MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

STATEMENT OF FACTS
 Mindia is a country situated in the south-east of Masia which got its independence from
Mingland and now it is a sovereign, democratic, republic country. Mindia drafted its own
Constitution and it also considered as the supreme law of the land. The constitution of
Mindia provides rights and powers related to judiciary, executive, legislature, press and
privacy of the citizens.
 Vijay Lalit Sodhi is a famous business leader and there were speculations about him that
he funded the campaign of ruling party in current year elections. He has two daughters
Chinky Lalit Sodhi, the elder daughter and Pinky Lalit Sodhi, the younger one.
 When the elections result were out, a newspaper named fling times which was controlled
by xing TV in its front page published a news regarding a Billion Dollar contract for
manufacturing Time Machine, which was secretively given to one company in the name
of My Rules Pvt. Ltd., and the company was owned by the Mr. Vijay Lalit Sodhi. The
headline of the newspaper stated: “Isn't it too early to pay election debts”.
 Vijay lalit sodhi was also the chairmen of an NGO that works for the welfare of women
for which he got various awards in the recent past from central and state government.
 Newschannel Xing TV revealed private and obscene pictures of Mr. vijay lalit sodhi with
different women stating, “Mr. Vijay Lalit Sodhi and his various affairs”.
 Mr. vijay lalit sodhi got aggrieved by the news shown by the xing tv and he filed an FIR
against Xing TV for violating his right to privacy and he also filed a formal complaint
before the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. In the mean time Xing TV has
already telecasted that show thrice on their news channel.
 After the news telecaste related to private affairs of mr vijay lalit sodhi he was removed
from the position of chairman of Women Helpline NGO and his company's share prices
also suffered a major downfall and reduction.
 Elder daughter of mr.vijay lalit sodhi Ms. Chinky Lalit Sodhi had also filed a complaint
against Xing TV before the IB Ministry, as one of the journalists associated with Xing
TV clicked a picture of her with a famous Bollywood actor and broadcasted it with a
headline “New love birds of B-Town?”, resultantly, after reading the news, her fiancé
broke up his ties with her. But later found that it was only an assumption made by Xing

1
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

TV as a result of which Xing TV was ordered to scroll an apology stating name of Ms.
Chinky Lalit Sodhi for 24 hours for the next 7 days.
 It was alleged by the ex employees of Vijay Lalit Sodhi that he was a person with a
questionable character. It was also alleged that he had often asked for personal favours
from them on several occasions, and subsequently all of them got sacked from their jobs
when they tried to oppose or expose Mr. Vijay Lalit Sodhi.
 Xing TV received a show cause notice from Ministry of IB and was directed to appear in
person before the committee. On the day of appearance, Xing TV in their reply to notice
stated that, they had received a parcel from an undisclosed third party containing a video
clip of Mr. Vijay Lalit Sodhi and therefore keeping general interest of public in mind,
they ran that news in their news channel as it is their right to broadcast correct and
authentic news.
 But the committee was not satisfied by the justifications presented by Xing TV the
Committee imposed a blanket ban on the Xing TV for 10 days with immediate effect
stating that the rationale produced by Xing TV was not sufficient. Against which, the
news channel pleaded that they have investigated regarding the authenticity of the images
and videos broadcasted on TV and it emerged as a true story. Hence, it was important
news in the interest of the public.
 Blanket ban attracted many criticisms, some newspapers even printed that, Mr. Vijay
Lalit Sodhi used his clout to ban Xing TV. And there were also speculations that one
person among the committee members was a relative of Mr. Vijay Lalit Sodhi. One
scholar also wrote “The Mindian government used the right to press, for its old friend.”
 Mr. vijay lalit sodhi and his PR team held a press conference his PR team answered the
questions asked by the media personnel. In the press conference his PR Team also told
the media persons that the complaint filed by the ex-employees of Mr. Vijay Lalit Sodhi
were false, fabricated and hence baseless. PR team also alleged that Xing TV and Fling
Times are deliberately trying to frame Mr. Vijay Lalit Sodhi and his family members for
the reasons best known to them.
 Xing TV filed a petition in the Hon’ble court of state of mindia aggrieved by the decision
of the committee. The case goes to Court of Justice Filan J Mark and Justice Manuradha.

