IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

In the matter of

Rajesh………………………………………………………………………...………Petitioner

V.

Union of India……………………………………………………………………. Respondent

MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT

Page 1 of 13
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS

S. NO CONTENTS PAGE. NO

1. Index of Authorities 3

2. Abbreviations 4

3. Statement of Jurisdiction 6

4. Summary of Facts 7

5. List of Arguments 8

6. Summary of Arguments 9

7. Arguments Advanced 10

8. Prayer 13

Page 2 of 13
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT
Index of Authorities

A) STATUTE
1. Constitution of India, 1950

B.) TABLE OF CASES

1.S.P. Gupta v. UOI, AIR 1982 SC 149 (194)

2.Peoples Union v. UOI, AIR 1982 SC 1473

3. Judges Transfer case, AIR 1982 SC 149

4.People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. UOI, AIR 1982 SC 1973

5. Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advise v. Bar Council of India 1995 AIR SCW
473

C.) BOOKS

1.D.D. Basu- Constitutional Law-15th Edition, Volume 1

2.D.D. Basu- Constitutional Law-15th Edition, Volume 2

D.) OTHER AUTHORITIES

1. www.lawctopus.com

2. www.lawteachers.com

3. www.indiankanoon.com

4.www.ipleader.com

5. www.lawdictionary.com

Page 3 of 13
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

& And

AIR All India Report

Anr. Another

COI Constitution of India

Govt. Government

Hon’ble Honorable

ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political

Ors. Others

Pg. Page

PIL Public Interest Litigation

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SC Supreme Court

Sd/ Signed

UOI Union of India

UDHR Universal Declaration on Human Rights

v. Versus

Para. Paragraph

Vol. Volume

Jus. Justice

Page 4 of 13
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT
WP Writ Petition

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Page 5 of 13
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT
The Respondent most humbly submits that the petitioner petition in Supreme
Court need not entertain Jurisdiction in this writ petition.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Page 6 of 13
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT
Petitions were filed by Rajesh, who is a leader of well reckoned political party, under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging the constitutional validity of the offense of
criminal defamation as provided for in Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code and
Sections 199(1) to 199(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Petitioners were
charged with criminal defamation. The petitioner contested the constitutionality of the
offense of criminal defamation, arguing that it inhibited their right to freedom of expression.

LIST OF ARGUMENTS

Page 7 of 13
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT
1. Whether the petition is Maintainable?

2. Whether Criminal Defamation Charge against the Petitioner is Valid?

3. Whether the act is Ultra Vires to the Constitution?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Page 8 of 13
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT
1. Whether the petition is maintainable?
The Instant Position of the Writ Petition is not maintainable, since the Respondent has
violated the Fundamental Rights of the Petitioner.

2. Whether the Criminal Defamation charge against the Petitioner is Valid?

3. Whether the act is ultra vires of the Constitution of India?

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Page 9 of 13
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT
ISSUE 1:

1. Whether the Petition is Maintainable or not?

It is humbly submitted that the Writ petition filed by the Petitioner is not maintainable Under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that the writ petition is not
maintainable. Article 32 can be invoked only when there is an infringement of a Fundamental
Right. The violation of a Fundamental Right is the sine qua non for seeking enforcement of
that right by the Supreme Court.

The Apex Court in A.K.Gopalan V. The State of Madras,1Observed that, “in order to
attract the application of Article 32, the person applying must satisfy that he has got a right
under Part III of the constitution which has to be enforced under Article 32”.

Though there is violation of the Fundamental Rights of Petitioner as per Article 226 of the
Constitution they have to seek the High Court, they can’t be able to directly approach the
Supreme Court.

Thus, they should avoid such petitions which are irrelevant to the Law. Hence the petition is
not maintainable.

ISSUE 2:

1
AIR 1950 SC 27

Page 10 of 13
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT
2.) Whether the Criminal Defamation charge against the Petitioner is Valid?

The petitioner of this case has defamed the reputation of another person in a meeting publicly
in spite of such act, the aggrieved person made a complaint for that Government have filed
the case against the petitioner under Section 499 and 500 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
Section 199(1) to 199(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the defamation of that
person.

Where in as Section 499 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 say that Defamation of a person
And he shall be punished under Section 500 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 which says
Punishment for defamation is Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple
imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.2

So, Government’s action against the petitioner for criminal defamation is Valid.

ISSUE 3:

3.) Whether the Act is Ultra Vires of the Constitution of India?

Page 11 of 13
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT
Ultra vires3 in that sense, acting or done beyond the ones legal power or authority similarly,
statutory and Governmental bodies may have limits up on the acts and activities which they
legally engage in subordinate legislation which is purported passed without the proper legal
authority may be invalid as beyond the powers of the authority which issue it.

As the Petitioner said, that Section 499 and 500 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section
199(1) to 199(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has not violated his Fundamental
Rights which was been provided by Constitution of India. As these Acts are to punish the
person who defames another person reputation.Thus, it does not violate the Fundamental
Rights which was provided to him by Constitution of India.

So, the act is not Ultra Vires of the Constitution.

PRAYER

3
www.lawdictionary.com

Page 12 of 13
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT
Wherefore in the Light of Issues Raised, Argued Advanced & Authorities Cited,
Legal Principles & Precedents cited is most humbly pleaded with respect before this
Honorable Supreme Court to adjudicate that,

1. The Petition filed by Petitioner is not maintainable.

2. The Criminal Defamation Charge against the Petitioner is Valid.

3. The Act is not Ultra Vires to the Constitution.

And pass, any other order direction or relief that it may deem fit in the best interests of
Justice, fairness, equity and good conscience.

Act of which is respectfully submitted in the Counsel for the Respondent shall duty bound
forever pray.

New Delhi, Respectfully Submitted,

05.04.2022. Counsel for Respondent.

Page 13 of 13
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT