TC 20 Petitioner

4th Gurjeet Singh Memorial National Moot Court Competition

TC: 20


IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF HELIOPOLIS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
W.P (Civil) No: 47 of 2023 and SLP (Civil) No: 3478 of 2023
In the matter of:
Athena Inc. ………………………………………..…Petitioner

v.
Television Watchdog……………………………...… Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS.

Page | 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ………………………………………………………….
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………………………………………….
STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………………………….
STATEMENT OF ISSUES…………………………………………………………….
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS……………………………………………………….
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED…………………………………………………………..
PRAYER ………………………………………………………………………………..
Page | 2
List of Abbreviations.
SERIAL ABBREVIATIONS FULL FORM

NO.
1. AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER
2. & AND
3. Hon’ble HONOURABLE
4. SC SUPREME COURT
5. SCC SUPREME COURT CASES
6. Ors. OTHERS
7. Sec SECTION
8. u/s UNDER SECTION
9. v. VERSUS
Page | 3
TABLE OF CASES
Odyssey Communication (P) Ltd. v. Lokvidayan Sangatana......................... (1988) 3 SCC 410

LIC v. Manubhai D.Shah...................................................................................... 1993 AIR 171
In Secretary of Ministry of Information and Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of West
Bengal ............. 1995 AIR 1236
Directorate General of Doordarshan v. Anand Patwardhan............... .... 2006 (8) S.C.C. 433.
Shiv Cable TV System v. State of Rajasthan.................................................. AIR 1993 Raj 197
Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Govt. of India v. Cricket Assn. of Bengal
................................ (1995) 2 SCC 161
Kusum Ingots and Alloys ltd. V. Union Of India……………………………….(2004) 6 SCC 254
Harshal N. Mirashi v The State of Maharashtra………………………......... WP(C) 1200/2020
Devendra Dwivedi v. Union Of India………………Writ Petition(s)(Criminal) No(s).272/2020
Saumya Ann Thomas v. Union of India,…………………………………… …..2010 (1) KLJ 449
Shiv Kumar V. Union Of India……………………………....................……[1995] 1 SCR 354 6
Telegunadu Workcharged Employees State Federation V. Government of India ……
........................................................................................................…1997 (3) ALT 492
Textile Technical Tradesmen Association v. Union of India………….... (2011) I LLJ 297 Mad
Indian Radiological and Imaging Association v. Union of
India…………………………………………………………………...............…….. AIR 2016 Del 78
Partha Pratim Dutta v. Union Of India.................................................... W.P.7283(W) of 2016
Dr. T. Rajakumari v. Government of Tamil Nadu.........................................AIR 2016 Mad 177
Bennett Coleman & Co. & Ors vs Union Of India …………….........……..……… 1973 AIR 106
Sakal Papers (P) Ltd., And Others vs The Union Of India ………….........……….1962 AIR 305
Romesh Thapar V. State of Madras,………………………………… ................ AIR 1950 SC 124
Indian Express Newspaper v. Union of India…………...............................…….. 1986 AIR 515
Tata Press Ltd. Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd………........………… 1995 SCC (5) 139
Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union Of India………….........................……… AIR 1970 SC 564
Page | 4
State of Gujarat v Shri Ambica Mills Ltd …………….............…………….1974 AIR 1300 1974
Neptune Assurance Co Ltd v Union of India,…………………....…………. 1973 AIR 602 1973
Chintamanrao .v State of M.P…………………………………………........……… 1951 AIR 118
STATUTES REFERRED
1. Constitution of India , 1949.

2. Cable Television Networks Rules 1994.
3. Audiovisual Media Services Directive,EU.
4. The TRAI(Telecom Regulatory Authority of India) Act ,1997
5. The Telegraph Act , 1885
6. Wireless Telegraphy Act , 1933
7. India Divorce Act, 1869
8. Industrial Dispute Act, 1947
Page | 5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court under Art 32 of the Constitution of
Heliopolis.
Page | 6
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Background
The country of Heliopolis is a sovereign Republic and one of the largest democracies in the
world. It adopted its Constitution in 1990, guaranteeing Fundamental Rights to each and
every person including its citizens.
Heliopolis is a Union of States with the Federal Government having power to legislate on
broadcast and airways. The Constitution provides for High Courts in every State and a
Supreme Court at the national Capital at Luxor, both having powers to enforce rights.
Television Industry
Upon the introduction of economic Reforms by the Government dated 2001, a rapid
development took place in the Television Industry and private broadcasting companies. For
these private broadcasting companies, advertisements remain one of the major sources of
revenue given the nature of cable TV subscriptions, especially the news channels having very
nominal subscription fee and even free subscription to millions of viewers.
Legislations.
To regulate the expanding presence of the private broadcasters, the federal government
enacted the Television Broadcasting regulations Act. Section 19(1) of the same Act provided
for the establishment of the Television Watchdog, the Regulator under the Act is empowered
to make regulations to carry out provisions of the Act.
Regulation
The aforementioned provisions empowered the Regulator, i.e. Television Watchdog, to
publish Television Broadcasting Regulations 2008 , setting out several conditions to regulate
TV Broadcast in the country. Of such Regulations , regulation 9 seeked to place restrictions
on the duration of Advertisements. It read as follows –
No programme shall carry advertisements exceeding 10 minutes per hour, which

may include up to 8 minutes per hour of commercial advertisements, and up to 2
minutes per hour of a channel’s self-promotional programmes. \
In 2022, Television Watchdog issued directions to broadcasters to strictly comply with

Regulation 9.
Page | 7
Athena Inc.
Athena Inc is a news broadcasting company, which started its broadcasting

operation in the year 2003 and has its registered office in New Memphis, the capital of
State of Memphis. With time, Athena Inc has earned the reputation of being one of the
most independent and reliable news broadcasters in the country. The news channel offers
cheap subscription (free in villages) to its viewers and earns revenue solely from the
advertisements broadcasted during the news breaks.
Relief by High Court.

Aggrieved by such implementation of Regulation 9, Athena Inc approached the Hon’ble High
Court of Memphis seeking a writ of declaration to declare Regulation 9 as
unconstitutional. The High Court, in a detailed judgment, ruled in favour of Athena Inc
and declared Regulation 9 as unconstitutional. Also parallelly, there was a similar petition
filed by news broadcaster TV Hox, which was filed in the High Court of State of Thinis.
This was pending adjudication when the High Court of Memphis pronounced its
judgment.
Issue
Upon such Judgement pronounced by the High Court of Memphis, News Broadcasters
including Athena Inc. Increased their duration of advertisements. As such , Television
Watchdog issued directions (Directive No: 1 of 2023) to Athena Inc and other broadcasters
to strictly adhere to Regulation 9 in other jurisdictions except State of Memphis wherein the
High Court had declared Regulation 9 as unconstitutional. This suggests that the Television
watchdog is of the notion that that the judgment rendered by the High Court of Memphis
applied only to the State of Memphis.
Status Quo
Owing to the such aforementioned developments , Athena Inc. Has approached the Supreme
Court of Heliopolis challenging the validity of Directive No. 1 of 2023 .Similarly , Television
Watchdog has approached the Supreme Court preferring a Special Leave Petition against the
judgement of the High Court of Memphis .
As such the matters are clubbed together and are now SUB JUDICE before this Honble
Court.
Page | 8
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1. Whether Regulation 9 of the Television Broadcasting Regulations, 2008 is

violative of the provisions of the Constitution and is thus, unconstitutional?
2. Whether the judgment of High Court of Memphis holding Regulation 9 as

unconstitutional is confined to the territorial limits of State of Memphis? Or,
since Regulation 9 is a federal subject, can the judgment be applied throughout
the country of Heliopolis?
3. Whether Telecom Watchdog has the power to regulate duration of

advertisements in public interest?
Page | 9
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.

:: The petitioner hereby humbly submits that, the Regulation 9 of the Television
Broadcasting Regulations, 2008 is violative of the basic fundamental rights ensured in
the Constitution of Heliopolis. The Constitution of Heliopolis has provided the
citizens with fundamental rights and one of these right is Right to free speech and
expression which is covered under Article 19(1) (a). The right to free speech and
expression is also expanding and evolving with the developing modes of
communication. Television broadcasting is also a recently developed effective mode
of communication and it is also covered under the Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution
of Heliopolis. Since the Constitution of Heliopolis is pari materia with the
constitution of India , and all the statutes and laws of Heliopolis being pari materia
with the laws and statutes of India , as such, Regulation 9 of the Television
Broadcasting Regulations, 2008 is violative of the provisions of the Constitution and
is thus, unconstitutional.

The petitioner hereby humbly submits that in India, the Rule 7(11) of the Cable
Television Networks Rules 1994 is published by the Central Government and it
appoints TRAI (Telecom Regulatory Authority of India) as the Authority1,
established by the TRAI Act 19972, which is done by the Union Government as
1
Sec 2(a) of the Cable Television Networks Rules 1994
2
The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 , Act 24 of 1997
Page | 10
Broadcasting and other wireless communications fall under the Union List 3. As such
any law, ordinance, regulation, etc. passed on this subject is to be deemed under the
purview of the Centre.
It is also humbly submitted that Article 2264 confers the power of the Judicial Review
on all the High Courts of India. It enables them to issue to any person or authority,
including in appropriate cases , any government , Directions , Orders and issue writs.
High Court orders on central laws , which apply throughout the territory of India , are
too applicable throughout the territory of India. Thus , a rule by the Telecom Dept. ,
Government of India , falling under the ambit of the Union List , once held
unconstitutional by a High court , is null and void and such HC order is applicable
throughout India.
Therefore, Since the Constitution of Heliopolis is pari materia with the constitution of
India , and all the statutes and laws of Heliopolis being pari materia with the laws and
statutes of India , the judgment of High Court of Memphis holding Regulation 9 as
unconstitutional is not at all confined to the territorial limits of State of Memphis and
since Regulation 9 is a federal subject the judgment can be applied throughout the
country of Heliopolis.

The petitioner hereby humbly submits that Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of
India states that, all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression.
The philosophy behind this Article lies in the Preamble of the Constitution, where a
solemn resolve is made to secure to all its citizen, liberty of thought and expression. It
is evident from the established Precedents that In India , advertisements is also
regarded as freedom of commercial speech and expression , falling under the
sacrosanct ambit of Freedom of Speech and expression and thus , in no way , TRAI
can validly interfere with the advertisements , except by those restrictions given in
3
31. Posts and telegraphs; telephones, wireless, broadcasting and other like forms of communication. ( Schedule
7 of the Indian Constitution).
4
Article 226 of the Constitution of India ,1949.
Page | 11
Article 19 (2) . By advertising , it is presented before this Hon’ble Court, that no

issues given in Art. 19(2) are violated upon by the Cable network providers and for
any deficiency ,misinformation, fraud , etc , statutes like the Consumer Protection Act
, IPC , Crpc ,Cpc , etc ., are in existence and the option of civil litigation and criminal
proceedings upon the above mentioned provisions are already in place , and thus it is
prayed upon that TRAI should not interfere upon such freedom of speech and
commercial expression of the Cable Networks. Hereby, it is contended that , in the
name of Public interest , the Government cannot arbitrarily pass laws interfering with
the fundamental rights of individuals provided by the Constitution of India Itself.
India, and all the statutes and laws of Heliopolis being pari materia with the laws and
statutes of India , as such, Television Watchdog has no power to interfere and
regulate the duration of advertisements , under Regulation 9 of the Television
Broadcasting Rules , 2008.
Page | 12
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1 The petitioner hereby humbly submits that , the Regulation 9 of the Television
Broadcasting Regulations ,2008 is violative of the basic fundamental rights ensured in
the Constitution of Heliopolis . The meaning of the word broadcasting according to
the Black’s Law Dictionary “ The distribution of audio and video content to a
dispersed audience via broadcast radio , broadcast television or other technologies ,
the receiving parties may include the general public or a relatively a large subset of
thereof.
2 The right to freedom guarantees freedom for citizens to live a life of dignity among
other things. These are given in Articles 19, 20, 21A and 22 of the Constitution of
Heliopolis .The Constitution of Heliopolis has provided the citizens with fundamental
rights and one of these right is Right to free speech and expression which is covered
under Article 19(1) (a). The right to free speech and expression is also expanding and
evolving with the developing modes of communication . Television broadcasting is
also a recently developed effective mode of communication and it is also covered
under the Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution of Heliopolis . In Odyssey
Communication (P) Ltd. v. Lokvidayan Sangatana 5, The honourable Supreme Court
held that this right to television broadcasting is quite comparable to a citizen’s
fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression as guaranteed under Article 19
(1)(a) of the Constitution of Heliopolis to express his or her opinions through any
medium such as radio broadcast or television broadcast .
3 As Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution of Heliopolis guarantees to all its citizens

including the media the right to freedom of speech and expression . In LIC v.
Manubhai D.Shah6 ,The honourable Supreme Court ruled that Doordarshan , a state –
controlled organisation that relied on public finances , was not permitted to refuse to
5
(1988) 3 SCC 410
6
1993 AIR 171
Page | 13
air the movie since it was unable to present a convincing justification under Article
19(2) of the Constitution of Heliopolis which deals reasonable restrictions in the
interest of security and sovereignty of the country and thus the honourable Supreme
Court upholds the right to broadcast under Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution of
Heliopolis . In Secretary of Ministry of Information and Broadcasting v. Cricket
Association of West Bengal7 , The honourable Supreme Court held that television
broadcasting is a means of communication and the medium of speech and expression
within the framework of Article 19 (1)(a) that guarantees freedom of speech and
expression of the Constitution of Heliopolis . In Directorate General of Doordarshan
v. Anand Patwardhan8 , The honourable High Court’s order mandating the the
telecast of the movie was affirmed by honourable Supreme Court . All the cases thus
,show that Right to broadcast is a fundamental right covered under the Article
19(1)(a) of the constitution since it deals with public at large.
4 As the Article 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution of Heliopolis provides for the fundamental
right of the citizens to practice any profession , or to carry on any occupation or trade
or business freely in the country . In Shiv Cable TV System v. State of Rajasthan9 ,The
District Administrator ordered the local police to stop a cable TV operator because the
operator did not have necessary license . The affected Cable TV Operator claimed that
the District Administrator’s action went against the the fundamental right to operate
their business and trade under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution . The High Court
annulled that district administrator’s challenged orders because they are made without
jurisdiction. It was determined that only the director general of posts and telegraphs ,
a central government official was authorised to take contested action under the
Telegraph Act , 1885 and Wireless Telegraphy Act , 1933. The honourable High
Court determined that there were no regulations could be set forth by the State
Government.
5 According to Article 19(1)(a) every citizen has right to freedom of speech and
expression . This not only includes the word of mouth but also a speech by way of
writings , pictures , movies and also television and radio broadcast . Any restriction
on freedom of Speech and Expression in any form means the failure of the State to
7
1995 AIR 1236
8
2006 (8) S.C.C. 433.
9
AIR 1993 Raj 197
Page | 14
guarantee this freedom to all classes of citizens will be violation of their fundamental
rights as guaranteed in the Constitution of Heliopolis under the Article 19 (1)(a). In
the Hero Cup case ( Ministry of Information and Broadcasting v. Cricket Association
of West Bengal)10 , The honourable Supreme Court of India gave the landmark
judgement that on the grounds that it violated the fundamental right to free speech and
expression guaranteed under the Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution . The honourable
Supreme Court ruled that the Government did not have a monopoly on Electronic
Media .Broadcasting is acknowledged as a fundamental right provided to every
citizen by the Supreme Court of India through many landmark cases.
6 . The honourable Supreme Court also ruled that freedom of speech and expression is
inalienable right adjunct to the right to life and personal liberty under the Article 21 of
the Constitution of Heliopolis. These two rights are not separate but are related. The
above two freedoms as guaranteed in the Constitution of Heliopolis are important to
democracy works well as Heliopolis is a democratic country. In absence of the above
mentioned freedoms, the very essence of democracy would be threatened. The
government will become all too powerful and start serving the interest of a few rather
than the general public . The second honourable Chief Justice of India Mr. M.
Patanjali Sastri has observed, “ Freedom of Speech and of Press lay at the foundation
of all democratic organizations , for without free political discussion no public
education , so essential for the proper functioning of the process of Government , is
possible.”
7 The Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of Heliopolis also guarantees freedom of

