P02

MOOT COURT AND CLINICAL LEGAL EDUCATION

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF WESTROS

IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

IN THE MATTER OF

MR. BANNING.........................................................APPELLANT

V.

UNION OF WESTROS............................................RESPONDENT

CLUBBED WITH

IN REVIEW PETITION

JUDGE JOFFERY..............................................................APPELLANT

V.

SUPREME COURT OF WESTROS, CJW.....................RESPONDENT

CLUBBED WITH

IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

MR.PETER SAMUEL...............................................APPELLANT

V.

UNION OF WESTROS............................................RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

2019

i
TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................................I
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS....................................................................................................II
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.................................................................................................... IV
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION....................................................................................... VII
STATEMENT OF FACTS.......................................................................................................IX
STATEMENT OF ISSUES...................................................................................................... XI
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.............................................................................................XII
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED...................................................................................................1
ISSUE 1 : WHETHER CJW IS THE MASTER OF ROSTER.......................................................1
1.1 FIRST AMONG EQUALS................................................................................................1
1.2 WAYS TO GUARD CHIEF JUSTICE SO THAT CASES ARE NOT GIVEN TO BENCHES OF
HIS PREFERENCE.................................................................................................................2
1..............................................................................................................................................2
1.3 CONVENTION THAT CHIEF JUSTICE IS MASTER OF ROSTER........................................3
1.4 REASONABLE APPREHENSION OF BIAS.........................................................................4
ISSUE 2 : WHETHER REPROBE IN THE DEATH OF JUDGE EDDARD IS REQUIRED..................4
2.1 : STATEMENT OF JUDICIAL OFFICERS ARE NOT EASY TO BELIEVE............................4
2.2 : POLITICAL PRESSURE ON JUDGE EDDARD..................................................................4
2.3 : MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE...............................................................................................5
2.4 : SUSPICION ON POST MORTEM REPORT.................................................................5
2.5 CONDUCT OF FELLOW JUDGES ARE DOUBTFUL..........................................................6
2.6 INVESTIGATION WAS NOT PROPERLY DONE................................................................6
ISSUE 3 : WHETHER DECISION IN CONTEMPT PROCEEDING AGAINST JUDGE JOFFERY ,BE
REVIEWED...............................................................................................................................7
3.1 INNOCENT PUBLICATION DOES NOT AMOUNT TO CONTEMPT.....................................7
3.2 NO INTERFERENCE WITH COURSE OF JUSTICE.............................................................8
3.3 FAIR CRITICISM OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM-................................................................8
3.4 REASONABLE COMMENT ON JUDGES IN THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY-............9
3.5 NO FORM OF CONTEMPT AGAINST PETITIONER-.......................................................11
PRAYER...............................................................................................................................XIII

i
Moot Court and Clinical Legal Education

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

A.I.R. All India Report

All Allahabad

WPC Westros Penal Code i.e. Indian Penal Code

Ed. Edition

n. Foot Note No.

V. Versus

Sec/S. Section

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Report

Art. Article

Govt. Government

& And

Hon’ble Honourable

Viz. Namely

Jus. Justice

Art. Article

Ors. Others

Pat HC Patna High Court

HC High Court

UOI Union Of India

Crpc Criminal Procedure Code

ii
Moot Court and Clinical Legal Education

IPC Indian Penal Code

IEA Indian Evidence Act

Bomb. HC Bombay High Court

F.I.R First information report

PIL Public Interest Litigation

iii
Moot Court and Clinical Legal Education

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

ACT AND LEGISLATION

1. THE WESTROS PENAL CODE,1860

2. THE CONSTITUTION OF WESTROS,1950
3. WESTROS EVIDENCE ACT,1872
4. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE,1973
5. THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT,1971
6. THE JUDGES INQUIRY ACT,1968
7. DRUGS AND COSMETIC ACT,1940

BOOKS REFERRED

1. SORENDRA MALIK ,THE CONTEMPT OF COURT,EBC EDITOR,2017

2. JUSTICE V.G.RAMACHANDRAN, CONTEMPT OF COURT , EBC,9 TH
EDITION,2015
3. IYER’S COMMENTERY ON THE CONTEMPT OF COURT,DELHI LAW HOUSE,
6TH EDITION
4. NAYAN JOSHI,CONTEMPT OF COURTS AND THE LAW,LAWMANN’S, 2ND
EDITION
5. SAMARADITYA PAL,THE LAW OF CONTEMPT OF COURT,LEXIS NEXIS,FIFTH
EDITION
6. SRITA JAND, FORENSIC SCIENCE & LAW,NE,1ST EDITION
7. FORENSIC SCIENCE IN CRIME INCESTIGATION, 3RD INVESTIGATION
8. DR.DURGA DAS BASU, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA(8TH ed. 2008)
9. M.P.JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (7TH ed. 2014)
10. H.M.SEERVAI,THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA,FOURTH
EDITION,VOLUME 1&2,UNIVERSAL LAW PUBLISHING
11. RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL,THE LAW OF EVIDENCE,25TH ED.,LEXIS NEXIS
12. R.V.KELKAR CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, FOURTH EDITION,UNIVERSAL
PUBLICATION
13. PROF.S.N. MISRA, INDIAN PENAL CODE, 12TH EDITION,UNIVERSAL
PUBLICATION
14. RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL,THE LAW OF CRIME ,22TH ED.,LEXIS NEXIS
15. K.D.GAUR,COMMENTARY ON THE IPC,2006 PUBLICATION
16. MUHAMMAD MUNIR,LAW OF EVIDENCE,9TH ED.,DELHI LAW PUBLICATION

