Download Moot court prepositions and more Papers Law in PDF only on Docsity!
BACHELOR OF LAW (BA, LL.B)
( SCHOOL OF LEGAL STUDIES, BABU BANARASI DAS UNIVERSITY)
BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDICA
EXTRAORDINARY WRIT JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION(CIVIL)NO.___ OF 2022
(IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 32)
Inflix and Inzon…………………………………..petitioner no 1 V Union of Indica &ors……………………………Respondent (CLUBBED WITH PETITION)
- M/s Johri Cine Film Limited ……………………petitioner 2 2 Blockbuster film and Amit Diwan ……………….petitioner
- Association of film producers………………………petitioner V
- State of Bambil…………………………………………respondent 2 2 State of Awadh …………………………………………….respondent
- State of Deli and Hind Swaraj………………………………..respondent 4 UNDER THE ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDICA, 1950 WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT COUNCIL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT SUBMITTED BY : RAKSHITA SENGAR 1180992039 BA.LLB IXth SEMESTER
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABREVATION
INDEX OF AUTHORIIES
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
STATEMNETS OF FACTS
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1whether the petitions are maintainable in the supreme court of Indica?
- Whether the notice is served to JCFL and Inflix is lawful or not?
- Whether the FIR is liable to be quashed or not?
- Whether the It rules are constitutionally valid
INDEX OF AUTHORITY
- Daryao Singh vs. state of up AIR 1961
- Fertilizer crop kangar union v. union of India AIR 1981SC 344
- Santokh Singh v. Delhi admiration, AIR 1973 SC 109
- Sunil rathee v state of Haryana
- Rv.bolton (1841)
- Ajay Kumar Das v. state of Jharkhand (2011)12 SC 319
- Smt Ujjam Bai v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1962 SC.
- Heller v. doe
- State of Gujarat v Mirzapur Moti and khureshi Kasab jamat
- Krishna swami v. union of India and ors (1992)4SCC 605
- Gurudevdatta vksss Marayadit &ORS V. state of Maharashtra &ORS (2001)4SCC
- Kurukshetra university vs. Ans state of Haryana &ors (1977)4 SCC
- Satyavir Singh union of india &ors(1985)&SCC,
- The state of Punjab and Ors vs. shubhash trading company and ors (1976)1(SCC)
- GOGULNATH V. STATE OF PUNJAB
- state of bihar v. smt.shailabala devi AIR ,1952SC
- Manohar lal Sharma v union of India and ors AIR 2021,SC,
- gokalnathand ors State of Punjab
- CHARAN LAL SHAHU V. UNION OF INDIA,(1990)1SCC
- NARENDRA KUMAR &ORS V. UNION OF INDICA &ORS AIR 1960SC
- KINGSELY INTERNATIONAL PICTURE COPERATION V.S REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE NEW YORK ,360US 684(1959) Statute Cinematograph act,1952 section 16,no 37 , acts of parliament Cinematograph act 1952 section2(c), no ,37,acts of parliament,1952(india) Cinematograph act ,1952section2(dd),no 37, acts of parliament1952(india) Cinematograph act ,1952,section5A, no ,37, acts of parliament ,1952(india) Cinematograph act1952, section 7 (1)(a)(i), no 37, acts of parliament, Cinematograph act,1952section 7, no 37,acts of parliament.(1957) Copyright act ,1957section 52A (2)(a), no. 14 act of parliament 1973 The code of criminal procedure ,1973 section 482, no 2 ,acts of parliament(1973) The Indian penal code 1806section 505(1)(b), no 45act of parliament, The information technology act 2000,section 69A , NO 21 ,act of parliament ,2000 india The information technology act 2000section 87 ,no 21 act of parliament 2000 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
INDIA CONSTI ,ART,139A
INDIA CONST,ART 19, CL.
INDIA CONSTI.ART 19,CL
INDIA CONST,ART
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
1.Indica is sovereign, socialist, secular, republic and democratic and as well as culturally, linguistically and ethnically manifold country situated in south Asian region. The laws of indica and the constitution of indica are Pari Materia. Part III of constitution of indica provide certain basic freedom and fundamental rights and promote cultural and linguistic minorities. 2.there was annunciation of cinematographic act occur by perceiving a huge prospective and impact of film industry .in 1952, the parliament had enacted the cinematograph act, which inter alia constituted the central board of film certificate as nodal authority for certification of cinematograph films. If you display the film in public which are of obscene or public violence here is certification is necessary.
- Till 2014 the Indian film industry grow immensely by seeing all these types of interest they start producing serial and other content for the television. around this time the telecommunication announced the launched of spectrum to enable 4 g services by seeing all these type of participant and all private company and other companies also getting the benefit the overall number of users of the smartphones and 4G services increased 4.Because of the 4 g services and improvement in the internet services the development of new media viz. digital media application were mushroomed across the country the exposure of OTT platform occurs these platforms are such as Inflix, Inzon, etc. which allowed the streaming of audio-visual content on its platform for its subscribers in lieu of payment. 5.Large no of film producers of the film industry started developing and producing their content in the OTT platform in the nature of web series, short movies, anthology series and features films with intents to exhibits and telecast it on Ott. Simultaneously, the OTT platform were also keen interest in hosting the indicant contents as it allowed them to tap in to a Indica market, which had 50 million viewers. Notably, the content released in the OTT platform does not need the certification from the central board of film certification. 6.M/s Johri Cine Film limited (JCFL) is the film production company in Indica. they had produced so many films .in 2018, JCFL expressed its intent to foray in to production of content of OTT platform. JCFL hereinafter announced a Rs 30 million deals with the Inflix and Inzon to develop the web series/ feature film for the platform. pursuant thereto, JCFL therefore produce a web series titled named is Indica Games which was scheduled to be released on Inflix on 5 may. On 1 may the CBFC issued a notice to JCFL and Inflix directing them to cease and desist from releasing the web series unless the certificate has been issued by the CBFC
- When the JCFL and Inflix did not listen and released the web series on the scheduled time CBFC impose a penalty under section 7 of the cinematography act to retract the said notice, JCFL and Inflix on 15 may 2022 filed a writ petition under article 226 of constitution before the bombil high court. 8.Meanwhile another production name blockbuster films released a political drama named as political heist on Inzon. There was huge uproar against the releases of the said films, with widespread protests by certain section of the society. On May 6 2022 this protest turns in to
violent resulting in damaging to public property and injuries to the large no of protesters... Mr Gaikwad lodged a FIR against the blockbuster and managing director Name as amit Diwan. On 16 may 2022, Inzon issued a press releasing declaring that it had collected approximately 1000 complaints and grievance an internal committee was constituted by Inzon to examine the complaints and grievance received committee said that no sentiments got hurts and no violation occur so it shall not be censored or blocked. Blockbuster and Amit diwan filed a writ petition before the Awadh high court under section 482 of the CRPC for quashing the FIR
- Owing the public outrage and uproar against the political heist on 1june 2022 the government of Indica issued an information technology (intermediaries guideline and digital media and ethics code). The it rules straight affect the manner of content in which manner it is presented/hosted on the OTT platform. The rules were met with staunch opposition by various section of the society various section of the society believe that this rule violate the freedom of speech and expression
- accordingly on June 03 2022, Association of film producers filed a separate writ petition under article 226 of the constitution of indica before the high court of deli challenging the constitution validity simultaneously the hind swaraj filed an intervention application supporting the constitutional validity of the said rule.
- Moreover on June 5 Inflix and Inzon filed a jointly writ petition before the supreme court of indica u/a 32 of the constitution alleging the OTT platform cannot be regulated by the ministry of information technology. The said rules were promulgated ultra vires .on June 10, 2022 the said writ petition was listed before the Supreme Court at which time the hon’ble Supreme Court of Indica took cognisance of the proceeding pending before the various high court involving similar question of law
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1WHETHER THE APPLICATIONS AND PETITIONS ARE MAINTABLE BEFORE THE
HON’ BLE SUPREME COURT?
the writ was filed by the Inflix and Inzon that was not maintainable because there is no violence of fundamental rights of petitioner occurs. Second thing is that drawn out of cases from profuse high courts to the supreme courts that was not upright in law that also says that applications and petitions are not maintainable. The writ was filed by the JCFL and Inflix it is also not be maintainable because the parties who had approach to the court on that party’s government had imposes some restrictions and penalties on the parties that restriction that was imposes on the parties that will be good for the society but the parties does not follow those restrictions that means the parties itself does not came with clean hands The need for taking cognizance of the FIR does not arise The writ that was filed by association group that is also not maintainable because their fundamental rights are not violated. The hind swaraj that filed an application that was filed in good faith for the keeping in mind of society’s sentiments. II WHETHER THE NOTICE SERVED TO INFLIX AND JCFL IS LAWFUL? Yes, the notice served to Inflix and JCFL is lawful because they streamed that type of content on the OTT platform that was against the good positive society or may create the violence in the society so penalties was imposed on the parties that was valid and fair. III. WHETHER THE FIR IS NOT LIABLE TO BE QUASHED? The high court does not hold native jurisdiction and also it violates the principle of nemo judex causa sua. secondly this FIR is valid because of the political heist web series because of that web series the violation occurs in the society that also hamper the cultural of the society and mental peace of the people that is living in the society. IV. WHETHER THE IT RULES ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID? In consonance section 87 of this act the government have the power to certify in the provision that was beneficial for the society as well. It is relent or evident that government can urge the restriction on article 19 (1)(a) as mentioned in article 19(2) in this restriction is impose by the government for protecting the public welfare or we can say which proceed the test of legalized and approved aim of the state their necessity as well protect the personality of the people and safeguard the people from wrong thing which make a people a negative person or violative person. In this doctrine of parens patrae play an important role.
There is various other act is imposed that talks about the welfare of the society and in the society the people are living delegated legislation under the parent act is valid as section 16 of cinematographic act 1952 and section 69 A ,84 and 87 of the it acts 2000empower the central govt. to regulate
remedies. “The violation of fundamental right is the sine qua non of the exercise of rights which was conferred by Article 32 2. In the immediate case, the petitioners have not been successful in prima facie creating a causal link between the violation of fundamental rights and the proclamation that was impose on the OTT platform that it cannot be modulated by ministry of information technology and the it rule 2022 circulated by the ministry that was abide with lack of jurisdiction even if the such rights have been secured ,the same is not impeded with law .the existence of an alternate remedy in the form of Article 226 must act as support for entering the writ in the sudden case the petitioners had directly approach to the supreme court of indica under article 32 of the constitution. In SANTOKH SINGH V. DELHI ADMINISRTATION,^3 the case of the three judges’ bench in that apex court said according to the law u/a 19 (1)(a)^4 of the constitution talks about the freedom of speech and expression that is subject to reasonable restriction u/a 19(2) anything that violate the region able restriction given u/a 19 (2) that does not mean that it violates the fundamental rights of the petitioner. The OTT platform have the massive following of viewer and on that platform the content which have been display because of that content the environment of society become violative and also that content create the danger for the people specially youth. Hence there is no violation of fundamental rights of the petitioners Hence the respondent humbly submitted that writ petition is not maintainable. B. The withdrawal or cancellation of cases from several high court to the supreme court was not good in law Under Article 139 A of the constitution stated that this article empower the supreme court to transfer or withdraw cases pending before the high court and tries such cases by itself or to transfer the cases to itself under article139A of the constitution it stated that if the case implying the same or the eventually the same question of law before the one or more high court the supreme court may dispose the case by itself .the withdrawal and transfer of case is possible when the court is satisfied on its own motion or application that is made by the attorney general or by the intended parties to the case such case involve substantial question of general importance article 139 A was introduced through the amendment to the constitution that amendment was 42 amendment the case which have same substantive question of law that was withdrawn by the supreme court to the apex court The supreme court should satisfy the substantial question of general importance are present In the case of Sunil rathee and ors v. state of Haryana^5 the supreme court observed that the question of laws lies on the apex court on the basis of application that was lies that various case pending in the court or the application is made by the attorney general on that application the hon’ble court should decide their decrition with using their mind with good facts and statement. the withdrawal of cases should be filed in good faith not to thwart or stifle the process of law. In the present case the writ was filed by Inflix and Inzon question (^2) Fertilizer crop kangar union v. union of India AIR 1981SC 344 (^3) Santokh Singh v. Delhi admistration, AIR 1973 SC 109 (^4) Constitution of indica u/a 19 (^5) Sunil rathee v state of Haryana
the jurisdiction of the jurisdiction of information technology. the mandamus writ that was filed for the quashing of notice issued by CBFC. other petition is filed to quash an FIR filed after the public unrest, the association of film production challenges the constitutional validity of the rule that all the petitions that was filed that was unrelated question of law The writ petition is filed by JCFL and Inflix is not maintainable Under section 52 A (2)^6 a of the copy right act 1957 in that it is prepared that no cinematography film should be published without displaying the copy of the certificate that was granted by the Board of film certification u/s 5A of the cinematographic act 1952 It is not main table that when substitute and equally efficacious remedy is open to the litigant why then there is need of special jurisdiction of the high court to issue a prerogative writ where such remedy is exist. the alternate remedy in this case for the litigant is to approach the film certificate tribunal. It is state in the case rex Bolton 7 The court had sated that jurisdiction of the quasi-judicial body does not cease on that case where there is wrongful decision had come .in this case the JCFL and Inflix had filed the petition under article 226 before the high court for quashing the notice which was given by the CBFC they did not even the follow the instruction of CBFC or the law CBFC sent the notice before the release of web series named INDICA GAMES^8 they had said they have to issue a certificate or not release the web series but the JCFL and Inflix did not listen of legal notice and release the web series they both had done a wrongful act by not listening the CBFC they even do not have clean hands the JCFL and Inflix realise the web series on 05 may 2022^9 which was scheduled. That was a wrongful act. ii. the require for taking cognizance of the petition seeking quashing of FIR does not arise It is submissible submitted that the petition for quashing of FIR filed before the Awadh high court does not arise or not maintainable because immediate case does not entail the exceptional or infrequent causes to warrant the exercise of high court and also it does not alternate remedy. Basically this section 482 10 of CRPC state that it preserve the inherit power of high court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court and to secure the justice thought the court has very wide power ,but there is rule of practice this power is used in exceptional case this power has used very rarely inherit power should not be implemented to stifle a legitimate prosecution in the case Ajay Kumar das v state of Jharkhand 11 in this inherit power does not confer arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice if in case the court give the power to quash the FIR they have to keep in mind that those petitioners who had lodged a for quashing of FIR they had hurted the sentiments of the society at large .the inherent power of 482 is given only when there is no other remedy is (^6) Section 52 (A) of the copy right act (^7) Rv.bolton (1841) (^8) Moot preposition no 9 (^9) Moot preposition no 10 (^10) The code of criminal procedure 1908 (^11) Ajay Kumar Das v. state of Jharkhand (2011)12 SC 319
As matter of fact that a proceeding under article 226 is not a civil suit as predicted in the code of civil procedure since 141 of CPC absolutely provided that code will not apply under article 226 although faired does not bar the high court from framing the rule providing the code will be applicable .the principle underlying the procedure and provision of the code have been applicable by the judicial ruling .to determine if the particular parties should be allowed to conciliate in writ petition it must be learned if there is necessary in order to enable the court to constructively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the question which is mentioned in the writ petitions In the case Krishna swami v. union of indica^17 The court put forward the liberal view of locus standii and promote the induvial in good faith The supreme court liberalise the locus standi in that court allowed public spirited person can filed an application in favour of other persons. The hind swaraj is non-governmental organisation NGO that work for the Indian society 18 basically now a day’s westernization is increasing day by day because of the OTT platform and that our culture is left behind and that also hurts the sentiments of the society.
- THE NOTICE SERVED TO THE INLIX ANDJCFL WAS LAWFUL The notice is obeyed by the CBFC under section 7 is valid of the cinematographic act 1952 is valid CBFC grasp the authority that films can be released in Indian society after when that film gets the certification by the central board of film certification.^19 u/s 2(dd)^20 of the cinematographic act 1952 in that film is defined and section 2(c) 21 define the cinematograph in that is mentioned that cinematograph include any apparatus for the representation of the moving picture or series picture that is called motion picture. motion picture is defined as the chain of picture that was predicted on the screen in rapid succession with the entity shown in successive position rather change as to produce ocular effect of the continuous picture in which object move. Copy right act 1957 also command CBFC certification for public demonstration in the copy right act 1957 the cinematographic films as any work of visual recording or any medium produce through a process from which moving image may be produce by any means that include sound record and visual recording .so it is clear that content which are going to stream on OTT platform or other digital media that include the disputes and all that will come under indica games qualified under the definition of the cinematographic act The preamble of the cinematograph act said that “an act to make the provision for the certification of cinematograph films for the exhibition and regulation exhibition. Under section 4 of the cinematographic act said that every person has to desirous before release the film they have to get the certificate. (^17) Krishna swami v. union of India and ors (1992)4SCC 605 (^18) MOT PROP. NO 14 (^19) CENTRAL BOARD OF FILM CERTIFICATION (^20) Cinematographic act 1952sec 2dd, no 37, acts of parliament 1952 (^21) Cinematography act 1952 sec2(c), no 37, acts of parliament
In the case of Gurudevdatta vksss marayadit and ors v state of Maharashtra and ors^22 The supreme court has used the interpretation clause that the test provides that test provider is the interpretation of any rule or the statute but if any injustice or ambiguity or hardship or any inconvenience under all of that if the interpretation occur the literal meaning shall be discarded then interpretation will be done in that manner in which manner legislature must be followed The series that was released on Inflix^23 that was forged with the help of cinematographic mechanism it is also a motion picture used as swift succession of image to invent an optical effect of continuous picture it is audio visual content fall under the cinematographic act Enlightened interpretation is given by the supreme court to provide an immense ambit to avoid for any mischievous activity and wrongful activity which can be done in the society and as well as for the development in the area of cinematographic work. Here inclosing to the language strict sense would aggregate to developing inaccurate interpretation and would not be in favour of the intent of the legislature. The penalty was imposed on them was valid Under section 52 A (2)(a) of the copy right^24 stated that no person shall publish the video film in acclaim of any work unless the following particulars are displayed in the video film when exhibits and on the video cassette or another container therefore if such work is the cinematograph film is then it is needed to require the certification and copy should be given by the CBFC. the draft cinematograph bill 2013 defines exhibition that audio or visual distribution of films as part thereof or making available a film or part therefore use for the public medium. The medium is that type of forum where general public have the access to do with or without the payment of fee or charge. This platform is that type of in which people can access or watch the films with the access of subscription of fee that would be understood as exhibiting films come under the draft of bill.