2
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 It was found out that justice mark once wrote a letter of recommendation for the daughter
of vijay lalit sodhi and also helped her in getting scholarship and he also co-authored an
article named “Media cannot enter into private affairs” in his college days, which was
recently referred by the Hon'ble Apex Court while pronouncing landmark judgment.
 Counsel on behalf of Xing TV submitted an application for the recusal of justice mark
from the present case, maybe there are chances of biasness involved as he once wrote the
letter of recommendation for the daughter of vijay lalit sodhi but justice mark did not
consider it and decided the case and upheld the decision of the committee and observed
“Media should think before broadcasting” and he also ordered Xing TV to pay additional
cost as damages to Mr. Vijay Lalit Sodhi and explicitly mentioned that, for further
monetary claims, Mr. Vijay Lalit Sodhi is free to approach the Civil Court.
 The judgement was not appreciated by the press community and they said that the
decision of the Hon'ble High Court was a bad precedent which was a direct threat to
freedom of the press. Xing TV was aggrieved by the decision of high court and further
appealed in the apex court of the country against the order of high court.

3
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE 1

Whether the non-recusal of Justice Mark from the case has resulted in grave prejudice to the
appellant and caused strict violation of the principle of natural justice or not?

ISSUE 2

Whether the Committee set up by the IB ministry violated due process of law and the decision of
blanket ban was arbitrary and untenable in law or not?

ISSUE 3

Whether Xing TV violated the right to privacy of Mr. Vijay Lalit Sodhi, or whether it was a mere
exercise of freedom of press or not?

4
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1-Whether the non-recusal of Justice Mark from the case has resulted in grave
prejudice to the appellant and caused strict violation of the principle of natural justice or
not?

1.1 Non recusal of Justice Mark does not result in grave prejudice to the appellant as it is a two
Judges bench.
1.1.1Mere opinion of judge should not be taken into consideration.
1.2 The principle of natural justice is abstract and not definite.
1.2.1 Principle of natural justice depends upon facts and circumstances, hence keeps
changing.

ISSUE 2-Whether the Committee set up by the IB ministry violated the due process of law
and decision of blanket ban was arbitrary and untenable in law or not?

2.1 The blanket ban is completely justified as it harmed the reputation of Mr. Sodhi.
2.1.1 X.TV. defamed Mr. Sodhi.
2.2 Due process of law not violated.
2.2.1 X.TV. had fair opportunity to present their arguments.

ISSUE 3-Whether Xing TV violated the right to privacy of Mr. Vijay Lalit Sodhi, or
whether it was a mere exercise of freedom of press or not?

2.1 Violation of right to privacy of Mr. Sodhi.

3 3.1.1- Broadcasting of personal pictures of Mr. Sodhi without his consent. Freedom of press
not exercised properly.
3.2 Freedom of press cannot override privacy of individual.
3.2.1- The fundamental right of the public to know cannot override the fundamental right of
privacy of individual.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

5
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

ISSUE 1

1.1 Non recusal of Justice Mark in the present case does not resulted in grave prejudice to
the appellant as it is a two Judges bench the final.

Non recusal of Justice Mark in the present case does not resulted in grave prejudice to the
appellant as it was a two Judges bench therefore the decision passed by the High Court
reflects the combined decision and not just the individual view of Justice Mark. It cannot
be said that it was the violation of the principle to natural justice. The article which
Justice Mark wrote in his college days was a mere reflection of his views and opinions
and while hearing the case of any party the judge enacts impartially.

1.2 The principle of natural justice is not defined anywhere and it is very abstract.

ISSUE 2

Defamation is

2.1 The ban is completely justified and is not arbitrary since it harmed the reputation and
caused mental distress to the Mr. Vijay Lalit Sodhi.

The ban is completely justified and is not arbitrary as the broadcasting of the personal pictures of
Mr. Vijay Lalit Sodhi resulted in harm to his reputation and he was also removed from the
position of chairman of the women helpline NGO, further his company’s share prices also
suffered huge downfall.

There is a nexus between the act of Xing TV and the harm caused to the reputation of Mr. Sodhi
and loss in his business. Therefore, the blanket ban holds just as it shall prevent the further
publication of the defamatory content.

Further the blanket ban with immediate effect was justified because Xing TV had already
broadcasted the show thrice on their channel which caused huge loss to the reputation and share
prices. The broadcasted content had the potential to severely injure the reputation of Mr. Sodhi
and create a sense of hostility in the general public regarding the conduct of Mr. Sodhi. And

6
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

blanket ban with immediate effect was necessary in order to prevent the further publication of
the defamatory content and harm to his reputation.

ISSUE 3

3.1 Violation of right to privacy of Mr. Sodhi.

3.1.1- Broadcasting of personal pictures of Mr. Sodhi without his consent.

3.1.2-Freedom of press not exercised properly.

3.2 Freedom of press cannot override privacy of individual.

In case of R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N1 the main issues involved were whether the
freedom of press guaranteed U/A 19 (1) (a) entitles the press to publish unauthorized
account of citizens’ life and activity.

3.2.1- The fundamental right of the public to know cannot override the fundamental right of
privacy of individual.

1
(1994) 6 SCC 632

7
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

2.2 Due process of law not violated as Xing TV was given a fair chance to present their
case.

The committee did not violate the due process of law because Xing TV was given a fair chance
to present their case. As the committee issued a prior show cause notice to the Xing TV
informing about them about their

The due process of law U/A 21 provides that the procedure for curtailing the fundamental rights
of the citizens should be just, fair and reasonable. Judge Henry friendly in his article titled “some
kind of hearing” provided that a due process of law involves-

1. An unbiased investigation body.

2. Prior notice for the proposed action & its ground.
3. Opportunity to put forth reasons and arguments so as to why the proposed action should
not be carried out.
4. Right to present evidence.

8
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

5. Right to know opposing evidence.

6. A decision based exclusively on the evidences presented2.

In the light of present facts the IB ministry constituted a committee where there is no likelihood
of biasness. The IB ministry also gave a prior show cause notice to Xing TV asking them to be
present before the committee for investigation purpose. The committee also gave the fair
opportunity to the Xing TV to put forth their arguments in their interest and as far as opposing
evidence are concerned, by the principle of res ipsa locquitor3 the act of Xing TV of broadcasting
personal picture of Mr. sodhi resulting into damage to his reputation and goodwill can be clearly
comprehendible. Further the Xing TV was also given the opportunity to produce their evidences
which could not satisfy the committee and hence were not sufficient. Therefore we can say that
the final decision of the committee was given after examining the henceforth produced evidence
and not on any other ground.

ISSUE 3

3.1 Violation of right to privacy U/A 21 of the constitution.

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal
liberty except according to the procedure established by law, and Xing TV violated the right to
2
Cornell law school.
3

9
 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

privacy guaranteed under the ambit of this Article as they broadcasted the personal pictures of
Mr. Sodhi. And right to privacy was designated as a fundamental right in the case of Justice KS
Puttaswamy v. Union of India4. The State has to protect and enforce the right to privacy of the
individuals as it is a fundamental right provided by the State and Xing TV has breached the right
to privacy of Mr. Vijay Lalit Sodhi by leaking his personal photograph without his consent.

3.2 The fundamental right of the public to know cannot override the fundamental right of
privacy of individual.

10