Team Code- 109

MANAV RACHNA LAW AND TECHNOLOGY NATIONAL MOOT

COURT COMPETITION, 2022
5th AMITY INTRA MOOT2021
COURT COMPETITION, 2022

Before
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDRIYANA
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
Under Article 32 of Constitution of Indriyana
P.I.L.No:______/2022

In the matter of

Sadda Hakk (NGO)….…………………………………………. (PETITIONER)

VERSUS
State of Ambrela Pradesh…………………………………………(RESPONDENT)

UPON THE SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE JUDGES

OF THE SUPREME COURT

Counsel on behalf of Petitioner

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
5th Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABREVIATIONS………………………………………………………………..04

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………………….....05

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………………………....06

STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………………………………08

STATEMENTS OF ISSUES……………………………………………………………….10

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS……………………………………………………….......11

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED………………………………………………………………13

1. WHETHER THE P.I.L. IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME

COURT OF INDRIYANA UNDER APPROPRIATE JURISDICTION OR
NOT?.................................................................................................................................13
1.1. Has Locus Standi as P.I.L. Can Be Filed For Violation of Fundamental Rights….13
1.2. Rights violated by State aided minority School……………………………………..14
1.3. P.I.L. can be moved by any Public Spirited Individual or Organisation…………….14

2. WHETHER THE SCHOOL REGULATIONS ARE VIOLATIVE OF FREEDOM

TO PROFESS, OR PRACTICE OF RELIGION MENTIONED UNDER ARTICLE
25 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDRIYANA, 1950, AND WHETHER THE
SCHOOL AUTHORITIES CAN BE HELD LIABLE UNDER SECTION 295A OF
INDRIYANA PENAL CODE, 1860 OR NOT?..............................................................15
2.1. School Regulations violate Art. 25………………………………………………….16
2.2. School authorities are liable under Section 295A…………………………………..17

~Memorial on Behalf of Petitioner~

5th Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2022

3. WHETHER THE SCHOOL HAS VIOLATED THE RIGHT TO EQUALITY

UNDER ARTICLES 14 AND 19 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDRIYANA,
1950?..................................................................................................................................18
3.1 The School has blatantly violated Right to Equality within the meaning of Article 14
of the Constitution of Indriyana………………………………………………………….18
3.2. The School has violated Right To Freedom as construed by Article 19 of The
Constitution of Indriyana…………………………………………………………………21
3.3. Secularism not an excuse…………………………………………………………….24

4. WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD INTERVENE IN ORDER TO

STOP THE MEDIA TRIAL OR NOT?..........................................................................25
4.1.The Fourth Pillar of Democracy………………………………………………………25
4.2. Free Speech and Freedom of Press…………………………………………………..26

PRAYER FOR RELIEFS…………………………………………………………………..31

~Memorial on Behalf of Petitioner~

5th Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2022

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And
ART. Article
ANR Another
AIR All India Reporter
CRM Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
DLT Delhi Law Times
DRJ Delhi Reported Judgments
EWCA England and Wales Court of Appeal
ORS Others
PTC Punjab Law Reporter
RLR Rajasthan Law Reporter
SC Supreme Court
SCR Supreme Court Reporter
SCC Supreme Court Cases
UOI Union Of India
V. Versus
WLN Weekly Law Notes
WP Writ Petition

~Memorial on Behalf of Petitioner~

5th Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2022

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

A. ACTS & STATUTES

q Constitution of India, 1950
q Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860)

B. LEGAL DATABASE
q Manupatra
q SCC Online

C. BOOKS
q Shorter Constitution of India By D.D. Basu (Ed. 15th)
q Indian Penal Code By Rattanlal & Dhirajlal (Ed. 34th)
q Indian Constitutional Law By M.P. Jain (Ed. 8th)
q Indian Penal Code By S.N. Mishra (Ed. 22nd)

D. CASES REFEREED
S.NO. ISSUE 1. PAGE(s)
1. Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib 13
2. Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, U.P 14
3. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India 14
4. Janata Dal v. H.S.Chowdhary 14
5. Banwasi Seva Ashram v. State of U.P 15
6. Upendra Baxi v. State of UP 15
ISSUE 2.
7. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain 16
8. S.P. Mittal v. Union of India 16
9. Ram Manohar Lohia vs State of Bihar 16
10. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri 17
Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt
11. Mudassir Ullah Khan v. State of UP 17

~Memorial on Behalf of Petitioner~

5th Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2022

12. Trustee, Safdar Hashmi Memorial Trust v. Government of NCT 18

Delhi
ISSUE 3.
13. Commissioner of Police v. Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta 19
14. Stephens College v. The University of Delhi 19
15. Resham v. State Of Karnataka 20
16. Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay 20
17. Amnah Bint Basheer And Another v. Central Board of Secondary 20
Education (CBSE), New Delhi And Another
18. National Legal Services Authority v. Union Of India & Ors 21
19. National Human Rights Commission v. State Of Arunachal Pradesh 21
20. Gurpreet Singh & Others v. State Of Punjab 21
21. Bijoe Emmanuel & Ors v. State Of Kerala & Ors 22
22. Romesh Thappar v. State Of Madras 22
ISSUE 4
23. Printers (Mysore) Ltd. v. Assistant Commercial Trade Officer 22
24. Life Insurance Corporation of India V. Manubhai D Shah 23
25. Romesh Thapar V. State of Madras 24
26. Hamdard Dawakhana V. Union of India 24
27. Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting V. Cricket 26
Association of West Bengal
28. Anukul Chandra V. Union of India 26
29. Odyssey Communications Pvt. Ltd. V. Lokvidayan Sanghatana & 27
Ors.
30. Sardar Charanjit Singh V. Aroon Purie and Ors 27
31. Fraser V. Evans and Ors 27
32. Kushwant Singh and Anr. V. Maneka Gandhi 27
33. Mother Dairy Foods And Processing V. Zee Telefilms Ltd 27
34. R. V. Stephen Downing 29
35. Sushil Sharma V. The State Delhi Administration and Ors 29

~Memorial on Behalf of Petitioner~

5th Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2022

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner has approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indriyana through a Public
Interest Litigation (P.I.L.) under Art.321 of the Indriyana Constitution.

1
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
7

~Memorial on Behalf of Petitioner~

5th Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2022

STATEMENT OF FACTS

For the sake of brevity and convenience of the Hon’ble Court, the facts of the present case
are summarised hereunder:-

BACKGROUND
1. Indriyana is a developing democratic country in the Asian Continent. It is the second-most
populous country in the world. It consists of 28 States and 9 Union Territories. The
diversity in cultural aspects like religion, language, traditions etc. is truly a remarkable
feature.
2. Taking inspiration from the Constitutions of the major democracies of the world, the
Constitution of Indriyana was wisely drafted by the members of its Constituent Assembly.
Democracy, Equality and Secularism are the essence of the Constitution. It encompasses
the values of Human Dignity and Equality. It guarantees to its citizens certain Fundamental
Rights - the scope of which is considerably enlarged by the dynamic judgments of the
Supreme Court of Indriyana.
3. In Indriyana, the majority of legal orders are built on a hierarchical system of legal actions,
with the Constitution at the top. A State's laws and other legal actions must be consistent
with Constitutional ideals. According to the Constitution of Indriyana, 1950, the State has
specific responsibilities towards its citizens, including but not limited to the protection of
basic rights, and the Supreme Court of Indriyana serves as a right preserver. If a statute or
other legal measure established by the State is in conflict with the Fundamental Rights of
the citizens guaranteed under Indriyana Constitution, the Supreme Court, as a guardian,
shall declare it null and void to the extent of inconsistency with the provisions.

RELEASE OF CIRCULAR
4. On 7 March 2002, All Boys Kristian Convent School a Minority run School (as per Article
29 and 30 of Indriyana Constitution) released a Circular asking all the students to follow
the new Regulations framed by the new administration of the School, one of which
mentioned that every student should have a military haircut, failing which they would not
be allowed to sit for the Final Term Examination. On 12 March 2022, two students from
Eleventh Grade were barred from entering the School premises as they were wearing
Turbans.
8

~Memorial on Behalf of Petitioner~

5th Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2022

INTERVENTION BY THE NGO

5. A lot of people of the same community came forward with similar experiences across the
nation, which an NGO, named “Sadda Hakk”, noticed and approached the aggrieved
parties. Sadda Hakk is an NGO that operates at pan Indriyana level. It is an unparalleled
socio- cultural organization of minorities and poor class of the nation. The purpose of the
NGO is to legally defend civil liberties and the democratic rights of the people.

SCHOOL’S OFFICIAL STATEMENT

6. The School released an official statement stating that the educational institutions are secular
public places and are meant to impart knowledge and wisdom employment, good health
and contribute to nation building, and not to follow essential and non-essential religious
practices. The School further added that the administration has not framed any Regulation
with the intent to hurt any one’s religious sentiments and it believes that it was essential to
introduce a common dress code in order to promote the secular character of educational
institutions and bring forth uniformity amongst the students. Seeing the issue gaining
prominence, some news channels also started a media trial. This further enraged the social
media community as they demanded a written apology from the School authorities.

NGO APPROACHES THE APEX COURT

7. Sadda Hakk filed a PIL on 31 July 2022 on behalf of the aggrieved in the Apex Court under
Article 32 of the Constitution, demanding the right to wear Turban in School premises and
it also alleged that the School Regulations were violative of Article 25 of the Constitution
which protects "Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of
religion." The NGO in the PIL further argued that the act created a mass hysteria in the
minds of the community and the School authorities should be held liable for the same.
Further, it demanded that the School authorities should be punished under Section295-A of
the Indriyana Penal Code, 1860, for hurting religious sentiments of the aggrieved parties
and their community. The matter is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court for 25th
August, 2022.

~Memorial on Behalf of Petitioner~

5th Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2022

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indriyana is presented with following issues:-

ISSUE 1.SUE 1.

Whether the P.I.L. is maintainable before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

Indriyana under appropriate jurisdiction or not?

ISSUE 2.

Whether the School Regulations are violative of Freedom to Profess, or

Practice of Religion mentioned under Article 25 of the Constitution of
Indriyana, 1950, and whether the School authorities can be held liable
under section 295A of Indriyana Penal Code, 1860 or not?

ISSUE 3.

Whether the School has violated the Right to Equality under Articles 14 and
19 of the Constitution of Indriyana, 1950?

ISSUE 4.SUE 1.

Whether the Supreme Court should intervene in order to stop

the Media Trial or not?

10

~Memorial on Behalf of Petitioner~

5th Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2022

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. WHETHER THE P.I.L. IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF INDRIYANA UNDER APPROPRIATE
JURISDICTION OR NOT?

The Petitioner humbly submit that the present P.I.L. is maintainable before this Hon’ble Court.
The foremost contention to support the is that it is a well-established principle of law with
reference to P.I.L. that it is filed in case of violation of Fundamental Rights and the present
facts hint at serious infringement of Fundamental Right to Equality and Freedom on the part
of the School. Another contention is that as held in catena of judgments the P.I.L. can be moved
by any public spirited individual or organisation for a cause effecting public at large. Petitioner
being an unparalleled socio-cultural organisation who works with public spirit is qualified to
move this P.I.L. Moreover the issue is of public importance since it is an attack to the dignity
and freedom of the Sikh community.

II. WHETHER THE SCHOOL REGULATIONS ARE VIOLATIVE OF

FREEDOM TO PROFESS, OR PRACTICE OF RELIGION MENTIONED
UNDER ARTICLE 25 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDRIYANA, 1950, AND
WHETHER THE SCHOOL AUTHORITIES CAN BE HELD LIABLE UNDER
SECTION 295A OF INDRIYANA PENAL CODE, 1860 OR NOT?

The Petitioner humbly submit that the School’s regulations were violative of both Art. 25 of
Indriyana Constitution as well as Section 295-A of Indriyana Penal Code, 1860. The regulation
issued by the School was malicious and deliberate While the School alleges that the directions
issued were for the purpose of discipline, but this reasoning seems bogus and sham. It is not
only illogical but also difficult to believe that a Turban can cause any indiscipline. The Sikh
'Rehat Maryada' (Sikh Code of Conduct) directs and declares that all Sikhs have to keep their
hair unshorn. The most revered Sikh symbol is hair. The Kesh (unshorn hair) is regarded with
the highest importance in the Sikh faith and is one of the basic requirements for a Sikh. The
Turban is required of every Sikh in order to cover his/her hair. By issuing such harsh regulation
and barring the students from entering without complying the regulation, the School has not

11

~Memorial on Behalf of Petitioner~

5th Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2022

just taken the right to freely profess their religion but also outraged the religious feelings of the
Sikhs.

III. WHETHER THE SCHOOL HAS VIOLATED THE RIGHT TO EQUALITY

UNDER ARTICLES 14 AND 19 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDRIYANA,
1950?
The Petitioner humbly submit that the School has violated the Right to Equality under Articles
14 and 19 of the Constitution of Indriyana, 1950 as the Respondents have polluted the
congenial atmosphere required for pursuing education. Being the stakeholders they did not
show any tolerance & catholicity towards the Sikh students professing & practicing Sikhism
faith and prevented them from attending the School with turbans and by insisting upon the
removal of turban as a condition for gaining entry to the school whereas the other students
could smoothly pursue the same. Hence, the School has allegedly committed straight breach
of equality, freedom as well as the liberty.

IV. WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD INTERVENE IN ORDER TO

STOP THE MEDIA TRIAL OR NOT?

The Petitioner humbly submit that this Hon’ble Court should not intervene in the Media Trial
since the belief that Media Trial weaves a concocted story is totally baseless. Media Trial often
ends up unfolding those aspects of the case which go unnoticed in regular Trials. Just like
Media, Judiciary is also a wing of democracy, and it has got the power to deliver the justice in
its way without paying heed to the prejudices. Allowing this Media Trial will help show a
daylight to this condemnable incident of insult of the Sikh community and the Respondent
deserve to be reprimanded by the public since Turbans are not merely a piece of cloth for Sikh
Community but a matter of pride. The direction issued by the School was reprehensible due to
the fact that it raised a question mark on the pride of the Sikh religion which in itself is a grave
insult. Asking the Sikhs to chop off their hairs and remove turbans is as deplorable as asking a
woman to remove her scarf/veil.

12

~Memorial on Behalf of Petitioner~

5th Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2022

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. WHETHER THE P.I.L. IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF INDRIYANA UNDER APPROPRIATE
JURISDICTION OR NOT?.

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court:-

1.1 HAS LOCUS STANDI AS P.I.L. CAN BE FILED FOR VIOLATION OF

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

It is humbly submitted by the Petitioner, before the Hon’ble Court, that the petition filed by the
petitioner have the locus standi to appear before the court and are maintainable.
A PIL can be filed against the State for the violation of Fundamental rights under Article 32 of
the Constitution; therefore, the PIL is maintainable against State of Ambrela Pradesh. Further,
to constitute a private party as being State, the same must fall within the ambit of other
authorities u/a 12 and thus must satisfy the court that it is either an instrumentality or an agency
of the State. In order to adjudge the same, the functions of the corporation must be of public
importance, and closely related to governmental functions. Public Function is one which “seeks
to achieve some collective benefit for the public or a section of the public” .Institutions engaged
in performing public functions are, by virtue of the functions performed, government agencies.
Further under the well-established doctrine of Parens Patriae, it is the obligation of the State
to protect and take into custody the rights and the privileges of its citizens for discharging its
obligations. The act of NGO “Sadda Hakk” is ideally perpetuated to seek the collective benefit
of the people by legally defending the civil liberties and the democratic rights of minorities and
poor class of nation. Hence, in the present case, the act of NGO is a public function as well as
a Governmental function.

In the case of Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib2, The Hon’ble Court relied on the case and on having
met the required condition to be called as a State the court held that society was an agency of

2
AIR 1981 SC 487, 99
13

~Memorial on Behalf of Petitioner~

5th Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2022

Government as they government had a deep control over its functioning as its composition was
determined by the representatives of government, the society is to comply with direction of the
government. The Memorandum of Association of Society and the Rules Act of the Society
clearly indicates that the college was owned, controlled and managed by the Government and
hence a State under Article 12 of the Constitution under “Other authorities.”

1.2. RIGHTS VIOLATED BY STATE AIDED MINORITY SCHOOL

As the fundamental rights are available only against the state and here the fundamental rights
has been violated by the state aided minority run school. Hence, the PIL is maintainable.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner, U.P.3,
held that in discharging duties assigned to the Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has to play
the role of a ‘sentinel on the qui vive’ and it must always regard it as it’s solemn duty to protect
the said fundamental rights ‘zealously and vigilantly’.

It was held in the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India4, that the expression
‘appropriate proceedings’ has reference to the proceedings which may be appropriate having
regard to the nature of the order, direction or which the petitioner seeks to obtain from the
court. The word ‘appropriate’ does not refer to any form, but to the purpose of the proceedings
and therefore so long as the purpose of the proceedings is enforcement of fundamental rights,
it is appropriate and when it relates to the enforcement of the fundamental rights of the poor,
disabled or ignorant by a public-spirited person, even a letter addressed by him (to the court)
can legitimately be regarded as an “appropriate proceeding”.

1.3. P.I.L. CAN BE MOVED BY PUBLIC SPIRITED INDIVIDUAL OR

ORGANISATION

In case of Janata Dal v. H.S.Chowdhary 5, It was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the
expression ‘Public Interest Litigation’ means a legal action initiated in a Court of law for the
enforcement of public interest or general interest in which the public or class of the community
have pecuniary interest or some interest by their legal rights or liabilities are affected.

3
AIR 1963 SC 996
4
(1984) 3SCC 161
5
(1992) 3 SCC 305
14

~Memorial on Behalf of Petitioner~

5th Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2022

In case of Banwasi Seva Ashram v. State of U.P.6 The Hon’ble Court in this case held that
Even when no particular person has been legally injured but a public injury has been caused
by violation of Constitutional principle, any person with a public spirit would be allowed to
complain of such violation and such petition would stand maintainable. As here NGO being
unparalled socio- cultural organisation of minorities and poor class of the Nation who works
with a public spirit would be allowed to complain of such violation and the petition would
stand maintainable.

In case of Upendra Baxi v. State of UP7 cited in Gupta S.P. v. Union of India

The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a P.I.L. may be moved not only by an aggrieved
individual but also by a public spirited individual or a journalist or a social action group for the
enforcement of the Constitutional or legal rights of some other person, provided such other
person is unable to approach the Court for redress owing to—-

a. Such person being in custody

b. Such person belongs to a class or group of persons who are in a disadvantaged position on
account of poverty, disability or any other social impediment.

As per the present factual matrix Petitioner being a Social Action Group working for public
interest has a right to approach this Hon’ble Court for enforcement of Fundamental Rights in
favour of aggrieved Sikh Students.

II. WHETHER THE SCHOOL REGULATIONS ARE VIOLATIVE TO

FREEDOM TO PROFESS, OR PRACTISE OF RELIGION MENTIONED
UNDER ARTICLE 25 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDRIYANA , 1950 AND
WHETHER THE SCHOOL AUTHORITIES CAN BE HELD LIABLE UNDER
SECTION 295A OF THE INDRIYANA PENAL CODE, 1860 OR NOT ?

Article 25 reads: "Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of
this part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to
profess, practise and propagate religion."
Religion is a matter of belief or faith. The constitution of India recognizes the fact, how
important religion is in the life of people of India and hence, provides for the right to freedom

6
AIR 1987 SC 374
7
(1981) 2 SCALE 1136 (SC)
15

~Memorial on Behalf of Petitioner~

5th Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2022

of religion under Articles 25. The Constitution of India envisages a secular model and
provides that every person has the right and freedom to choose and practice his or her
religion.
The German philosopher Immanuel Kant defines religion as “Religion is the recognition of
all our duties as divine commands”.

2.1. SCHOOL REGULATIONS ARE VIOLATE ARTICLE 25

The Apex Court in Indira Nehru Gandhi Vs. Raj Narain8 explained the basic feature of
secularism to mean that the State shall have no religion of its own and all persons shall be
equally entitled to the freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and
propagate religion.

In the case of S.P. Mittal v. Union of India9 the Hon’ble Court held that Religion need not
be theistic. It is not merely an opinion, doctrine or belief but has an outward expression in the
act as well.

In Ram Manohar Lohia vs State of Bihar10 (1965), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in
the case of ‘public order’, the community or the public at large have to be affected by a
particular action. “The contravention of law always affects order but before it can be said to
affect public order, it must affect the community or the public at large.
Ø prescribing or authorizing the prescription of dress code/uniform to the students
consistent with the said narrative, is violative of their fundamental right to freedom of
conscience and the right to practice their religious faith constitutionally guaranteed
under Article 25 vide BIJOE EMMANUAL vs. STATE OF KERALA.

Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala,(supra) (Popularly known as the National Anthem case.)

The facts of this case were that three children belonging to a sect (Jehovah’s witness)
worshipped only Jehovah (the creator) and refused to sing the national anthem “Jana Gana
Mana”. According to these, children singing Jana Gana Mana was against the tenets of their

8
1975 AIR 865, 1975 SCR (3) 333.
9
1983 AIR, 1 1983 SCR (1) 729
10
1966 AIR 740, 1966 SCR (1) 709
16

~Memorial on Behalf of Petitioner~

5th Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2022

religious faith which did not allow them to sing the national anthem. These children stood up
respectfully in silence daily for the national anthem but refused to sing because of their honest
belief. However, the headmistress under the instruction of the Dy. Inspector of Schools
expelled the students.

The Supreme Court held that the action of the headmistress of expelling the children from
school for not singing the national anthem was violative of their freedom of religion. The
fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 25(1) has been infringed.
One’s personal appearance or choice of dressing is a protected zone within the ‘freedom of
expression’; What one wears and how one dresses is a matter of individual choice protected
under ‘privacy jurisprudence’ vide K.S PUTTASWAMY vs. UNION OF INDIA.

The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha

Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt,11 Supreme Court said, A religion may not only lay down a code
of ethical rules for its followers to accept, it might prescribe rituals and observances,
ceremonies and modes of worship which are regarded as integral parts of religion, and these
forms and observances might extend even to matters of food and dress. The guarantee under
our Constitution not only protects the freedom of religious opinion but it protects also acts done
in pursuance of a religion and this is made clear by the use of the expression " practice
of religion " in Art.25.

2.2 SCHOOL AUTHORITIES ARE LIABLE UNDER SECTION 295A OF

INDRIYANA PENAL CODE

12
In case of Mudassir Ullah Khan v. State of UP The Hon’ble Court asserted in the above-
mentioned case that the “Malicious intention can either be shown to exist or can be apparent
from the nature of the act alleged to constitute an offence.”
Such malicious intention is apparent from the acts of the School as it asked the Sikh Students
to have a military haircut which is considered very despicable by this particular community.
This act of the School fulfils the requirement of this section which postulates mens rea and an
Institution like School which is considered a temple of knowledge when takes a step like this

11
1954 AIR 282, 1954 SCR 1005
12
2013 CrLJ 3741: 2013 (2) ACR 2020
17

~Memorial on Behalf of Petitioner~

5th Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2022

despite being abreast of the practices of a community is not only malafide but “grossly
offensive” as well.

13
In case of Trustee, Safdar Hashmi Memorial Trust v. Government of NCT Delhi The
Hon’ble Court explained what the term does ‘Malice/Malicious’ mean, it clarified that, Malice
can be said to be the converse of bona fides.

While the School alleges that the directions issued were for the purpose of discipline, but this
reasoning seems bogus and sham. It is not only illogical but also difficult to believe that a
Turban can cause any indiscipline. The Sikh 'Rehat Maryada' (Sikh Code of Conduct) directs
and declares that all Sikhs have to keep their hair unshorn. The most revered Sikh symbol is
hair. The Kesh (unshorn hair) is regarded with the highest importance in the Sikh faith and is
one of the basic requirements for a Sikh. The Turban is required of every Sikh in order to cover
his/her hair. This is a rule that he or she should observe, abide and keep.
School has acted ultra vires by issuing such directions as this it is totally disproportionate to
the purpose sought.

III. WHETHER THE SCHOOL HAS VIOLATED THE RIGHT TO EQUALITY

UNDER ARTICLES 14 AND 19 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDRIYANA,
1950?

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court:-

3.1 THE SCHOOL HAS BLATANTLY VIOLATED RIGHT TO EQUALITY WITHIN

THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION.

The edifice of Article 14 derives its essence from the Preamble which speaks of Equality of
Status and Equal Opportunity. The principle of Equality forms the basic tenet of Article 14 and
is conferred on the people within the territory of India through two primary guarantees.
Equality before the Law and Equal Protection of the Laws.

13
2001 CrLJ 3689 (Del.)
18

~Memorial on Behalf of Petitioner~

5th Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2022

In the words of George Orwell, a famous writer, “If liberty means anything, it means the
right to tell people what they don’t want to hear”.

The aspect of Article 14 of the Constitution states that while it commands the State not to deny
to any person ‘equality before law’, it also commands the State not to deny the ‘equal protection
of the laws. Equality before law prohibits discrimination. It is a negative concept. The concept
of ‘equal protection of the laws’ requires the State to give special treatment to persons in
different situations in order to establish equality amongst all. It is positive in character.
Therefore, the necessary corollary to this would be that equals would be treated equally, whilst
un-equals would have to be treated equally.
It hardly needs to be mentioned that ours is a country of plural cultures, religions & languages.
Being a secular State, it does not identify itself with any religion as its own. Every citizen has
the right to profess & practice any faith of choice, is true.

Nobody should pollute the congenial atmosphere required for pursuing education. All
stakeholders should show tolerance & catholicity so that the Sikh students professing &
practicing Sikhism faith can attend the School with turbans and the institutions should not insist
upon the removal of turban as a condition for gaining entry to the school.

Dress & attire are a part of speech & expression; right to wear turban is a matter of privacy of
the citizens and that institutions cannot compel them to remove the same. It is a facet of the
right to privacy recognized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttuswamy V.
Union of India14 and is protected by right to freedom of expression under Article 19 (1) (a) of
the Constitution.

Apart from this the Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment in Commissioner of Police v. Acharya
Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta15 stated that “One Religious denomination being permitted to
carry on its religious practice, but another religious denomination being restrained from
carrying on almost similar religious practices is violative of Article 14.”
To treat all citizens equally is the basic concept of liberalism and Article 14 ensures the same
to our citizens. The liberty of any person is directly connected to the equality that an individual

14
(2017) 10 SCC 1
15
(2004) 12 SCC 770
19

~Memorial on Behalf of Petitioner~

5th Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2022

is getting in the society. Equality before Law basically means that all persons should be treated
equally no matter whether they are poor or rice, male or female, upper caste or lower caste.
This. State cannot provide any special privileges to anyone in the country. It is also known as
legal equality.

The same concept was discussed in Stephens College V. The University of Delhi.16 In this
case, the admission process of college was checked, and the main issue raised was the validity
of preference given to Christian students in the admission process. Here the Supreme Court
held that minority institution which receiving aid from State funds is entitled to grant
preference or to reserve seats for students of its community.

In Resham V. State of Karnataka,17 the Hon’ble Court had focused on certain important
contentions in which the court held that the expulsion of the students for violating the dress
code would be grossly disproportionate to the alleged infraction of the dress code. Nobody
should pollute the congenial atmosphere required for pursuing education. All stakeholders
should show tolerance & catholicity so that the Sikh students professing & practicing Sikhism
faith can attend the school with turbans and the institutions should not insist upon the removal
of turban as a condition for gaining entry to the school. Dress & attire are a part of speech &
expression; right to wear turban is a matter of privacy of the citizens and that institutions cannot
compel them to remove the same. It hardly needs to be mentioned that ours is a country of
plural cultures, religions & languages. Being a secular State, it does not identify itself with any
religion as its own. Every citizen has the right to profess & practise any faith of choice, is true.
However, such a right not being absolute is susceptible to reasonable restrictions as provided
by the Constitution of India.

In Ratilal Panachand Gandhi V. State of Bombay,18 the Hon’ble Court held that the
Constitution guarantees protection to religious practices based on what one’s conscience
profess. Therefore, in all circumstances, he can retain his identity based on the religion. The
State cannot interfere with the practice of religious affairs which would obliterate his religious

16
(1992) 1 SCC 558: AIR 1992 SC 1630: 1991 Supp (3) SCR 121
17
W.P No. 2347/2022
18
1954 AIR 388, 1954 SCR 1035
20

~Memorial on Behalf of Petitioner~

5th Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2022

identity. The environment in which one has to live is determined by the patterns of the idea
formed by his conscience.

In the case of Amnah Bint Basheer and Another V. Central Board of Secondary Education
(CBSE), New Delhi and Another19, the Hon’ble Court in dealing with the question of freedom
of religious practices, the Court must dwell on to find such practices are essential to maintain
the identity of a person to profess his faith in the religion he practices and if not allowed,
whether it would result in the wrath of the injunctions of the religious doctrine he professes.

In the case of National Legal Services Authority V. Union of India & Ors,20 the Hon’ble Court
held that the basic spirit of our Constitution is to provide each and every person of the national
equal opportunity to grow as a human being, irrespective of race, caste, religion, community
and social status. Granville Austin while analyzing the functioning of Indian Constitution in
first 50 years has described three distinguished strands of Indian Constitution:

q Protecting National Unity and Integrity,

q Establishing the Institution and Spirit of Democracy; and
q Fostering Social Reforms

In National Human Rights Commission V. State of Arunachal Pradesh21, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court observed: “We are country governed by the Rule of Law. Our Constitution
confers certain rights on every human being and certain other rights to our citizens. Every
person is entitled to equality before the law and equal protection of laws.”

3.2 THE SCHOOL HAS VIOLATED RIGHT TO FREEDOM UNDER ARTICLE 19

OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Secularism in the true sense is a belief system that separates religion from State and its civic
affairs. The introduction to the word ‘secular’ by the 42ns Amendment simply made the secular
nation of the Indian Constitution more apparent. No religion is given special status in India as

19
WP(C).No. 6813 of 2016 (B)
20
AIR 2014 SC 1863
21
1996 AIR 1234, 1996 SCC (1) 742
21

~Memorial on Behalf of Petitioner~

5th Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2022

a State. There is no such thing as an Indian State religion. India advocates secularism by
granting equal religious freedom to all religions. It stands for all citizens’ right to freedom.
Explaining the meaning of secularism as adopted by India, Alexandrowics writes, “India as a
secular State guarantees constitutionally, freedom of religion to all persons and does not assign
a special position to any particular religion”. Article 19 guarantees six important fundamental
rights to its citizens of India along with some reasonable restrictions. These are basic rights and
liberties which as recognized as the natural rights inherent in the status of citizen and are
preconditions for a democratic state based on the rule of law. These liberties include freedom
of speech and expression, peaceful assembly, forming associations, moving freely in the
country, residing in any part of the country, and lastly to carry any profession of one’s choice.
Since, complete freedom is bound to get an anarchic rule in the country.

In the case of Gurpreet Singh & Others V. State of Punjab22, the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana
High Court held that Turban is an essential religious symbol. Exemption to Sikhs for wearing
turbans are granted in multiple spheres the Central Motor Vehicle Act grants exemption to
Sikhs from wearing helmets while driving a two-wheeler. In several foreign countries such the
UK and US, members of other communities, including Sikhs, have been permitted to wear
turbans while playing sports in keeping with their religious beliefs. So there is no reason to
hinder the same in educational institution. If turbans allowed in army why not in educational
institutions. Secularism does not prevent any religion from practicing and professing their
religious practices rather they protect the same. Hence, the respondent is righteous in covering
its unjustified acts in the name of secularism.

In the case of Bijoe Emmanuel & Ors V. State of Kerala & Ors23, the Hon’ble Court observed
that any law which may be made under clauses 2 to 6 of Article 19 to regulate the exercise of
the right to the freedoms guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (a) to (e) and (g) must be a ‘law’ having
a statutory force and not a mere executive or departmental instructions.

In Romesh Thappar V. State of Madras24, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the freedom
of speech and of the press lay at the foundation of all democratic organizations, for without

22
CRM-M-17086-2021 (O & M)
23
1987 AIR 748, 1986 SCR (3) 518
24
1950 AIR 124, 1950 SCR 594
22

~Memorial on Behalf of Petitioner~

5th Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2022

free political discussion no public education, so essential for the proper functioning of the
processes of popular government is, possible”.

The Counsel for Petitioner would reiterate the case of Bijoe Emmanuel & Ors V. State of
Kerala & Ors25, (Supra) in which the Hon’ble Court observed that the school authorities
punished some school children for not singing the National Anthem. The children belonged to
a sect called Jehovah’s Witnesses who worshipped only Jehovah the Creator and no one else.
They refused to sing the National Anthem because according to them it against her religious
faith. But the children showed respect to the national anthem by standing up silently when it
was sung and never showed any disrespect. Therefore, it was held that the action of the school
authorities in punishing the students amounted to the violation of Article 19 (1) (a).

The Essential Religious Practices test [“ERP”] is one of the enduring burdens of Indian
constitutional law. In the Hijab Case, the Karnataka High Court stated that The very first
thing that the Petitioners’ counsel invoked was the Quran, and he then proceeded to read from
it. Counsel then went on to quote various hadith, according to which “it is not correct for a
woman to show her parts other than her hands and face to strangers after she begins to have
menstruation” (sic), that women’s garments should be “lowered a hand span” (otherwise,
punishment would follow), and then a previous Kerala High Court judgment where – on an
analysis of these same lines – it had been observed that the practice of leaving the head
uncovered (for women) was “haram” in Islam.

We therefore see how, before the High Court, the entire range of complex reasons for why one
might wear the hijab was reduced to one overarching claim: that it was a religious command
that brooked no disobedience. In other words, a case that – as a matter of fact – was a case
about agency and choice (albeit, complex and situated agency and choice) turned into – in law
– a case about the absence of choice and the deprivation of agency. The Court was asked to
allow the petition because the Muslim women students effectively had no choice in the matter,
for the wearing of a headscarf was a compulsory prescription that flowed from religious
authority.

25
Supra note 9
23

~Memorial on Behalf of Petitioner~

5th Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2022

In the case of Tinker V. Des Moines Independent School District26 held that the black
armbands was constitutionally protected speech. The majority observed that school students
had not surrendered any of their fundamental rights by deciding to enrol in a school observing
that “First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school
environment, are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either
students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the
schoolhouse gate.”

In the case of NALSA V. Union of India27, the Hon’ble Court held that whilst dealing with
several constitutional issues regarding the transgender community, the court makes an
important observation that people express their gender-identity through their mannerisms and
clothes, and such expression is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution.

3.3. SECULARISM NOT AN EXCUSE

Exemptions to Sikhs for wearing turbans are granted in multiple spheres, the Central Motor
Vehicle Act grants exemption to Sikhs from wearing helmets while driving a two-wheeler. In
several foreign countries such as the UK and US, members of other communities, including
Sikhs, have been permitted to wear turbans while playing sports in keeping with their religious
beliefs. So, there is no reason to hinder the same in an educational institutions per se. Therefore,
if turbans are allowed in army why not in educational institutions. SECULARISM does not
prevent any religion from practicing and professing their religious practices rather they protect
the same. Hence, the respondent is not righteous in passing the buck of its unjustified acts in
the name of Secularism and the directions are against the spirit of positive secularism.

26
393 U.S. 503 (1969)
27
Supra note 6

24

~Memorial on Behalf of Petitioner~

5th Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2022

IV. WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD INTERVENE IN ORDER TO

STOP THE MEDIA TRIAL OR NOT?

It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court:

4.1. FOURTH PILLAR OF DEMOCRACY

The merit of the democratic system is that it gives freedom of expression, and a space is given
to each individual.
Whereas media is used to aware about various social, political, and economic activities, media
is like a mirror to the world which reflects the true and harsh realities of the world, as media is
being trusted by everyone and people always trust actual and honest news. For a democratic
country to operate its system to its full potential, the participation of the public is imperative,
that successively needs circulation of information to the mass or the number of people, or this
is called mass media.

Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states the right to
freedom of speech, that, ‘everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference
and freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of
frontiers, either orally, in writing or in a print, in the form of art, or through any other media
of his choice.’

The media laws are like the Constitution of Indriyana that means they are rigid and flexible
at same time. Article 19(1)(a) of the Indriyana Constitution is the biggest support to the
media as it provides the right to freedom of speech and expression which are followed with
Art.19(2) that provide some reasonable restrictions and states as:Nothing in sub-clause (a) of
clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any
law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred
by the said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India ,the security of
the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation
to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.

25

~Memorial on Behalf of Petitioner~

5th Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2022

In the case of Printers (Mysore) Ltd. v. Assistant Commercial Trade Officer28, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that though freedom of press is not under Fundamental Right, but it is an
implicit in the freedom of speech and expression. about various social, political, and economic
activities, media is like a mirror to the world which reflects the true and harsh realities of the
world, as media is being trusted by everyone and people always trust actual and honest news.
For a democratic country to operate its system to its full potential, the participation of the public
is imperative, that successively needs circulation of information to the mass or the number of
people, or this is called mass media.

Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states the right to
freedom of speech, that, everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference
and freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of
frontiers, either orally, in writing or in a print, in the form of art, or through any other media of
his choice. The media laws are like the Constitution of Indriyana that means they are rigid and
flexible at same time. Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution is the biggest support to the media
as it provides the right to freedom of speech and expression which are followed with Art.19(2)
that provide some reasonable restrictions and states as:
Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent
the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the
exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and
integrity of India ,the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order,
decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.

4.2 FREE SPEECH and FREEDOM OF PRESS

In the case of Printers (Mysore) Ltd. v. Assistant Commercial Trade Officer(supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that though freedom of press is not under Fundamental Right, but
it is an implicit in the freedom of speech and expression.

The Supreme Court of India, in Life Insurance Corporation of India V. Manubhai D Shah29,
has stated that the “freedom of speech and expression” in Article 19 (1) (a) means the right to

28
1994 SCR (1) 682, 1994 SCC (2) 434
29
1993 AIR 171, 1992 SCR (3) 595
26

~Memorial on Behalf of Petitioner~

5th Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2022

express one’s convictions and opinions freely, by word of mouth, writing, printing, pictures or
electronic media or in any other manner.

In Romesh Thapar V. State of Madras30, it was held that the freedom includes the freedom of
ideas, their publication and circulation.

It was also stated in Hamdard Dawakhana V. Union of India31, it was held that the right
includes the right to acquire and impart ideas and information about matters of common
interests.

The right to includes the right to educate, to inform and to entertain and the right to be educated,
informed, and be entertained. The former is the right of the telecaster, while the latter is the
right of the viewers. In light of that in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Information &
Broadcasting V. Cricket Association of West Bengal32, the right under Article 19 (1) (a)
includes the right to information and the right to disseminate through all types of media,
whether print, electronic or audio-visual.

In Anukul Chandra V. Union of India33, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “No
occasion should arise for an impression that the publicity attached to these matters (the hawala
transactions) has tended to dilute the emphasis on the essentials of a fair trial and the basic
principles of jurisprudence including the presumption of innocence of the accused unless found
guilty at the end of trial”.

In the case of Odyssey Communications Pvt. Ltd. V. Lokvidayan Sanghatana & Ors,34 the
Court held that Freedom of expression is a preferred right which is always very zealously
guarded by this Court. It can no longer be disputed that the right of a citizen to exhibit films on
Doordarshan subject to the terms and conditions to be imposed by Doordarshan is a part of the
fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) of
the Constitution of India which can be curtailed only under circumstances which are set out in

30
1950 AIR 124, 1950 SCR 594
31
1960 AIR 554, 1960 SCR (2) 671
32
1995 AIR 1236, 1995 SCC (2) 161
33
AIR 1997 SC 2814
34
1988 AIR 1642, 1988 SCR Supl. (1) 486
27

~Memorial on Behalf of Petitioner~

5th Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2022

clause (2) of Article 19 of the Constitution. The right similar to the right of citizen to publish
his views through any other media such as newspaper, magazines, advertisement hoardings
etc.

In the case of Sardar Charanjit Singh V. Aroon Purie and Ors35. Declined to say the
publication of an article in the magazine “India Today” on the plaintiff’s submissions that the
questionnaire sent to him was per-se defamatory and the article which was proposed to be
written based on the per-se defamatory questionnaire would also be defamatory. Taking note
of the defendant’s plea that it would justify the article, that would be published, the Court
declined interim injunction holding.

In the case of Fraser V. Evans and Ors36., the Hon’ble Court quoted “This Court will not
restrain the publication of an article, even though it is defamatory, when the defendant says
that he intends to justify it or to make fair comment on a matter of public interest.”

In the case of Kushwant Singh and Anr. V. Maneka Gandhi37, where the Hon’ble Court
vacated the injunction granted against the defendants from publishing, circulating, or selling
the autobiography pertaining to the respondent and her family. The division bench vacated the
injunction upholding the observations of Lord Denning in Woodword V. Hutc Inc.: “The
reason is because the interest of the public is knowing the truth outweighs the interest of a
plaintiff in maintain his operation”.

In Mother Dairy Foods and Processing V. Zee Telefilms Ltd38., the Hon’ble Court observed
that “This raises the issue of accountability and responsibility of media to its readers and the
public in general. Reference in this context may be usefully made to work “Media Ethics. A
philosophical approach” edited by Mathew Kieran which contains articles authored by media
professionals, academics, and philosophers. It covers issues of impartiality, objectivity in
reporting, role, and responsibility of media. Mr. Andrew Belsey in his article on “Journalism
and ethics can they co-exist?” notes that Journalists provide a vital service in democratic set
up. They act as distinctive facilitators for the democratic process to function without hindrance.

35
1983 (4) DRJ 86, 1983 RLR 48
36
AIR 2002 Delhi 58
37
AIR 2002 Delhi 58
38
AIR 2005 Delhi 195, 117 (2005) DLT 272, 2005 (80) DRJ 74, 2005 (30) PTC 219 Del
28

~Memorial on Behalf of Petitioner~

5th Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2022

Virtues associated with ethical journalism namely accuracy, honesty, truth, objectivity,
fairness, balanced reporting, respect, or autonomy of ordinary people are part of and required
in the democratic process”.

In the famous case which carried the O.J. Simpson Trial in 1995 where media had promoted
the case and influenced the mind of the viewers much above status of the Court. It is often, that
coverage by the media can be said to reflect the views of a person who walks on street.
Therefore, the media acts as a bridge between different persons and the viewers. However, the
media acts coming even more under the scrutiny of law, it has been considered that the media
should publish facts about any person only after through proofreading, citing credible sources.
Although, the use of media has been for both good and bad as it acts as a bridge between
different persona and viewers.

In the case of R. V. Stephen Downing,39 the campaign by a local newspaper editor had
reopened the case and had been a successful appeal and release of the convict after twenty-
seven years of his conviction.

In the case of Sushil Sharma V. The State Delhi Administration and Ors.40, there was little
evidence that the accused had murdered his partner. However, while the case was still pending
in the court, the media had started portraying the accused as a murderer and was capable of
changing the views of the public even before the decision of the case. It held by the High Court
of Delhi that the conviction of any person would solely be based on the facts of the case and
not because the media wanted the person to be declared as guilty. The charges also have to be
framed against the person accused based on the evidence available on record and not based on
what the media portrays the person to be.

Under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, publications under free trials are sheltered against
contempt proceedings. However, any publication which interferes with or obstructs or tends to
obstruct any proceeding, be it civil or criminal, and the course of justice, which is actually a
pending proceeding, constitutes contempt of court. An illustration of this immunity can be seen
through the case of Aarushi Talwar’s Murder case, the media had declared who was guilty and

39
[2002] EWCA Crim 263
40
1996 CriLJ 3944
29

~Memorial on Behalf of Petitioner~

5th Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2022

who was not even before the actual trial had begun. The press had immunity for such a
publication previously. However, no interference of the legislature was noted. However, a
broader understanding of the same has been provided by the Court bringing the action of trial
by media under the realm of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Conclusion
Considering the above case laws, it is evident that although there exists a belief that Media
Trials may create a concocted story which would eventually lead to misguiding the masses but
in reality it often ends up unfolding those aspects of case which remain shut in regular trials.
Additionally, Judiciary is an independent and stagnant body, and it has in its hands power to
provide fair justice without looking into any kind of prejudices. Having said that in the present
case, the Media has brought forth not only the injustice done towards the Sikh community who
wear Turbans which typically indicates one’s special status and is extremely a matter of pride
for the entire community but has also magnified that the entire matter has had a deep impact
on the mental health of the students and hurt the religious sentiments of the community.
Moreover, being the fourth pillar of democracy, it is the prime responsibility of the Media to
bring forth the wrongdoings and most importantly to cover every aspect the matter where
injustice is prevailing.
Therefore, it is most humbly submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court should not intervene
in order to stop the Medial Trial before as the Media is under the ambit of Article 19 (1) (a)
Freedom to speech and expression.

***

30

~Memorial on Behalf of Petitioner~

5th Amity Intra Moot Court Competition, 2022

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, in the light of facts stated, issues raised, authorities cited and arguments
advanced, it is most humbly prayed and implored before the Honourable Apex Court that it
may be graciously pleased to adjudge and declare that –

1. The present P.I.L. is maintainable before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indriyana under
appropriate jurisdiction.
2. The School regulations are violative of Freedom to Profess, or Practice of Religion
mentioned under Article 25 of the Constitution of Indriyana, 1950, and the Respondents
be held liable under Section 295A of Indriyana Penal Code, 1860.
3. The Respondent has violated the Right to Equality under Articles 14 and 19 of the
Constitution of Indriyana, 1950.
4. That this Hon’ble Court shall not intervene in order to stop the Media Trial.

AND/OR

Pass any other Order, Direction, or Relief that it may deem fit in the Best Interests of
Justice, Fairness, Equity and Good Conscience.

For This Act of Kindness, the Respondents Shall Duty Bound Hold Forever Pray.

Sd/-
(Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner)

31

~Memorial on Behalf of Petitioner~