- THE FIR IS NOT LIABLE TO BE QUASHED (^22) Gurudevdatta vksss Marayadit &ORS V. state of Maharashtra &ORS (2001)4SCC (^23) MOOT PROPOSITION 9 (^24) Copy Right act 1957 under 52 (a) (2)a, no 14, act of parliament ,1957 India
In that supreme court held said that the high court have power to acted more investigating at a stage when the FIR is still under investigation process .so the quashing of FIR by entering in to factual arena was clasp wholly banned or impressible The FIR is valid Under the IPC it is mentioned that any person who has the intention of outraging the religious sentiments with malice is punishable under section499 30 then FIR is valid there were also in the constitution of indica under article 19(1)right to speech and expression in that it is said everybody has right to express their opinion but it is not absolute true in the matter of sovereignty and integrity of indica security of the state public order decency and morality under section 505 (1)b^31 of Incite is stated that any publication which alarm the any section of the society and challenges or violate the transequallty of the state is liable under this section .in the case state of bihar v. smt.shailabala devi^32 in this case it is explained that if the freedom of speech and expression favoured or support that content that will create the violence , and will create the risk of states secuirity .that will comes under article 19 (2)^33 There are four conditionsfor quashing the FIR: I. What was the nature and effect of the offence that will not hamper the society ii There also seriousness of injury must be seen in the case iii If the voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and victims and iv. Most important what was the conduct of the accused person, prior to and the after the occurance of purported offence and related circumstances this feature film had created the immeasurable damages to the society as the protest turned in to the violence that will hurt the sentiments of the society and destroy the public property they had develop an independent committee that was not formed according to principal of the natural justice. Hence FIR is not liable to be quashed
4. IT RULES ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID This it rule2022 has been framed by the govt. of indica that are constituently valid because – (^30) SECTION 499 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE , (^31) THE INDIAN PENAL CODE ,1860,505(1)(B), NO 45, ACT OF THE PARLIAMENT, (^32) AIR ,1952SC (^33) INDIAN CONSTITUTION ARICLE 19 (2)
The govt. proceeds in a right and justiciable manner. The imposition of regioniable restriction occur under article 19(2) Delegated legislation under the parent act is valid govt.action.are there within doctrine of parens patriae the regulation has been imposed in good in law The govt.of India acted in a justiciable manner in this case of Manohar laal Sharma v union of India and ors 34 the court state that require for equality in law, which promised against the random actions.it was therein noted that compelling state interest is a reasonable obligatory that to protect or safeguard the interest of the state provided there exists a riveting reason. The it rule 2022 came in which govt had keep in mind of the parties they had set a rules and regulation and up to that level where the film produces as well as sentiments of the society (^35) does not hurt in this both indivual and state interest should be protected and it is also mention individual interest is the best protected and state look after for the general welfare of the society. Govt.of Indica had brought the it rule at 2022 because there is public outrage and widespread of violence protests in the society many different section of the society got hurt The it rule had set that up to what level privacy must be impose of the that both the individual as well society interest should be looked by the govt.of Indica (B)Reasonable restriction can be imposed under article 19(2) State can impose a regioniable restriction^36 of the constitution in two ways where action is sanctioned by the law and where the restriction have been impose for the interest an integrity of the society and keeping the mind security and morality In the landmark judgement case gokalnathand ors State of Punjab^37 in that it is stated that regioniable restriction can be impose to protect the integrity of nation state The violent protest opposed the peace of indica. there was roar against the film it will further damage the property so that is why govt. have to stop that chaos therefore restriction imposed by the government to protect the public interest. The reasonableness of law has to glanced in context of the cause of the law in question, the mischief sought to be remedied and the restriction imposed in light of both factors .in the case the government had acted in right or true manner and brings the law in particular law that restrict the ott platform and digital indica witnessed extensive protest, damage to the public property and citizen, public unrest and complaints. The rule issued aimed at providing a code of conduct which aimed at scrutinising digital content. Government actions are within the doctrine of parens patrae (^34) AIR 2021,SC, (^35) MOOT PREPOSITIONNO. (^36) INDIAN CONSTI.ART.19.CL. (^37) GOGULNATH V. STATE OF PUNJAB