LAW DICTIONARY/LEXICON

1. A BRYAN GARNER, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY,(9TH ED. THOMAS

REUTERS 2009).

iv
Moot Court and Clinical Legal Education

2. R.P.SETHI, SUPREME COURT ON WORDS AND PHRASES(ASHOK LAW

HOUSE,NEW DELHI,2004)
3. JUS. C.K.THAKKER, JUDICIAL OFFICER’S LAW LEXICON,(3RD ED. ASHOKE
LAW HOUSE, NEW DELHI,2014)
4. P.R. AIYER, ADVANCED LAW LEXICON,(3RD ED. 2009)
5. OXFORD ADVANCED LEARNERS DICTIONARY,(7TH ED.,2008)
6. BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1215(ED. 9TH 2009)
7. LEGAL CRYSTAL E-DICTIONARY
8. AGARWAL’S LEGAL DICTIONARY (21ST EDITION, 2010)
9. CONCISE LAW DICTIONARY,EBC
10. LEGAL LANGUAGE & LEGAL WRITING,2ND ED., LEXIS NEXIS

JOURNALS REFERRED

1. ALL INDIA REPORTER

2. SUPREME COURT CASES
3. INDIA LAW REPORTER
4. COMPANY LAW JOURNAL
5. CARAVAN
6. SYMBIOSIS CONTEMPORARY LAW
7. THE LEX-WARRIOR: ONLINE LAW JOURNAL
8. CHRIST UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL

WEBSITES REFERRED

1. http://www.judic.nic.in
2. http://www.scconline.com
3. http://www.indlawinfo.org
4. http://www.lawctopus.com
5. http://www.barandbench.com
6. http://legallyindia.com

CASE REFERRED
 CRAIG V. HARNEY, 331 US 367, 376 (1947)
 E.M. SANKARAN NAMBOODRIPAD V. T. NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, (1970) 2
SCC 325
 HELMORE V. SMITH, (1887) 35 CH D 449, 455
 R.L. KAPUR V. STATE OF MADRAS, (1972) 1 SCC 651,
 PRITAM PAL V. HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR, 1993
SUPP (1) SCC 529,

v
Moot Court and Clinical Legal Education

 SHRI BARADAKANTA MISHRA V. THE REGISTRAR OF ORISSA HIGH

COURT & ANOTHER, (1974) 1 SCC 374 2008(1) GLT 800 – IN RE: LALIT
KALITA & OTHERS
 DELHI JUDICIAL SERVICE ASSOCIATION CASE,TIS HAZARI COURT,DELHI
V. STATE OF GUJARAT (1991)4 SCC 406
 NARMADA BAI V. STATE OF GUJARAT(2011)5 SCC 79
 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION V. AMITBHAI ANIL CHANDRA
SHAH(2012) 10 SCC 545
 RAVINDRAPAL SINGH V. SANTOSH KUMAR JAISWAL (2011)4 SCC 746
 S.P. GUPTA V. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER (1981) SUPP. SCC 87
 SPECIAL REFERENCE NO.1 OF 1998(1998) 7 SCC 739
 ADVOCATES ON RECORD ASSOCIATION V UNION OF INDIA (1993) 4 SCC
441
 RANJIT THAKUR V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (1987) 4 SCC 611
 JAGDEO SINGH V. STATE (1979) CRI LJ 236
 SECRETARY GENERAL, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA V. SUBHASH
CHANDRA AGARWAL AIR 2010 DEL 159 (FB)

vi
Moot Court and Clinical Legal Education

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Petitioner has approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of WESTROES under Article 32,
Article137 read with Article139 (A) of the Constitution. This memorial sets forth the facts,
issues and arguments of the present case.

ARTICLE 32 IN THE CONSTITUTION

Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part

1. The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of
the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed
2. The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs
in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari,
whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this
Part
3. Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 ) and ( 2 ),
Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its
jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause ( 2 )
4. The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided
for by this Constitution

ARTICLE 137 IN THE CONSTITUTION

137. Review of judgments or orders by the Supreme Court Subject to the provisions of any
law made by Parliament or any rules made under Article 145(involving a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation), the Supreme Court shall have power to review any judgment
pronounced or order made by it

ARTICLE 139A IN THE CONSTITUTION

139A. Transfer of certain cases

1. Where cases involving the same or substantially the same questions of law are
pending before the Supreme Court and one or more High Courts or before two or
more High Courts and the Supreme Court is satisfied on its own motion or an
application made by the Attorney General of India or by a party to any such case that

vii
Moot Court and Clinical Legal Education

such questions are substantial questions of general importance, the Supreme Court
may withdraw the case or cases pending before the High Court or the High Courts and
dispose of all the cases itself: Provided that the Supreme Court may after determining
the said questions of law return any case so withdrawn together with a copy of its
judgment on such questions to the High Court from which the case has been
withdrawn, and the High Court shall on receipt thereof, proceed to dispose of the case
in conformity with such judgment
2. The Supreme Court may, if it deems it expedient so to do for the ends of justice,
transfer any case, appeal or other proceedings pending before any High Court to any
other High Court

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Westros has a jurisdiction to entertain and hear the PIL and
review petition of any kind of judgement given by this Hon’ble Court in any proceedings and
the exercise of this power is left entirely to the discretion of the Supreme Court.

viii
Moot Court and Clinical Legal Education

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. In May 2014, the humanist party of Westros won a sweeping victory in the
parliamentary elections.
2. The central government brought 99th constitutional amendment, which is declared
void by the supreme court of Westros headed by the bench of Chief Justice of
Westros.
3. On 21st August 2016 Justice Anthony Stark became new CJW.
4. Mr. Tyrin Lannister is the national president of humanist party of Westros and he was
a prime accused in Jacob fake Encounter case.
5. In 2013, the apex court pass the order that the trial of the case be shifted to another
state and be heard by the same judge from start to finish in order to maintain and
Judge Joffery was appointed as a judge.
6. Judge Joffery reserved his judgement for 26November 2016 but he get transferred to
session court of Harrenhal. Judge Joffrey after joining Session Court Harrenhal wrote
a letter to the CJW stating his grievance against his transfer. Joffery get promoted to
high court judge of Harrenhal
7. The case was assigned to Judge Eddard for the fresh trial. Eddard gave exemption to
Tyrin from appearing in hearings on the condition that if he is in the State on the date
of hearing he needs to be present in the court.
8. On 25th October 2017, Judge Eddard was reported dead at Eyrie, where he along with
his fellow judges Jaime, Robert and Grey had gone to attend wedding of Judge
Cersei’s daughter. According to his friends, they stayed at Ninja Inn where at night
Eddard complained of chest pain.
9. He was rushed to Frankfurt hospital where ECG and medication was done and then he
was referred to Queensmarry hospital for specialized cardiac care where he was
declared dead on arrival and the event was followed by inquest post mortem which
stated cardiac arrest as probable reason of death.
10. Joffrey wrote a second letter to the CJW demanding probe in the case of Eddard and
drew attention towards the political threat on lower judiciary and acquittal of Tyrin.
11. On 31st November 2017, a writ petition was filed by Jon, Brother of Jacob before the
Harrenhal High Court questioning the role of Administrative Committee in
transferring the case of Jacob’s fake encounter case against the Supreme Court order
of 2013.

ix
Moot Court and Clinical Legal Education

12. Joffery wrote another letter to CJW stating the violation of rule of transfer and
persistent arbitrariness in the courts. No reply came from CJW against his letters. In
his judgment, he criticized the administrative style and conduct of Chief Justice of
High Court and Chief Justice of Westros .
13. Judge Eddard’s family that there was blood on the collar and neck, when the dead
body was brought to Westerland home. His belt was twisted in opposite direction and
the pant clip was broken. But in the postmortem report, under the category described
as condition of the clothes, a hand written entry read “simply dry”. According to the
post mortem report, date and time of the death was 25th October, 2017, 6:15 AM.
But, according to the family, they started receiving calls around 5 AM. The
authenticity of report of the ECG conducted at Frankfurt Hospital has also been
contested. The time stamp reads 24th October, 2017 a full day prior to Judge Eddard’s
death but hospital claimed that anomaly was due to a technical glitch.
14. In affidavit filed by Judge Jaime and Judge Robert, the suite in Ninja Inn was booked
in the name of Judge Grey and they all stayed in the same room.
15. Judge Jaime told that they all stayed at Ninja Inn in the same room after coming back
from Wedding. At around 1 a.m. Eddard went to washroom and came back
complaining about Chest pain, Judge Robert told Investigating Officer that they
quickly rushed him to hospital. Sansa, sister of Eddard complained that body of
Eddard when arrived was accompanied by no one and that there was blood stains on
his shirt and during post mortem no blood oozes out of body. Mr. Peter also
complained about initial investigation being completed within 3 days. At many
instances Judges Jaime, Robert, Grey did not cooperate with the SIT stating the
workload on them.
16. The CJW discharged Joffrey from his administrative work and issued a contempt
notice against him and asked him to appear before Court. Joffrey boycotted all the
proceeding and gave no reply to any notice. Justice Joffrey constituted the grossest
and gravest actions of contempt of court; he has turned the judicial system into a
laughing stock and the judgement passed by him is against the principles of Natural
Justice. He, therefore is liable to be punished for his above action, with imprisonment
of six months.
17. On 28th April, 2018 two senior most judges of SC called for a press conference
whereby they showed their agony towards the arbitrary acts of CJW stating that “there
have been instances where cases having far reaching consequences for the nation have

x
Moot Court and Clinical Legal Education

been assigned by the CJW selectively to the benches of “of his preference” excluding
the senior judges.”

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

I.

Whether CJW is the master of Roaster?

II.

Whether re-probe in the death of Judge Eddard is required?

III.

Whether decision in contempt proceedings against Judge Joffrey, be reviewed?

xi
Moot Court and Clinical Legal Education

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1 : WHETHER CJW IS THE MASTER OF ROSTER

It is humbly submitted before the court that Chief Justice is not the Master of Roster. The
Chief Justice is the first among equals and is not a superior authority. Article 124 establishes
Supreme Court which includes the Chief Justice. Therefore, the power to make rules under
Article 145 is conferred upon the entire court and not only the Chief Justice. Although the
Chief Justice has the power to determine the roster, when once he determines it, he has no
control over it, meaning thereby that in actual he is not the Master of that Roster.

ISSUE 2 : WHETHER REPROBE IN THE DEATH OF JUDGE EDDARD IS

REQUIRED

It is humbly submitted before the court that PIL needs to be filed in this case as the matter
involved here is the security of judgement of subordinate court which is a matter of public
interest. Larger number of cases can be heard by the subordinate judiciary and the security of
judicial officers and judges can be ensure. In the case of judge Eddard it creates threat on the
judges to give impartial decision and to deliver justice. In case of Judge Eddard the death of
judge Eddard was suspicious and create reasonable back ground to create suspicion on his
death.

ISSUE 3: WHETHER DECISION IN CONTEMPT PROCEEDING AGAINST JUDGE

JOFFERY BE REVIEWED.

It is submitted before the hon’ble court that the decision must be reviewed because the verbal
publication of judgement by judge Joffery is an innocent publication by a sitting high court
judge done while he was discharging his judicial duty and the petitioner neither has the
intention nor his act complained of was calculated to obstruct or had an intrinsic Tendency to
interfere with the course of justice and the due administration of law. The Judgment delivered
by petition in concerning issue was fair criticism and was made in his Judicial Capacity . The
act of petitioner does not create any undue interference with administration of Justice. The act
of Petitioner was not only done in his judicial capacity but also do not vindicate the dignity of
the court or a person as a Judge but tries his best to provide the administration of Justice on
its level as a High court judge in the process of administration of justice .So Judge Joffery is
not liable for the contempt of court and the decision must be reviewed.

xii
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE 1 : WHETHER CJW IS THE MASTER OF ROSTER

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble SC that that the Chief Justice is not Master of
Roster. The petitioner here is not questioning the validity of any judicial orders and/or
judgments which have been rendered in the cases. It is confined to the scope and ambit of the
powers of the Chief Justice in listing matters and to seek declaration that the power must be
exercised lawfully and on objective consideration. The entire basis of submission, was
therefore, to suggest and achieve ways for the same.

1.1 First Among Equals

The Chief Justice is first among equals, meaning thereby all Judges of the Supreme Court are
equal with same judicial power, with Chief Justice as the senior most Judge. It is also
contended that this power is not to be used to assert any superior authority by the Chief
Justice and the power is to be exercised in a manner that is fair, just and transparent. It is also
stated in Annexure 4 para 2 line 5 in the following words –

“ the convention of recognizing the privilege of Chief Justice to form the roster and assign
cases to different benches of the court is a convention devised for discipline and efficient
transaction of business but is not a recognition of any superior authority, legal or factual of
Chief Justice over his colleagues. In the matter of determination of roster there are well
settled and time-honoured conventions guiding the Chief Justice, be it the conventions
dealing with the strength of the bench which is required to deal with a particular case or the
composition thereof.”

In certain cases, the manner in which matters are allocated to certain Benches reflect that
either there was no strict adherence to the Rules or the transparency was lacking. Here, as
Judge Joffrey was very strict and dutiful judge. It was difficult for Mr. Tyrin to be acquitted
so, Joffrey was transferred to the Session court of Harrenhal (just one day before he was to
give verdict The lack of transparency has led to undesirable and unpleasant consequences of
creating doubt about the integrity of the institution. There was no rational basis for
transferring of judge Joffrey to Session Court of Harrenhal.
Moot Court and Clinical Legal Education

1.2 Ways To Guard Chief Justice So That Cases Are Not Given To Benches Of His
Preference
1.2.1 Power To Make Rules

Constitution of Westros expressly confers powers on the Supreme Court under Article 1451 to
make Rules “for regulating generally the practice and procedure of the court” with the
approval of the President. Such Rules may include, ‘rules as to the procedure for hearing
appeals and other matters pertaining to appeals including the time within which appeals to the
Courts are to be entered’. Sub-Articles (2) and (3) there under fix minimum number of judges
to sit for any purpose including for deciding a case involving substantial question of law as to
the interpretation of the Constitution or a Reference under Article 143. Article 124 establishes
and constitutes the Supreme Court by providing, ‘there shall be a Supreme Court of India
consisting of a Chief Justice and, until Parliament by law prescribes a larger number of not
more than seven other Judges (original)’. Thus, the expression ‘Supreme Court’ includes the
Chief Justice and other Judges of the Court. The power to frame Rules under Article 145 is,
therefore, conferred upon the entire Court which power includes power to frame the Roster
and direct hearing/ listing of matters.

Thus, although the Chief Justice is the Master of the Roster under the convention, the
Constitution has departed from the conventional Scheme to confer power upon the Supreme
Court.

1.2.2. Interpretation of Judge

The expression ‘Chief Justice’ has been interpreted by a Constitution Bench of this Court in
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India and Another2 (known as the “First Judges’ case”) to mean a
‘Collegium’. This was done to ensure a guard against the absolute power being conferred
upon the Chief Justice alone. It was observed in the said Judgment as follows:
“...We are all human beings with our own likes and dislikes, our own predelictions and
prejudices and our mind is not so comprehensive as to be able to take in all aspects of a
question at one time and moreover sometimes, the information on which we base our
judgments may be incorrect or inadequate and our judgment may also sometimes be
imperceptibly influenced by extraneous or irrelevant considerations. It may also be noticed
that it is not difficult to find reasons to justify what our bias or predilection or inclination

1
According to Article 145(1) , SC may make rules for regulating the general practice and procedure of the court
with the approval of the President.
2
(1981) Supp. SCC 87.

2
Moot Court and Clinical Legal Education

impels us to do. It is for this reason that we think it is unwise to entrust power in any single
individual howsoever high or important may be the office which he is significant or sensitive
area to a single individual, howsoever high or important may be the office which he is
occupying. There must be checks and controls in the in the exercise of every power,
particularly when it is a power to make important and crucial appointments and it must be
exercisable by plurality of hands rather than be vested in a single individual...”
The principle has been subsequently followed in Second and Third Judges 3 case. In the
Second Judges4 case-
“It is, therefore, realistic that there has to be room for discretionary authority within the
operation of the rule of law, even though it has to be reduced to the minimum extent
necessary for proper governance; and within the area of discretionary authority, the existence
of proper guidelines or norms of general application excludes any arbitrary exercise of
discretionary authority. In such a situation, the exercise of discretionary authority in its
application to individuals, according to proper guidelines or norms, further reduces the area
of discretion; but to that extent discretionary authority has to be given to make the system
workable. A further check in that limited sphere is provided by the confernment of the
discretionary authority not to one individual but to a body of men, requiring the final decision
to be taken after full interaction and effective consultation between themselves, to ensure
projection of all likely points of view and procuring the element of plurality in the final
decision with the benefit of the collective wisdom of all those involved in the process. The
conferment of this discretionary authority in the highest functionaries is a further check in the
same direction. The constitutional scheme excludes the scope of absolute power in any one
individual. Such a construction of the provisions also, therefore, matches the constitutional
scheme and the constitutional purpose for which these provisions were enacted.”

1.3 Convention That Chief Justice Is Master Of Roster

As provided under Annexure 4 line 5 it has been mentioned that although the chief Justice
has privilege to determine the Roster and assign cases to different benches of court, but once
he decides the bench and gives the matter to a particular bench then he is deprived of all types
of authority which he could exercise in that particular case. So it can be said that although he
determines the roster but he does not act as the master of that roster.

3
Special Reference No.1 of 1998(1998) 7 SCC 739.
4
Advocates on record Association v Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 441.

3
Moot Court and Clinical Legal Education

1.4 Reasonable Apprehension Of Bias

Fairness in action is the hallmark of any administrative power and while exercising the power
as a Master of Roster in allocating a bench to hear a particular kind of cases, the Chief Justice
performs his function in an administrative capacity. The principle of bias is to be judged by
5
applying the test of reasonable apprehension of bias. In this, it was emphasised that the
Constitution of India has created an independent judiciary which is vested with the power of
judicial review to determine the legality of administrative actions and, thus, it becomes the
solemn duty of the judiciary to keep the organs of the State within the limits of the power
conferred by the Constitution by exercising the power of judicial review which is the sentinel
on the qui vive. When such an important task is assigned to the judiciary, power of listing the
cases has to be exercised in a fair and transparent manner so as to instill confidence in the
public at large that the matter shall be decided by the Court (or for that matter, by a particular
Bench) strictly on legal principles to ensure that Rule of Law, which is a part of the basic
structure of the Constitution, prevails.

ISSUE 2 : WHETHER REPROBE IN THE DEATH OF JUDGE EDDARD IS REQUIRED

This Petition raise very serious questions of general importance as to Independence of

Judiciary and protection of Subordinate Judiciary against any kind of threat or attack on its
Members6.

2.1 : Statement Of Judicial Officers Are Not Easy To Believe

Judge Grey has referred to the fact that a VIP suit was booked at Ninja Inn (in Para12 line 2)
Judge Jaime and Judge Robert support the position(in Para 12 line 1). The occupied register
shows that it was booked on Judge Grey. The improbability of four judicial officers in one
suit where there was only two bed in Ninja Inn while there were 3 unoccupied suits available
there in same day(in Para12 line 3) then having the three unoccupied suit why they were stay
at same room.

2.2 : Political Pressure On Judge Eddard

Judge Eddard was hearing the case of Jacob fake encounter case in which prime accused was
Mr. Tyrin Lannister, who was the cabinet minister at the time of fake encounter case and the
president of ruling party of the Westros at the time of death of judge Eddard (in para 5line 1),
through taking the hearing the case of such powerful person creates pressure not on lawful

5
Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India and Others (1987) 4 SCC 611.
6
Delhi Judicial Service Assn. v. State of Guj., (1991) 4 SCC 406, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi v State of Gujarat.

4
Moot Court and Clinical Legal Education

manner but on unlawful manner. Through this political influence the latter judge got transfer
to another state in between the trial. When his father went to police station to register his
F.I.R his not registered (para 8 line 2) due to political influence which show that there is
supersede of politics over the executive authority. Mr. Peter said that his son got a threat call
and an offers for bribery calls to give a ‘positive judgement’ in the case of fake encounter
which creates pressure on him but he never prescribed( bupropion) earlier which is an anti-
depressant drug [ANNEXURE 1, 8(iv)]. Mrs. Catelyn in her statement said that he used to
stay tensed but his family member claim that he never used to him.

2.3 : Medical Negligence

Judge Eddard was a cardiovascular patient. His heart & Pericardial sac are
enlarge[ANNEXURE 3 C(7)] and Artery clogged with cholesterol deposits[ANNEXURE 3
C(8)]. According the facts there was traces of bupropion7 at the time of post mortem. The
misspelling of the name of the judge Eddard in Frankfurt Hospital and ECG Report shows
date of one day before (24/10/2017) and they have no record of medication given to judge
Eddard. [ANNEXURE 1, 8(i)] After initial examination, doctors were advised to be taken to
a cardiac centre Queens marry.

2.4 : Suspicion On Post Mortem Report

According to the Post Mortem Report the date and time of the death of Eddard 6:15 am on
25/10/2017 but according to family members they start receiving call around 5am which
creates suspicion on his death.

The post-mortem was conducted between 7:35am to 8:30am on 25/10/2017[ANNEXURE 3].

The post-mortem report indicates that there is no blood oozes out of the body and notes the
cause of death as “coronary artery deficiency” [ANNEXURE 3 J].. The report of the
Woodsworth Government Medical College indicates that there are the traces of Bupropion
with undigested food have been found in his stomach.

The Post mortem report also arises many question that if there is small cut injury on head and
no blood oozes came out from body but family claims that there was the blood strain found
on the shirt collar and neck[Para 11 line 2] but in post mortem report it is mention ‘simply
dry clothes’[ANNEXURE 3], clothes given to them by police was in not good condition; his
belt was twisted in opposite direction and pant clip was broken[Para 11 line 3] which also
create question that tampering had done with evidences.
7
http://www.rxlist.com/wellbutrin-drug.htm#medguide.

5
Moot Court and Clinical Legal Education

The post mortem report has been signed by his alleged cousin in eyrie named Gardon Cook
while family claimed that he had none in eyrie.

In the case of Jagdeo Singh v. State8, reported in, the Division Bench of the Allahabad High
Court has held :
“Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is
only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the
statement of the doctor made in Court which alone is the substantive evidence. The post-
mortem report can be used to corroborate the statement of the doctor concerned under Section
157 of the Evidence Act.”

2.5 Conduct Of Fellow Judges Are Doubtful

According to three fellow judges after claiming the chest pain, they were rushed with car of
judge Bren but according to family member the caller Judge Grey who informed them about
the death of judge Eddard’s death told that they were took him in Auto Rickshaw. which is
in contradictory of other two judges.

According to Judges , Judge Eddard claim about chest pain at 1 am on 25 th October & they
rushed to the Frankfurt Hospital at 2:08 am , which is just 15 minutes away from the inn.
[ANNEXURE 1, 8(i)]

In Eyerie, if there is cardiac specialised centre then why fellow judges were not go to
Queensmarry Hospital out of the four judges one judge was posted in Eyerie.

2.6 Investigation Was Not Properly Done

The F.I.R. was logged 16 days after the death of deceased in Eyerie district at Koga Police
Station under Sec. 154 of Crpc, 1973 and final investigation Report was under Sec. 173 of
Crpc, 1973.

The Cell phone was never recovered by police[Para 13 line 1] and given to family members
by judge Eddard’s deceased cousin Gardon Cook[Para 13 line 1] in which all calls and
messages are deleted whereas family said that he had no cousin in Eyrie.

8
1979 Cri LJ 236.

6
Moot Court and Clinical Legal Education

According to general norms of post mortem the post mortem can be only done by the
permission and presence of family members and if doctors claimed that the death was natural
then why they suggest to do a post mortem.

ISSUE 3 : WHETHER DECISION IN CONTEMPT PROCEEDING AGAINST JUDGE JOFFERY ,BE

REVIEWED.

It is submitted before the hon’ble court that the decision must be reviewed because in
previous proceed many material fact and argument were not taken into consideration by the
court which have crucial importance in the concerning issue.

3.1 Innocent Publication Does Not Amount To Contempt

According to Section 3 of Contempt of Court Act 1971-

Sec 3. Innocent publication and distribution of matter not contempt-

(1) A person shall not be guilty of contempt of court on the ground that he has published
(whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise)
any matter which interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the
course of justice in connection with any civil or criminal proceeding pending at that time of
publication, if at that time he had no reasonable grounds for believing that the proceeding was
pending.

(2) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act or any other law for the
time being in force, the publication of any such matter as is mentioned in sub-section (1) in
connection with any civil or criminal proceeding which is not pending at the time of
publication shall not be deemed to constitute contempt of court.

(3) A person shall not be guilty of contempt of court on the ground that he has distributed a
publication containing any such matter as is mentioned in sub-section (1), if at the time of
distribution he had no reasonable grounds for believing that it contained or was likely to
contain any such matter as aforesaid:”9

9
Section 3, Contempt of Court Act ,1971.

7
Moot Court and Clinical Legal Education

The verbal publication of judgement by judge Joffery in Para 10 Line 6 10 is an innocent

publication by a sitting high court judge done while he was discharging his judicial duty.
Nothing pronounced or word delivered in his judgement are in his personal capacity.

The judgement delivered by him does not interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or
tends to obstruct, the course of justice in connection with any civil or criminal proceeding
pending at that time of publication and he has also no reasonable ground to believe that any
proceeding in pending in any court of law (Apex Court).

3.2 No Interference With Course Of Justice

The broad test formed by the apex court in case of S.Abdul Karim v. M.K.Prakash11, -

“Whether the act complained of was calculated to obstruct or had an intrinsic Tendency to
interfere with the course of justice and the due administration of law. The standard of proof
required to establish charge of “Criminal Contempt” is same as in any other criminal
proceeding.”

It is submitted before the hon’ble court that the petitioner neither has the intention nor his act
complained of was calculated to obstruct or had an intrinsic Tendency to interfere with the
course of justice and the due administration of law. His act was purely in bona fide intention
to administer the justice in the writ petition12 that came before him (Provided in para 10. of
fact sheet).

If the light of formulated test the clear as crystal that the petitioner Judge Joffery is not liable
for the contempt of court.

3.3 Fair Criticism Of The Judicial System-

The Judgment delivered by petition in concerning issue was fair criticism and was made in
his Judicial Capacity .Not only by the virtue of the fact that judgement was delivered in
Judicial Capacity but also due the fact that it was a fair comment so it was not to interfere
with the administration of Justice and not bring administration of Justice in Disrepute.

10
In his judgment, he criticized the administrative style and conduct of Chief Justice of High Court and Chief
Justice of Westros and accused them for committing fraud on the Constitutional values. He wrote that “An
honest man who was performing his duty rising above the monetary offers and life threats was stabbed by his
own fellows.”
11
(1976) 1 SCC 975:1976 SCC (Cri) 217.
12
On 31st November 2017, a writ petition was filed by Jon, Brother of Jacob before the Harrenhal
High Court questioning the role of Administrative Committee in transferring the case of
Jacob’s fake encounter case against the Supreme Court order of 2012. The case was heard by
single bench of High Court presided over by Justice Joffery.

8
Moot Court and Clinical Legal Education

3.1.1 The apex court held in case of P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shanker13 that-

“Reasonable and fair Criticism of judicial System and Judges ,not interfering with the
administration of justice or not bring administration of Justice in Disrepute ,does not
constitute criminal contempt.”

3.1.2 The Apex court also stated in re: Lalit Kalita & Others14,

“14. Judiciary is not over-sensitive to criticism; in fact, bona fide criticism is welcome,
perhaps, because it opens the doors to self-introspection. Judges are not infallible; they are
humans and they often err, though, inadvertently and because of their individual perceptions.
In such a situation, fair criticism of the viewpoint expressed in a judicial pronouncement or
even of other forms of judicial conduct, is consistent with public interest and public good that
Judges are committed to serve and uphold. The system of administration of justice, therefore,
would receive due impetus from a realization amongst Judges that they can or have actually
erred in their judgments; another perspective, a new dimension or insight must, therefore,
always be welcome. Such a realization which would really enhance the majesty of the Rule of
Law, will only be possible if the doors of self-assessment, in the light of the opinions of
others, are kept open by Judges.”

So ,the act of Petitioner does not amount to Contempt of Court.

3.4 Reasonable Comment On Judges In Their Administrative Capacity

The justification for the existence of that is not to afford protection to individual
judges but to inspire confidence in the sanctity and efficacy of the judiciary, though they do
not and should not flow from the power to punish for contempt.

D.4.1 Justice Douglas has stated in Crig v.Harney15 that-

“The law of contempt is not made for the protection of judges who may be sensitive to the
winds of public opinion. Judges are supposed to be men of fortitude, able to thrive in a hardy
climate.”

D.4.2. Lord Justice Bowen stated in Helmore v.Smith 16 that-

13
(1988) 3 SCC 167;1988 SCC (Cri)589.
14
2008(1) GLT 800.
15
331 US 376(1947).
16
(1887)35 Ch D 449,455

9
Moot Court and Clinical Legal Education

“The object of the discipline enforced by the Court in case of contempt of Court is not to
vindicate the dignity of the Court or the person of the Judge, but to prevent undue
interference with the administration of justice.”

The act of petitioner does not create any undue interference with administration of Justice.
The act of Petitioner was not only done in his judicial capacity but also do not vindicate the
dignity of the court or a person as a Judge but tries his best to provide the administration of
Justice on its level as a High court judge in the process of administration of justice .The
Petitioner concerning this issue has criticized The Chief Justice of Westroes and Chief Justice
of High Court in which the petitioner was a sitting Judge.

Reasonable Ground for fair criticism of Chief Justice of High Court –

 With taking due consideration of The order of Supreme Court in 2013 17
(Para 5 line
3)transfer of concerning judge while he has reserved his judgment18(Para 5 line 8) and
was going to give it on 26 Nov. 2016(Para 5 Line 10)19.
 Formation of arbitrary bench to provide Positive Judgment in case. Which was
provided merely by 5 days trial(Para 8 Line 5).20

Reasonable Ground for fair criticism of Chief Justice of Supreme Court –

 Non Reply of Letter 1(Para 6 Line1).
 Non Reply of Letter 2(Para 9 Line 1).
 Non Reply of Letter 3(Para10 line 4).

3.5 No Form Of Contempt Against Petitioner

The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 recognises two forms of contempt – civil and criminal.
Such a distinction has always been made in this country ever since the present legal system
was introduced by the British. Civil contempt is defined under

17
In 2013, the apex court ordered that the trial of the case be shifted to another state and be heard by the same
judge from start to finish in order to maintain the integrity of trial. Judge Joffrey was known to be a very strict
and dutiful judge, therefore, he was assigned the case.
18
He had duly completed the proceeding and reserved his judgement for 26 November 2016 directing him to be
present at the time of judgment.
19
On 25 November 2016 he was transferred to Session Court of Harrenhal and the case was assigned to Judge
Eddard for the fresh trial.

20
The case headed by Eddard was assigned to Judge Wayne who acquitted Tyrin within 5 days.

10
Moot Court and Clinical Legal Education

Section 2(b) to be “wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or
other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court.”

Section 2(c) defines criminal contempt.

“Section 2(c) “criminal contempt” means the publication (whether by words, spoken or
written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of
any other act whatsoever which-

(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court;
or

(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial
proceeding; or

(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration
of justice in any other manner;”

It can be seen from the above that any act which scandalises or tends to scandalise the
authority of the Court and interference or obstruction of the administration of justice in any
manner are two forms of contumacious action. And the petitioners act does not fall with
ambit of any two form of Contempt.

3.6 Relating Provisions In Foreign Law

In Shri Baradakanta Mishra Case21 it was held that-

“Para 34. It will be seen that the terminology used in the definition is borrowed from the
English Law of Contempt and embodies concepts which are familiar to that Law which, by
and large, was applied in India. The expressions “scandalize”, “lowering the authority of the
Court”, “interference”, “obstruction” and “administration of justice” have all gone into the
legal currency of our sub-continent and have to be understood in the sense in which they have
been so far understood by our Courts with the aid of the English Law, where necessary.”

It must be mentioned here that Great Britain from which we have adopted the present legal
system abolished the offence of criminal contempt on the ground of scandalising the court
pursuant to the recommendation of the Law Commission dated 12th December, 2012.

21
E.M. Sankaran Namboodripad v. T. Narayanan Nambiar, (1970) 2 SCC 325.

11
Moot Court and Clinical Legal Education

The American law in this regard appears to be more liberal with greater emphasis on freedom
of speech. We do not wish to undertake any elaborate analysis of the American jurisprudence
for the present purpose. Borrowing a passage from the Law Commission’s Report of United
Kingdom on “Contempt of Court : Scandalising the Court (Contempt of Court : Scandalising
The Court22” would suffice:

“Para 46. In summary, on a North American approach, the entire offence of scandalising may
well be both unconstitutional and contrary to human rights.”

With reference to other common law countries, the Law Commission summarized the
position as follows:

“United States law traditionally regards freedom of speech, as enshrined in the First
Amendment, as the paramount right that prevails over all others in case of conflict, unless
there is a “clear and present danger that [the words] will bring about the substantive evils that
Congress has a right to prevent” [(1919) 249 US 47, 51 to 52].

Other common law countries, such as England and Wales and Australia, by contrast,
acknowledge the importance of freedom of speech, but regard it as one right among others,
with any conflict being resolved by way of a balancing exercise. [Justice R. Sackville, “How
Fragile Are the courts? Freedom of Speech and Criticism of the Judiciary” (2005)]. In our
consultation paper we drew attention to the same contrast. The position in Canada remained
uncertain until the court in Kopyto ((1987) 47 DLR (4th) 213 (Ont CA)], disapproving of the
scandalising offence, appeared to adopt an approach near to that of the United States. New
Zealand declined to follow Kopyto [(1993) NZHC 423 : [1994) 1 NZLR 48], thus remaining
in the Anglo-Australian camp.”

On the Basis of all the Arguments form Petitioners side in this issue it is crystal clear that
Petitioner is Not liable for the Contempt charges and there must be review in Judgement in
the Light of Following Arguments.

22
Law Commission’s Report of United Kingdom on “Contempt of Court : Scandalising the Court (Contempt of
Court : Scandalising The Court”, (2012) The Law Com No.335 [London “(The Stationery Office)].

12
Moot Court and Clinical Legal Education

13
Moot Court and Clinical Legal Education

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited. May
this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that:

1. The CJW is not the master of the Roster.

2. Reprobe in case of death of Justice Eddard is required.
3. The decision in Contempt proceeding against Justice Joffery, must be reviewed.

AND/OR

Pass any other appropriate order, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in light of Justice,
Equity and Good Conscience. For this act of kindness, the Counsel for Petitioner as in duty
bound shall forever pray.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.

Sd/-

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

14