Press and Media. The press including the print , television , radio and internet can
broadcast and express without any regulations imposed on them under Article 19(2)
of the Constitution of Heliopolis unless their expression and broadcast threatens the
national security and integrity of the country. As the Article 19 (1)(g) guarantees
freedom of occupation , trade or business . These Articles allows journalist and media
industries to cover any story and bring it to the audience without impacting the
national security of the country.
10
(1995) 2 SCC 161
Page | 15
Thus , hereby , it is contended that, the Government cannot arbitrarily pass laws
interfering with the fundamental rights of individuals provided by the Constitution of
India Itself.
statutes of India , as such, Regulation 9 of the Television Broadcasting Regulations, 2008
is violative of the provisions of the Constitution and is thus, unconstitutional.
Page | 16

1. The petitioner hereby humbly submits that in India, the Rule 7(11) of the Cable
Television Networks Rules 1994 is published by the Central Government and it
appoints TRAI (Telecom Regulatory Authority of India) as the Authority11,
established by the TRAI Act 199712, which is done by the Union Government as
Broadcasting and other wireless communications fall under the Union List 13. As such
any law, ordinance, regulation, etc. passed on this subject is to be deemed under the
purview of the Centre.
2. It is also humbly submitted that Article 22614 confers the power of the Judicial
Review on all the High Courts of India. It enables them to issue to any person or
authority, including in appropriate cases , any government , Directions , Orders and
issue writs in the nature of Habeas Corpus , Mandamus , Certiorari , Prohibition and
Quo Warranto for the enforcement of any rights conferred by Part III of the
Constitution of India and for any legal rights .
3. Thus, High Court orders on central laws , which apply throughout the territory of
India , are too applicable throughout the territory of India. The same , in 2004 was
confirmed by the SC in Kusum Ingots and Alloys ltd. V. Union Of India15 held that a
High Court can pass an order in regard to the constitutionality of a Law of Parliament
, as it will have effect in the entire territory of India.
4. In the above case , the Division Bench of the SC held that an order passed on a writ
petition questioning the constitutionality of a Parliamentary Act , whether interim or
Final , keeping in view the Clause 216 of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will
have effect throughout the territory of India subject to the applicability of the Act .
11
Sec 2(a) of the Cable Television Networks Rules 1994
12
The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 , Act 24 of 1997
13
31. Posts and telegraphs; telephones, wireless, broadcasting and other like forms of communication. (
Schedule 7 of the Indian Constitution).
14
Article 226 of the Constitution of India ,1949.
15
(2004) 6 SCC 254
16
Clause 2 of Art. 226 of the Constitution of India ,1949.
Page | 17
5. The decision mentioned earlier was reaffirmed in several cases by the SC.In Harshal
N. Mirashi v The State of Maharashtra17 , the SC reaffirmed the above said
position.The Court held that the petition to challenge a Central Law can be filed in a
High Court.Also in Devendra Dwivedi v. Union Of India18 , The SC held that the
petitioners have an effacious remedy in the form of proceedings under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India to challenge the constitutional validity of the provisions of
the statute which are placed in issue.
6. Furthermore, the Kerala High Court read down Section 10(A) of the India Divorce
Act 186919 in Samuya Ann Thomas V. Union of India20 . Subsequently, the Karnataka
HC was adjudicating a PIL filed seeking the reading down of the same in the case of
