Satyanand came up with the suit of defamation. The magazine is entitled to do so
because it has already been decided by the apex court that freedom of speech and expression
also includes freedom of press. The court will not restrain the publication of an article, even
though it is defamatory when the defendant says he intends to justify it or to make fair
comment.
Silbil magazine published parody content relating to Baba Satyanand same under
freedom of speech and expression which includes freedom of press. According to black’s law
dictionary- “parody is defined as a transformative use of a well-known work for purposes of
satirizing, ridiculing, critiquing, or commenting on the original work, as opposed to merely
alluding to the original to draw attention to the latter work.” Parody is just a mimicry of an
established concept, idea, or a person and which is different from satire altogether. Parody is
really meant for mocking and it may or may not incite the society. Parody is just for
entertainment purpose and nothing else. Making parodies of public figures will not protect
them from recovering damages for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress
caused by defamation.7
In Hustler magazine v. Falwell, the Supreme Court of United States held that the first and
fourteenth amendment prohibit public figures from recovering damages for the tort of
intentional infliction of emotional distress and libel, if the emotional distress and defamation
6
AIR 1993 SC 171
7
Hustler magazine v. Falwell (1988) 485 U.S 46
8
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 was caused by a caricature, parody or satire of the public figure that a reasonable person would
not have interpreted as factual. Since Falwell was a public figure and the parody could not have
been reasonable considered believable.

There is similarity in between US First amendment and India’s freedom of speech and
expression. Two great democracies of world America and India very aptly recognizes the right
of freedom of speech and expression. Although the degree differs, The United States and India
almost have similar free speech provisions in their Constitutions. Article 19(1) (a) of Indian
constitution corresponds to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution which says,
“Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.
In this case Baba Satyanand is a public figure and his parody will not be interpreted by
reasonable and prudent readers as a factual truth. These public figures like public officials have
an influential role in society and are well known to the general public. The followers are aware
of his character and would not raise question against it just because of one humorous parody
content. So the act of publishing the parody in its August issue came under the purview of
their fundamental right of freedom of press and no action of defamation would lie against
Silbil Magazine.

2. Whether in the view of present condition, can permanent injunction be granted

against Silbil Magazine?

It is humbly submitted before Hon’ble Court that the parody published in august issue of the
Silbil magazine is not defaming the personality of the Baba Satyanand and thus permanent
injunction should not be granted in the present case.
In the present case the District court has already granted the relief from injunction on grounds
of parody (which was used for mere humor purpose) and freedom of press.8

The counsel seeks to bring to the notice of the court that if the magazine is not liable for
defamation then on what grounds injunction should be granted. As it was held by the District
court that the publication was under freedom of press and mere use of humour. Therefore it can
be concluded that if there is no defamation their lies no liability of the magazine and hence no
injunction should be granted.
The defendants-respondents being the owner and editor of a newspaper have the freedom
of speech, expression and profession. Any order of injunction would amount to curtailment

8
In Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd. & Anr. v. The Union of India & Ors., 1959 S.C.R. 12, the Supreme Court held
that freedom of speech and expression includes within its scope the freedom of the Press
9
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 and infringement of such constitutional right. If in view of the impugned order passed, the
defendants-respondents will suffer irreparable loss as their constitutional right of freedom of
speech, expression and profession will be curtailed.
The counsel also specify that the court can’t upheld the injunction order until it is proved
that the published material is not true. As it is held in the case of Martha Greene v. Associate
newspaper ltd. the court while granting injunction has to be more cautious and alert and take
into consideration some essential elements mentioned in the case.
From the above mentioned case it can be inferred that in an action for defamation a court
will not impose a prior restraint on publication unless it is clear that no defence will succeed
at the trial. This is partly due to the importance the court attaches to freedom of speech. It is
partly because a judge must not usurp the constitutional function of the jury unless he is
satisfied that there is no case to go to a jury. The rule is also partly founded on the pragmatic
grounds that until there has been disclosure of documents and cross- examination at the trial a
court cannot safely proceed on the basis that what the defendants wish to say is not true….” 9
As stated above by the council that the published material was just a representation of
innocent humour and was not malicious therefore, mere humour doesn’t amount to
defamation and hence injunction can’t be granted on mere ground of defamation. The Press
deserves accolades for bringing to light the inducements offered to influence their reporting
and such exposure will not amount to defamation. Even the magazine had given the
disclaimer for the same saying that the material published is just the use of innocent humour
and even the disclaimer negates the entire liability of the magazine.
As injunction will infringe the right to trade because it has been already proved by the
magazine that it was for mere humour purpose and was not with the intention to defame Baba
Satyanand so, therefore the court must be very cautious in granting the injunction. As given
in case Bonnard v. Perryman10 that the “…The right of free speech is one which it is for the
public interest that individuals should possess, and,…. Until it is clear that an alleged libel is
untrue, it is not clear that any right at all has been infringed; and the importance of leaving free
speech unfettered is a strong reason in cases of libel for dealing most cautiously and warily
with the granting of interim injunctions…” Freedom is to the press what oxygen is to the
human being; it is the essential condition of its survival. To talk of a democracy without a
free press is a contradiction in terms. A free press is not an optional extra in a democracy.

9
The Bonnard rule was affirmed in Martha Greene v. Associated Newspapers Ltd., [2004] EWCA Civ 1462, in the
following terms, after quoting and relying on Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th Ed, vol 28, para 167:
10
[1891] 2 Ch 269
10
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
3. Whether the compensation of Rs. 30 lakhs granted to Baba Satyanand for personal
distress justiciable?
It is humbly submitted to the Hon’ble High court the appellant by virtue of the present suit
proceeding is seeking damages of Rs 1 crores, which according to its own averments has no
justification or basis. Further granting Rs. 30 lakh only for the mere cause of personal distress
is not justiciable under any law.
Personal distress can be define as a highly troublesome mental or physical reaction such
as anguish (extremely distressed about something, severe suffering), humiliation, fright that
results from another person’s conduct; emotional pain and suffering.
It is humbly contended that the magazine had put Baba Satyanand in situation called as
travesty, which means to put someone in a ridiculous, unbelievable setting for the mere purpose
of effect. Furthermore as it was contended in the case Hustler Magazine v. Falwell 11 that all
the public figure are supposed to have thick skin. This contention was raised on the grounds
that if a person is a public figure they are prone to criticism and humour and if they do not have
thick towards any type of criticism or humour then that would amount to violation of
fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression.
Furthermore if the claim of defamation has been negated how the claim of personal
distress can sustain as both the claims arose from the same cause of action. As the district
court has not found Silbil liable for the tort of defamation how they be held liable for personal
distress. There are no objective grounds to prove the liability of Silbil Magazine for personal
distress.
As the law of torts is not codified there are no fixed criteria to determine the
compensation for personal distress, the court has the authority to decide from case to case
basis. But while deciding the compensation the court keeps in mind the cause of action for
personal distress and the financial condition of the respondent. Making respondents liable for
what they had no malice to will be unjust to the magazine.

Punishing them for a single misinterpretation with no malice with costly personal distress
charges will almost certainly derail any further conversation. If Silbil magazine was to pay the
amount then in future any other magazine would not be able to produce any parody or for that
matter any caricature for humour purpose which will result in an unjustified restriction on the
freedom of speech and expression.
Therefore the order granting appellant a compensation of Rs. 30 lakhs should be reversed.

11
485 U.S. 46 (1988)
11
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 Prayer

In the light of the facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the
Counsel for the Petitioners humbly pray before this Hon’ble Court as per the principles of
natural justice, equity and good conscience, to kindly adjudge and declare:
1. That the suit filed by Amarchand is dismissed.
2. That the order given by the District Court is reversed and Silbil is not liable to pay
compensation.
3. That the publication of parody did not amount to defamation.
4. That the court does not grant injunction to the Appellants.
And pass any other appropriate order as the court may deem fit.
And for this act of kindness, the Petitioners as in duty bound, shall forever pray.

Respectfully Submitted
Sd/
Counsel for Respondent

12
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 Bibliography

Books referred-:
 RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, The Law of Torts, 27th ed.
 A Lakshminath and M Sridhar, Ramaswamy Iyer’s The Law of Torts, tenth edn, First
Reprint, 2010.
 Barbara Harvey & John Marston, Cases and Commentary on Tort, 6th ed, reprinted,
2011.
 Avtar singh ‘contract and specific relief’ twelfth Edition

Articles referred-:
 Opinion lead freedom of the press and journalistic ethics.
 Freedom of Press in Indian Constitution: A Brief Analysis

Website referred-:
 www.thehindu.com
 www.ijar.com

13
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT