879 - Pratik Bakshi - Respondent

7/27/2019 879 - Pratik Bakshi - Respondent

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/879-pratik-bakshi-respondent 1/20

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. Hon‟ble: 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. Chaudhari’s 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, (4th 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 India2. 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. People‟s 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.

Black‟s Law Dictionary, (8th 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 10th 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 theConstitution 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 application1.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 Constitution2. But the

right to privacy flowing from Article 21 must, however, be balanced against the fundamentalright 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 tangible3.

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

1Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. Union of India,AIR 1951 SC 41.

2R.Rajagopal v. State of T.N., (1994) 6 SCC 632

3

Kharak Singh v. State of U.P.,AIR 1963 SC 12954PUCL 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 private6. 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 bringan 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 application9. 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 fact10.

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.

6Sharda v. Dharmpal (2003) SCC 493

7State of Haryana and Ors. v Mahabir Vegetable Oils Pvt. Ltd.,

8 Black's Law Dictionary, (8th ed. 2004) at p. 952.

9Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. Union Of India, AIR 1951 SC 41

10Major 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 interests11. 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 right12

. 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 unreasonable14. 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 provisions15. 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

11Mylapore Club v. State of Tamil Nadu (2005) 12 SCC 752

12Ram Krishna Dalmia v. S.R. Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 638

13

Municipal Committee v. State of Punjab, (1969) 1 SCC 47514Commissioner of Central Excise Jamshedpur v. Dabur (India) Ltd., (2005) 3 SCC 646

15A.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 provisions16.

Controlled discretion exercisable according to a policy for purpose clearly enunciated

by a statute does not suffer from the vice of conformant of unrestricted discretion17. 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 arbitrarily19. 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 statute20. The presumption is that public official will discharge their duties

honestly and in accordance with the law21. 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 fide22, but the statute will not fail on that ground.23

The amendment was brought in Section 66(A) to tackle the problems of wrongfulemails, 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

16A.K. Roy v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 711

17Federation of Railway officers Association v. Union of India, AIR 2003 SC 1344

18Naraindas v. State of M.P. AIR 1974 SC 1232

19People’s Union of Civil Liberities v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 1442

20Ramkrishna Dalmia v. Tendolkar AIR 1957 SC 532

21

Pannalal v. Union of India AIR 1957 SC 39722Naraindas v. State of M.P. AIR 1974 SC 1232;

23Ramkrishna Dalmia v. Tendolkar AIR 1957 SC 532





state. It has to be subservient to the Rights of the public at large24. 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

individual‟s 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 large26.The right of life and liberty so guaranteed under Article 21 is

also subject to the rule of proportionality27. Liberty is the right of doing an act which the law

permits28.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 individual‟s liberty is subordinated to

the Liberty of the society30. 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

24Confederation of Ex-serviceman Association v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 399

25AIR 1973 SC 1091

26Confederation of Ex-serviceman Association v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 399

27Om Kumar v. Union of India, (2001) 2 SCC 386

28

Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 56929ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, AIR 1976 SC 1207

30Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569





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 1231, 1332 and 3233 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:

31In 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 ofhabeas 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 thisConstitution. 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 case35, 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 Maharashtra37 , 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

35State of W.B. v. Subodh Gopal Bose, AIR 1954 SC 92

36Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569

37AIR 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.

Documents

879 - Pratik Bakshi - Respondent