Shiv Kumar V. Union Of India21 , where , the Karnataka HC relied on the Kusum
Ingots Case to hold the applicability of the Samuya Ann Judgment22 throughout India
and held that the provision under challenge had already being struck down with
respect to the state of Karnataka also and that no further orders were required in this
regard.
7. Similarly, the Andhra Pradesh High Court struck down as unconstitutional Section
17A of the Industrial Dispute Act23 in the case of Telegunadu Workcharged
Employees State Federation V. Government of India24 . Subsequently when the
constitutionality of Section 17 A of the same Act was challenged before the Single
Judge of the Madras High Court in the case of Textile Technical Tradesmen
Association V. Union of India25, the court held that on application of the law laid
down by Kusum Ingots , the impugned provision was no more in force since it was
struck down by the Andhra Pradesh HC in the Telegunadu Workcharged Case26.
When this single bench decision was appealed by the Union of India v. Textile
Technical Tradesmen Association27 , it was dismissed and reference was made to the
17
WP(C) 1200/2020
18
Writ Petition(s)(Criminal) No(s).272/2020
19
Indian Divorce Act (IV of 1869)
20
2010 (1) KLJ 449
21
[1995] 1 SCR 354 6
22
Supra
23
THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 Sec. [14 OF 1947]
24
1997 (3) ALT 492
25
(2011) I LLJ 297 Mad
26
Supra.
27
(2014) 4 LLJ 683
Page | 18
Shiv Kumar Case of Karnataka HC to hold that the pronouncement upon the
constitutionality of a Central Provision by a High Court would be applicable
Throughout India.
8. Also, The Delhi HC had struck down Section 2 (p) of Pre Natal Diagnostic
Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act 199428 and consequently Rule
3(3)(1)(b) of Pre Natal Diagnostic Techniques Rules in the case of Indian
Radiological and Imaging Association v. Union Of India29 . The judgment was
challenged in the Supreme Court by the way of SLP, but no stay was granted.
Subsequently, the question of constitutional validity of the same came up before the
Madras High Court in the case of Dr. T. Rajakumari v. Government of Tamil Nadu30,
where the court observed that the Delhi HC had already struck down the provisions
and even no stay was granted by the SC. As such, it was held that provisions held
unconstitutional were not applicable in the country unless the SC stayed or overruled
the Delhi HC Judgment.
9. The Calcutta HC was dealing with a challenge to the notification issued by the
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change , Government of India in Partha
Protim Dutta V. Union of India31. Referencing upon the Kusum Ingots case, it held
that since the notification had already been deferred by the orders of Karnataka HC
and the Gujarat HC , no further interim order was required in the writ petition.
10. Thus, it is well established by the provisions of the Constitution and the precedents
that a central order, rule, ordinance, etc., held unconstitutional by the High Court is
applicable throughout India by the virtue of the Kusum Ingots Case and other
precedents and instances .
28
THE PRE-NATAL DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES (REGULATION AND PREVENTION OF MISUSE)
ACT, 1994 (ACT NO. 57 OF 1994)
29
AIR 2016 Del 78
30
AIR 2016 Mad 177
31
W.P.7283(W) of 2016
Page | 19
11. Thus , a rule by the Telecom Dept. , Government of India , falling under the ambit of
the Union List , once held unconstitutional by a High court , is null and void and such
HC order is applicable throughout India.
12. Therefore, Since the Constitution of Heliopolis is pari materia with the constitution of
statutes of India , the judgment of High Court of Memphis holding Regulation 9 as
unconstitutional is not at all confined to the territorial limits of State of Memphis and
since Regulation 9 is a federal subject the judgment can be applied throughout the
country of Heliopolis.
Page | 20

1. The petitioner hereby humbly submits that Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of
India states that, all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression.
The philosophy behind this Article lies in the Preamble of the Constitution, where a
solemn resolve is made to secure to all its citizen, liberty of thought and expression.
Romesh Thapar V. State of Madras32 was among the first cases decided by the
Supreme Court declaring that Freedom of Press a part of Freedom of Speech and
Expression.
2. In Sakal Papers Ltd. v. Union of India33 the Daily Newspapers (Price and Page)
Order, 1960, which fixed the number of pages and size which a newspaper could
publish at a price and in Bennett Coleman and Co. v. Union of India34, the validity of
the Newsprint Control Order, which fixed the maximum number of pages, was struck
down by the Supreme Court of India holding it to be violative of provision of Article
19(1)(a) and not to be reasonable restriction under Article 19(2). The Court struck
down the Government's stand that it would help small newspapers to grow."
3. Similarly, in Indian Express Newspaper v. Union of India35, that the Supreme Court
of India established that commercial speech is protected under the ambit of free
speech and expression under Article 19. In Tata Press Ltd. Vs. Mahanagar Telephone
Nigam Ltd36., the Supreme Court held that a commercial advertisement or commercial
speech was also a part of the freedom of speech and expression, which would be
restricted only within the limitation of Article 19(2). Supreme Court held that
advertising, which is no more than a commercial transaction, is nonetheless
dissemination of information regarding the product-advertised. Public at large are
benefited by the information made available through the advertisements. In a
democratic economy, free flow of commercial information is indispensable.
4. Thus It is evident from the above established Precedents that In India , advertisements
is also regarded as freedom of commercial speech and expression , falling under the
sacrosanct ambit of Freedom of Speech and expression and thus , in no way , TRAI
32
AIR 1950 SC 124
33
1962 AIR 305
34
AIR 1973 SC 106
35
1986 AIR 515
36
1995 SCC (5) 139
Page | 21
can validly interfere with the advertisements , except by those restrictions given in
Article 19 (2) .
5. The only set of restrictions permissible are only those provided by the Constitution
itself –in Article 19(2) which reads as follows –
Article 19(2) in The Constitution Of India 1949
(2) 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.
6. Here , by advertising , it is presented before this Hon’ble Court, that no above

mentioned issues are violated upon by the Cable network providers and for any
deficiency ,misinformation, fraud , etc , statutes like the Consumer Protection Act ,
IPC , Crpc ,Cpc , etc ., are in existence and the option of civil litigation and criminal
proceedings upon the above mentioned provisions are already in place , and thus it is
prayed upon that TRAI should not interfere upon such freedom of speech and
commercial expression of the Cable Networks.
7. Secondly , the Constitution of India provides for the Provision of Right to Trade
whereby Article 19(1)(g) reads as follows –
(g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
In Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union Of India37 popularly known as the Bank
Nationalization case, the Court observed that in all cases where the company alleges
that its fundamental rights have been violated, it is a fact that the fundamental rights
of its shareholders are violated. So, if a shareholder files a writ petition, either by
himself or even jointly with the company, his petition cannot be dismissed if he is a
citizen of India. In such a case, he does not lose his fundamental right only because he
is also a shareholder in a company.
37
1970 AIR SC 564
Page | 22
In State of Gujarat v Shri Ambica Mills Ltd38, and Neptune Assurance Co Ltd v Union
of India39, it was further modified and held that a citizen shareholder may petition,
proceeding on behalf of the company, against violation of his company's fundamental
rights.
8. In such a case , the proprietors/shareholders of Athena Inc. stands to have been

violated based on the fact that it being a commercial broadcasting company ,
advertising is one of its main trade wing through which it generates its sole revenue.
By Restricting such Advertisements via Rule 7(11) of the Cable Television Networks
Rules 1994, the Govt is unnecessarily interfering and imposing unreasonable
restrictions.
9. In Chintamanrao .v State of M.P40, an Act of Madhya Pradesh Government
empowered the Deputy Commissioner to prohibit the manufacture of bidis during the
agricultural season in such villages as he might specify in his order. The Supreme
Court held that such a provision is void , as it violates Art 19(1)(g) , since a total
prohibition of the manufacture imposes an unreasonable and excessive restriction on
the lawful profession of manufacturing bidis.
10. Thus , hereby , it is contended that , in the name of Public interest , the Government
cannot arbitrarily pass laws interfering with the fundamental rights of individuals
provided by the Constitution of India Itself.
India, and all the statutes and laws of Heliopolis being pari materia with the laws and
statutes of India , as such, Television Watchdog has no power to interfere and regulate
the duration of advertisements , under Regulation 9 of the Television Broadcasting
Rules , 2008.
38
1974 AIR 1300 1974
39
1973 AIR 602 1973
40
1951 AIR 118
Page | 23
PRAYER
Wherefore, In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may
this Humble Court be pleased to:
1. Dismiss the SLP (SLP No. 2347 of 2023) filed by Television Watchdog.
2. Uphold the Judgment of the High Court of Memphis declaring Regulation 9 as
Unconstitutional.
3. Declare and adjudge the Directive No. 1 of 2023 issued by the Television watchdog
as invalid.
4. Declare and adjudge that Television Watchdog has no power to regulate the duration
of advertisements.
And/or
Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.
And for this, the Petitioners as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.
Sd/-
COUNSELS FOR THE PETITIONER
Page | 24

TC 20 Petitioner

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TC 20 Petitioner

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TC 20 Petitioner

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4th Gurjeet Singh Memorial National Moot Court Competition

4th Gurjeet Singh Memorial National Moot Court Competition

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF HELIOPOLIS

In the matter of:

Athena Inc. ………………………………………..…Petitioner

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS.

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

SERIAL ABBREVIATIONS FULL FORM

1. AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

5. SCC SUPREME COURT CASES

8. u/s UNDER SECTION

Odyssey Communication (P) Ltd. v. Lokvidayan Sangatana......................... (1988) 3 SCC 410

1. Constitution of India , 1949.

No programme shall carry advertisements exceeding 10 minutes per hour, which

In 2022, Television Watchdog issued directions to broadcasters to strictly comply with

Athena Inc is a news broadcasting company, which started its broadcasting

Relief by High Court.

1. Whether Regulation 9 of the Television Broadcasting Regulations, 2008 is

2. Whether the judgment of High Court of Memphis holding Regulation 9 as

3. Whether Telecom Watchdog has the power to regulate duration of

1. Whether Regulation 9 of the Television Broadcasting Regulations, 2008 is

2. Whether the judgment of High Court of Memphis holding Regulation 9 as

3. Whether Telecom Watchdog has the power to regulate duration of

Article 19 (2) . By advertising , it is presented before this Hon’ble Court, that no

1. Whether Regulation 9 of the Television Broadcasting Regulations, 2008 is

3 As Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution of Heliopolis guarantees to all its citizens

7 The Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of Heliopolis also guarantees freedom of

2. Whether the judgment of High Court of Memphis holding Regulation 9 as

3. Whether Telecom Watchdog has the power to regulate duration of

6. Here , by advertising , it is presented before this Hon’ble Court, that no above

8. In such a case , the proprietors/shareholders of Athena Inc. stands to have been

COUNSELS FOR THE PETITIONER

You might also like