Respondent (R)

TEAM CODE : AFFIDAVIT
IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF ……..

[APPELLATE JURISDICTION]
IN THE MATTERS OF:-
Baba Satyanand (...Appellant) vs. Silbil Magazine (...Respondent)

CIVIL APPEAL No. _______ Of 2017.
(Under Section 96 of Civil Procedure code, 1908)
With
Amarchand(...Appellant)vs. Silbil Magazine (...Respondent)

CIVIL APPEAL No. _______ Of 2017.
(Under Section 96 of Civil Procedure code, 1908)
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDANT

SCHOOL OF LAW 2ND ANAND SWAROOP GUPTA MEMORIAL NATIONAL
MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2017
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS...........................................................................................................2
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS....................................................................................................3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
 BOOKS AND GUIDELINES REFERRED..................................................................4

 STATUTES INVOLVED..............................................................................................4
 LEGAL DATABASES..................................................................................................5
 TABLE OF CASES........................................................................................................5
STATEMENTS OF JURISDICTION........................................................................................8
STATEMENTS OF FACTS......................................................................................................9
STATEMENTS OF ISSUES...................................................................................................11
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.............................................................................................12
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
I. WHETHER THE CONCERNED PUBLICATION IN THE SILBIL MAGAZINE

AMOUNTS TO DEFAMATION ?.......…........................................ .............................13
II. WHETHER THERE IS A VIOLATION OR MISUSE OF THE FREEDOM OF

PRESS ENSHRINED U/A 19(1) (a) CONSTITUTION OF INDIA?……………….17
III. WHETHER THE CONCERNED PUBLICATION IN THE SILBIL MAGAZINE
AMOUNTS TO MENTAL DISTRESS CAUSED TO THE SATYAS
COMMUNITY?...........................................................................................................20
IV. WHETHER PERMANENT INJUNCTION SHOULD BE GRANTED AGAINST
SILBIL MAGAZINE?.................................................................................................. 23
PRAYER..................................................................................................................................26
BIBLIOGRAPHY....................................................................................................................27
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

≈ PAGE NO. 2≈
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATION DEFINITION
¶ Para
& And
AIR All India Reporter
Art. Article
Co-Op Co-Operative
CPC Code of Civil Procedure
Hon’ble Honorable
i.e. That is
Ltd. Limited
Ors. Others
p. Page
pp. Pages
Pvt. Private
r/w Read with
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
Sec. Section
u/a Under Article
vs. Versus

≈ PAGE NO. 3≈
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
 BOOKS AND GUIDELINESREFERRED
S. No. DESCRIPTION
1. Seervai, H.M., “Constitutional law of India”, Universal Law Publishing, Allahabad,

2006.
2. De, D. J., “Interpretation and Enforcement of Fundamental Rights”, Eastern Law

House, Calcutta, 2010.
3. Singh, Avtar., “Law of Contract and Specific Relief”, Eastern Book Company,
lucknow,12th Edition,2017.
4. Bangia, Dr. R.K., “The Law of Torts”, Allahabad Law Agency, 23rd Edition, 2013.
5. Takwani, C.K., “Civil Procedure”,Eastern Book Company,7th Edition,2013.
 STATUTE INVOLVED
S. No. STATUTE/LEGISLATION
1. The Constitution of India
2. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
3. The Specific Relief Act, 1963

≈ PAGE NO. 4≈
 LEGAL DATABASES
S. No. LEGAL DATABASES
1. Westlaw
2. Manupatra
3. SCC Online
 TABLE OF CASES
S.No. NAME OF THE CASE CITIED CITATION OF THE CASE PAGE No.
1 Alexander vs. United States 509 U.S. 544 (1993). 24
2 Bantam Books, Inc. vs. Sullivan 372 U.S. 58 (1963). 24
Blackwood & sons vs. A.N. AIR 1959 Mad 410.

3 14
Parasuraman
4 Bonnard vs. Perryman CA ([1891] 2 Ch. 269). 24
5 Brij Bhushan vs. State of Delhi AIR 1950 SC 129. 20
6 Campbell vs. Acuff Rose music 510 U.S. 569. 14
Dixon vs. Holden

7 (1869)7 Eq.488. 13
8 Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd vs. Dunlop [1921] IAC367, HL. 13

≈ PAGE NO. 5≈
Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd. &

9 (1959) S.C.R. 12 19,24
Anr. vs. The Union of India & Ors
10 Falwell vs. Flynt. 805 F.2d 484, 485 (4th Cir. 22

1985).
220 F. Supp. 598, U.S.
11 Hulton and Co. vs. Jones 20
Dist.(1963)
12 Jones vs. Skeleton [1964] NS WR 485. 15
13 Jordan vs. Kollman 499 US 225, 226 ( 1991 ). 16
Laugh it off promotions CC vs. South

African Breweries International
14 [2005] ZACC 7. 22
(Finance) BV t/a Sabmark
International and another
15 Leibovitz vs. Paramount Pictures Corp 137 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 1998). 21
Life Insurance Corporation of India &

AIR 1993 SC 171.
16 Union of India & Anr. vs. Prof Manu 18
Bhai D. Shah & Cinemart Foundation
17 Milkovich vs. Lorain Journal Co 497 US 1 (1990). 13
Monson vs. Tussauds Ltd.

18 [1849] IQB 671, CA 13
376 US 254 (1964).

19 New York Times vs. Sullivan 16
(1840) 6M&W 105,

20 Parmitter vs. Coupland 151ER340. 13
Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. vs. 106 S. Ct. 1558 (1986).

21 22
Hepps
[1926 ]VLR 122.
22 Pratten vs. Labour Daily 13

≈ PAGE NO. 6≈
Ramlila Maidan Incident vs. Home

23 2012(2) SCALE 682. 24
Secretary, UOI & Ors
24 Romesh Thappar vs. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 124. 19
Secretary Ministry of Broadcasting vs. AIR 1995 SC 1236.

25 18
Cricket Association of Bengal & Ors
26 Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India (2013) 12 SCC 73. 18
Sir Elton John vs. Guardian News & 2008] EWHC 3066 (QB) (12
27 15
Media Limited Dec. 2008).
Smith vs. Huntington Pub. Co 410 F. Supp.1270 (S. D. Ohio
28 21,16
1975).
29 Tolley vs. J S Fry & Sons Ltd [1931] AC 333 at 351, Hl 13
IMPORTANT DEFINITIONS:
‘Appellants’ for the purposes of this memorandum in the issues shall stand for ‘Baba
Satyanand’ and ‘Amarchand’
‘Respondent’ for the purposes of this memorandum stands for ‘Silbil Magazine’.

≈ PAGE NO. 7≈
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
**************
**************
THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO TRY, ENTERTAIN AND

DISPOSE THE PRESENT APPEALS BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 961 OF THE CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.
***************
***************
ALSO UNDER SECTION 36 AND 37(2)2 OF THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 COURT
IS EMPOWERED TO GRANT PERAMNENT INJUNCTION.
***************
***************
FURTHER SECTION 1513 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908ALLOWS THE

HIGH COURT TO CLUB THE APPEALS.
***************
***************
1
THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.
Section 96(1) Appeal from original decree.-Save where otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or
by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie from every decree passed by any court
exercising original jurisdiction to the court authorized to hear appeals from the decisions of such court.
2
THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963.
Section 36. Preventive relief how granted. - Preventive relief is granted at the discretion of the court by
injunction, temporary or perpetual.
Section 37(2). Temporary and perpetual injunctions. - A perpetual injunction can only be granted by the decree
made at the hearing and upon the merits of the suit; the defendant is thereby perpetually enjoined from the
assertion of a right, or from the commission of an act, which would be contrary to the rights of the plaintiff.
3
THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.
Section 151. Saving of inherent powers of Court. - Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise
affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to
prevent abuse of the process of the Court.

≈ PAGE NO. 8≈
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Baba Satyanand is a well-known religious leader and preacher in India. With his teachings he
has established himself as a public figure and his influence is so strong that his followers
have started a new sect, namely ‘Satyas’, following his teachings.His prominent teaching is
‘not to touch the liquor’because of all this, Satyanand Baba is not only worshipped as God
but he also has a large sect following him, through his all ways and means.
Silbil is a magazine, which publishes a parody column, whereby it publishes the mocking
cartoons and sketches or relevant descriptions of contemporary nature, where it uses the
element of factual truth and modifies accordingly to suit the parody content or situation. In
the course of publication, it also uses the disclaimer to show the innocent use of humor.
In the same course, Silbil magazine in its August 2015 issue, published the parody column,
containing the description of Baba Satyanand campaigning in an advertisement of liquor
brand, as a parody to his teaching of non-consumption of liquor. It used the picture of Baba
Satyanand holding liquor bottle in his hand and describing to his pupil about its importance
and ‘first-hand experience’. Following which, a nation-wide meeting of followers of the
‘Satyas’ were called to decide the course of action on Silbil Magazine. On September 7,
2015, a meeting was held in Delhi to discuss the issue of course of action to be decided by the
followers. On the next day, it was decided by the followers to approach court to take legal
action against Silbil Magazine. Consequently, Baba Satyanand himself filed a suit for
damages and compensation for defamation against Silbil Magazine on the charges pertaining
to Defamation and personal distress. He sought a compensation of Rs. 1 crore and demanded
the stopping of the circulation of the Silbil Magazine’s August issue.
The Silbil Magazine took the defence of innocent humor and reiterated its freedom to publish
the same under freedom of press.
The District court held Silbil not liable for defamation on the ground of innocent humour and
did not order to stop the circulation of the issue of Silbil Magazine. However, the court found
the element of mental distress and held Silbil liable for it and awarded a compensation of Rs.
30 Lacs.

≈ PAGE NO. 9≈
Unsatisfied with the decision of the district court, Satyanand Baba appealed to the High
Court. Another appeal was filed by Silbil magazine in which it contested the impugned order.
During the pendency of the appeals, a follower of Baba Satyanand, Mr. Amarchand, filed
another suit for permanent injunction and damages against Silbil magazine. In this suit,
Amarchand pleaded for compensation for mental distress caused to the Satyas community
due to the insult to their godly figure i.e. Baba Satyanand, and also due to false propagation
of the importance of Liquor which, in fact, is prohibited in the community. The court
dismissed the suit. Amarchand also went in appeal to the High Court.
Finding the subject matter of the three appeals to be similar, the High court clubbed the three
appeals and it is posted for final hearings on the broad issues pertaining to personal distress
and defamation.

≈ PAGE NO. 10≈
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
THE RESPONDENTS RESPECTFULLY ASKS THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT,

FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
ISSUE I:
WHETHER THE CONCERNED PUBLICATION IN THE SILBIL MAGAZINE

AMOUNTS TO DEFAMATION?
ISSUE II:
WHETHER THERE IS A VIOLATION OR MISUSE OF THE FREEDOM OF PRESS

ENSHRINED UNDER THE ARTICLE 19(1) (a) CONSTITUTION OF INDIA?
ISSUE III:
WHETHER THE CONCERNED PUBLICATION IN THE SILBIL MAGAZINE

AMOUNTS TO MENTAL DISTRESS CAUSED TO THE SATYASCOMMUNITY?
ISSUE IV:
WHETHER PERMANENT INJUNCTION SHOULD BE GRANTED AGAINST

SILBIL MAGAZINE?

≈ PAGE NO. 11≈
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
I. WHETHER THE CONCERNED PUBLICATION IN THE SILBIL MAGAZINE
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that as the facts of the case suggests that
the parody column published in Silbil Magazine, containing the description of Baba
Satyanandis not pertaining to defamation on the ground of innocent humor and there was
no actual malice on the part of the respondent.

PRESS ENSHRINED UNDER THE ARTICLE 19(1) (a) CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the respondent has not violated or
misused the freedom of press enshrined under the Article 19(1) (a) of Constitution of
India, as the concerned parody column of the Silbil Magazine comes under the umbrella
of innocent humour and disclaimer been published, so the magazine has freedom to
publish the same under freedom of press.
III. WHETHER THE CONCERNED PUBLICATION IN THE SILBIL MAGAZINE

AMOUNTS TO MENTAL DISTRESS CAUSED TO THE SATYAS
COMMUNITY?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that no mental distress has been caused
to the Satyas community as in the concerned publication was not intentional, reckless,
outrageous, intolerable and extreme so the concerned publication has not caused mental
distress to the Satyas community.
IV. WHETHER PERMANENT INJUNCTION SHOULD BE GRANTED AGAINST

SILBIL MAGAZINE?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court thatpermanent injunction should not be
granted against the Silbil Magazine as no element of mental distress and defamation has
been found also the right to publish the same has been protected u/a 19(1)(a) Constitution
of India.

≈ PAGE NO. 12≈
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
I.WHETHER THE CONCERNED PUBLICATIONIN SILBIL MAGAZINE

The counsel humbly pleads before the Hon’ble Court that the publication of caricature in this
particular case doesn’t amount to defamation.
Defamation is injury to the reputation of a person. If a person injures the reputation of
another, he does so at his own risk, as in the case of an interference with the property. A
man’s reputation is his property and if possible, more valuable, than other property 4.A
defamatory act is essentially is now generally understood as an attack on the reputation of a
person either by written or spoken words , or by any other means of communication , for
example by means of a caricature5, an effigy6, or an advertisement7.
The first ingredient of defamation is that the statement must be defamatory. Any statement or
representation which exposes the person to a contempt, hatred or ridicule, tends8to injure him
in his profession or trade, or causes him to be shunned or avoided by neighbors is
defamatory9.
Statements of opinion generally receive protection under the first amendment of the US. US
SC in the case of Milkovich vs. Lorain Journal Co.10held that the opinion that merits the
protection when it is
1. about a matter of public concern
2. expressed in a way that it makes hard to prove whether it is true or false
3. can not be reasonably interpreted to be a factual statement about someone
4
Dixon vs. Holden, (1869 )7 Eq.488.
5
Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd vs. Dunlop [1921] IAC367,HL.
6
Monson vs. Tussauds Ltd [1849] IQB 671, CA.
Tolley vs. J S Fry & Sons Ltd [1931] AC 333 at 351, Hl.
7
Pratten vs. Labour Daily [1926 ]VLR 122.

8
Parmitter vs. Coupland ( 1840 ) 6M&W 105 , 151ER340.

9
10
497 US 1 (1990).

≈ PAGE NO. 13≈
The Counsel humbly submits before the Hon’ble court that the publication in its magazine is
a statement of opinion. The Counsel would like to draw the attention of court towards the
following points:-
1. THE PUBLICATION IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC CONCERN
The respondent’s magazine is a magazine which publishes the stories, poems, cartoons &
sketches all based on fictional nature of work primarily. Among the other things, it also
publishes a parody column, whereby it publishes the mocking cartoons and the sketches or
relevant description of contemporary nature.
Parody is a distorted imitation of an original work that is used to comment on the original
work. It is often used to criticize the politicians and social views, such as through the use of
political cartoons. Here, the respondents have published description of appellant campaigning
in an advertisement of liquor, As out of numerous teachings of the appellant , one prominent
teaching is ‘ not to touch the liquor ‘, which is a prime reason for his popularity among many
people and especially women. Because of this, the appellant is worshipped as God. Thus, the
aforementioned publication in the parody column of the respondent’s magazine is a matter
affecting a large no. of people that is public concern.
2. THE PUBLICATION IS EXPRESSED IN A WAY THAT MAKES IT HARD TO

PROVE WHETHER IT IS TRUE OR FALSE
In the landmark case of Campbell vs. Acuff Rose music11, US SC asserted that parody is a
work that imitates another’s work in an attempt to ridicule or make an ironic commentary.
The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit said that “cartoonists employ hyperbole,
exaggeration and caricature to communicate their message to the readers. One can’t
reasonably interpret a cartoon as literally depicting an actual event or situation; rather the
cartoonist must be viewed as having utilized the act of exaggeration to express his opinion.”
The Counsel submits before the court to consider the fact the aforementioned publication
made under the parody column as an innocent humour makes it difficult to prove that it is
true or false. Also as laid down in the case of Blackwood & sons vs. A.N.
11
510 U.S. 569.

≈ PAGE NO. 14≈
Parasuraman12while determining the character of a parody it is very important to figure out

whether the use so done wishes to compete with the original work of the creator.
The result is that the legality of a parody is often impossible to ascertain till this Hon’ble
court determines the issue unless it is indefensibly defamatory or clearly non defamatory at
first glance. And ‘defamatory’ in this regard often means the spectacularly subjective
‘offensive’. The Court will reject those “meanings which can only emerge as the product of
some strained or forced or utterly unreasonable interpretation.”13
Thus, the counsel humbly pleads that taking all the facts into consideration it is proved that
the publication is expressed in a way that makes it hard to prove whether it is true or false.
3.THE PUBLICATION CAN’T BE REASONABLY INTERPRETED TO BE A FACTUAL

STATEMENT ABOUT BABA SATYANAND
Parody is an important form of political commentary that relies on blurring the line between
truth and outrageousness to attack, scorn and ridicule public figures. Although it may be
offensive and intentionally injurious, but the statements contain constitutionally protected
ideas and opinions, provided a reasonable reader wouldn’t mistake the statements describing
actual facts. The recent UK defamation case of Sir Elton John vs. Guardian News & Media
Limited14 supports the aforementioned statements. The judge opined in this case that the
context was important and the designation of the section was considered to assist in
understanding the extent to which a particular speech was to be understood to be factual or
not. In this case , the Guardian argued that it was clear that such a serious allegation as Sir
Elton John alleged was being made was not one which a reasonable reader would understand
would appear in a piece which is humorous, and submitted that the words complained of were
a form of teasing . The Judge accepted the Guardian’s submissions.
Similarly ,in the present case ,the published parody column, containing the description of
Baba Satyanand campaigning in an advertisement of liquor brand, as a parody to his
teachings of non-consumption of liquor was not one which a reasonable reader would
AIR 1959 Mad 410.

12
Jones v Skeleton [1964] NS WR 485.

13
[2008] EWHC 3066 (QB) (12 Dec. 2008 ).

14

≈ PAGE NO. 15≈
understand would appear in a piece which is humorous . The concerned parody column was
printed contains the disclaimer to show the innocent use of humour.
Thus, this proves that the publication can’t reasonably interpreted to be a factual statement
about Baba Satyanand.
Thus, the publication satisfying all the three conditions falls under the category of statement
of opinion, thereby, coming under the protection and so it is not defamatory.
Also, as laid down by the Supreme Court of US in the case of New York Times vs. Sullivan15,
that if a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove
an additional element i.e. ‘ actual malice ‘. Actual malice is a statement made with the
knowledge that the statement is false and reckless disregard of truth.
The present publication has no ingredient of actual malice within itself. Also, the publication
of disclaimer suffices the fact that the respondents didn’t act with actual malice as disclaimer
is given a lot weight16.
In the case of Jordan vs. Kollman17, since there was no actual malice on part of the defendant,
therefore, the court held that it was non-defamatory. Similarly, in the present case, there is no
actual malice on part of the respondent. Thus, the respondents having taken all the
precautions i.e. publishing disclaimer and the publication of the caricature in the parody
column renders the publication non- defamatory.
The Counsel pleads before the Hon’ble Court that not all falsehoods calculated to injure are
defamatory, defamation is confined only to those striking at character or reputation. The
dividing line is sometimes delicate and it is for the court to decide.
Therefore, in the light of aforementioned observations related to the facts of the case and
various judicial pronouncements, it is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that
neither pertaining to defamation nor mental distress.
15
376 US 254 ( 1964)
16
Smith v Huntington Pub. Co.
17
499 US 225, 226 ( 1991 )

≈ PAGE NO. 16≈

PRESS ENSHRINED UNDER THE ARTICLE 19(1) (a) CONSTITUTION OF INDIA?
The counsel seeks permission of this Hon’ble Court to quote the following lines from the
Holy Bible. “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” The immortal
declaration in Holy Bible18 about the significance of right and duty of freedom of speech is
acting as a beacon of guidance for truth even after centuries of the preaching.
The framers of our Constitution, in unambiguous terms, granted the right to freedom of
speech and expression and the right to assemble peaceably and without arms. This gave to the
citizens of this country a very valuable right, which is the essence of any democratic system.
There could be no expression without these rights. Liberty of thought enables liberty of
expression. Belief occupies a place higher than thought and expression. Belief of people rests
on liberty of thought and expression.
Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India assures the Freedom of Speech and expression
as ‘All citizens shall have the right of freedom of speech and expression.’
The Preamble of the Constitution of India inter alia speaks of liberty of thought, expression,
belief, faith and worship. When it comes to democracy, liberty of thought and expression is a
cardinal value that is of paramount significance under our constitutional scheme.
The right is at par with Article 19 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights which says:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of information and expression: this right includes
freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information
and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”19
As it seen above, the right to press and its freedom to express the ideas in public has always
been the integral part of healthy democracy and the prior restraint on the publication was
considered to be unacceptable under the earlier line of authorities. The freedom is not the
mere freedom from governmental intervention, freedom from pre-censorship etc. It includes
18
John-8: 32, Holy Bible.
19
Article 19 Universal Declarations of Human Rights.

≈ PAGE NO. 17≈
the freedom to protect the right for freedom of speech and expression of all the people
without the State hegemony or private dominance.
Defamation laws protect people from untrue, damaging statements. They provide important
recourse for people whose careers, reputations, finances and/or health have been damaged by
the harmful statements. However, defamation law often intersects with laws that protect
freedom of speech, guaranteed by Constitution of India.20So, just as it is important to protect
people from the harms that untrue statements may cause, it is also important to protect
speakers so that they may speak freely without fear of reprisal. This is a delicate balance and
it is often at the forefront in cases involving libel (written defamation) or slander (oral
defamation).
In Secretary Ministry of Broadcasting vs. Cricket Association of Bengal & Ors., 21the Hon’ble
Court has unambiguously held that:
“The freedom of speech and expression includes right to acquire information and
disseminate it. Freedom of Speech and Expression is necessary, for self-expression, which is
an important means of free conscience and self-fulfillment. It enables people to contribute to
debates of social and moral issues.”
The court thus realized the power of the press to make a country’s progress with its actions.
Here it would also be relevant to refer to the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India &
Union of India & Anr. vs. Prof Manu bhai D. Shah & Cinemart Foundation 22, wherein the
Court held that freedom of speech to be a basic human right in the following words:
"Speech is God's gift to mankind. Through speech a human being conveys his thoughts,
sentiments and feelings to others. Freedom of speech and expression is thus a natural right
which a human being acquires on birth. It is, therefore, a basic human right”.
The words 'freedom of speech and expression' must, therefore, be broadly construed to
include the freedom to circulate one's views by words of mouth or in writing or through
audio-visual instrumentalities. It, therefore, includes the right to propagate one's views
through the print media.
The Courts have time and again emphasized that the media and press should not be
unnecessarily restricted in their speech as the same may amount to curtailment of expression
20
Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India, (2013) 12 SCC 73.
21
AIR 1995 SC 1236.
22
AIR 1993 SC 171.

≈ PAGE NO. 18≈
of the ideas and free discussion in the public on the basis of which the democratic country
functions. The Courts should thus refrain from making any prior restraints on the publications
in order to curtail such freedom.
In Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd. & Anr. vs. The Union of India & Ors 23, the Supreme
Court held that freedom of speech and expression includes within its scope the freedom of the
Press. The Supreme Court speaking through A.P. Sen, J. emphasized that though the freedom
of press is an inalienable right and thus observed:
"I would only like to stress that the freedom of thought and expression, and the freedom of the
press are not only valuable freedoms in themselves but are basic to a democratic form of
Government which proceeds on the theory that problems of the Government can be solved by
the free exchange of thought and by public discussion of the various issues facing the nation.
It is necessary to emphasize and one must not forget that the vital importance of freedom of
speech and expression involves the freedom to dissent to a free democracy like ours.
Democracy relies on the freedom of the press. It is the inalienable right of everyone to
comment freely upon any matter of public importance. This right is one of the pillars of
individual liberty- freedom of speech, which our Court has always unfailingly guarded.”
The Supreme Court referred to the earlier decisions in Romesh Thappar vs. State of Madras24,
case related to a ban on the entry and circulation of Thappar's journal in the State of Madras
under the provisions of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949. Patanjali Sastri,
J. speaking for the Court said in Romesh Thappar's case that "…there can be no doubt that
the freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of propagation of ideas and that
freedom is ensured by the freedom of circulation. Liberty of circulation is as essential to that
freedom as the liberty of publication. Indeed, without circulation publication would be of
little value."
In Brij Bhushan vs. State of Delhi25,case Patanjali Sastri, J. speaking for the majority
judgment again said that "...every free man has undoubted right to lay what sentiments he
pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press.”
It has been argued by the counsel that respondent has denied that they have published
defamatory and derogatory column. They have also denied appellants have suffered an
23
(1959) S.C.R. 12.
24
AIR 1950 SC 124.
25
AIR 1950 SC 129.

≈ PAGE NO. 19≈
irreparable injury or loss. Further, the respondent merely published the parody column,
containing the description of Baba Satyanand with the sole intention of bringing the column
for humor purpose that too with disclaimer and are not making any such wild and reckless
allegations as alleged by the appellants. So, Silbil Magazine has the right and duty to publish
the same and such right is a part of the rights conferred under Article 19(1) (a) of the
Constitution of India.
various judicial pronouncements, it is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that there is
no violation or misuse of the freedom of press enshrined under the Article 19(1) (a)
Constitution of India.
III.WHETHER THE CONCERNED PUBLICATION IN THE SILBIL MAGAZINE

AMOUNTS TO MENTAL DISTRESS CAUSED TO THE SATYAS COMMUNITY?
Mental distress occurs when another person or company’s actions cause severe mental
suffering. The Counsel would like to draw the attention of the Hon’ble Court before the
following points.
THE DEFENDANT DID NOT ACT INTENTIONALLY OR RECKLESSLY

In the case of Hulton and Co. vs. Jones,26 Farewell J. opined, “The rule is well settled that the
true intention of the writer of any document, whether it be contract, will, or libel, or that
which is apparent from the natural and ordinary interpretation of the writer’s words; and this,
when applied to the description of an individual, means the interpretation that would be
reasonably put upon those words by persons who know the plaintiff and the circumstances.”
26
220 F. Supp. 598, U.S. Dist.(1963)

≈ PAGE NO. 20≈
The counsel would like to draw the attention of the Hon’ble Court towards the fact that Silbil
is a magazine, which publishes the stories, poems, cartoons and sketches, all based on the
fictional nature of work primarily. Among other things, it also publishes a parody column,
whereby it publishes the mocking cartoons and sketches or relevant descriptions of
contemporary nature. But, while publishing the parody for contemporary figures or events, it
uses the element of factual truth and modifies according to suit the parody content or
situation.
In the present case, Silbil magazine has already published a disclaimer which is sufficient to
establish the fact that they did not act intentionally or recklessly as accordingly laid down in
the case of Smith vs. Huntington Pub. Co.,27 disclaimer is given a lot of weight.
THE DEFENDANT’S BEHAVIOUR WAS NOT OUTRAGEOUS OR INTOLERABLE

The publication coming under the ambit of innocent humour is neither outrageous nor
intolerable. In this case, the parodic nature of the advertisement weighs in favour of a finding
of fair use as laid down in the case of Leibovitz vs. Paramount Pictures Corp.28 A defendant's
conduct is not “extreme and outrageous” merely because it is ‘tortious or criminal.’ 29It also
is not “extreme and outrageous” simply because the defendant “intended to inflict mental
distress,” or acted with malice.30 Instead, “extreme and outrageous” conduct is conduct that is
“so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of
decency”, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.
Generally, the case is one in which the recitation of the facts to an average member of the
community would arouse his resentment against the actor, and lead him to
exclaim,“Outrageous!”31. Moreover, “mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty
oppressions, or other trivialities” do not constitute “extreme and outrageous” conduct. 32
Thus, in the present case the respondent’s behavior was not outrageous or intolerable.
27
410 F. Supp.1270 (S. D. Ohio 1975).
28
137 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 1998).
29
Yeager, 6 Ohio St.3d at 374, quoting Restatement of the Law 2d, Torts 73, Section 46,comment d (1965).
30
Yeager, 6 Ohio St.3d at 374-375,quoting Restatement of the Law 2d,Torts 73,Section 46,comment d (1965).
31
32

≈ PAGE NO. 21≈
THE DEFENDANT’S BEHAVIOUR DID NOT CAUSE OR CONTRIBUTE TO THE

PLAINTIFF’S MENTAL DISTRESS
The counsel humbly submits before the Hon’ble Court that the above publication coming
under the umbrella of parody and innocent humour in no way contributes to mental distress to
the community. Humour in public discourse is necessary for social wellbeing. As Justice
Sachs said in the Laugh it off promotions CC vs. South African Breweries International
(Finance) BV t/a Sabmark International and another 33 case:
“A society that takes itself too seriously risks bottling up its tensions and treating every
example of irreverence as a threat to its existence. Humour is one of the great solvents of
democracy. It permits the ambiguities and contradictions of public life to be articulated in
non-violent forms. It promotes diversity. It enables a multitude of discontents to be expressed
in a myriad of spontaneous ways. It is an elixir of constitutional health.”
Thus, the publication of Silbil magazine in no way amounts to mental distress to the Satyas
community.
THE PLAINTIFF ACTUALLY DID NOT SUFFER SEVERE OR EXTREME MENTAL

DISTRESS
The appellants has in no way suffered severe mental distress. Public officials andfigures who
purposely take part in the discourse voluntarily subject themselves to"the vehement, caustic,
and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks· that maydistress some individuals.”34 Moreover,
public officials and figures have readyaccess to the media to respond to and rebut criticism
against them35.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit saidthat "cartoonists employ
hyperbole, exaggeration, and caricature to communicatetheir messages to the reader. One
cannot reasonably interpret a cartoon asliterally depicting an actual event or situation....
Rather the cartoonist must beviewed as having utilized the art of exaggeration to express his
opinion."36
So in this case there has not been any infliction of mental distress to the Satyas community.
33
[2005] ZACC 7.
34
Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc: v. Hepps, 106 S. Ct. 1558 (1986).
35
Falwell v. Flynt, 805 F.2d 484, 485 (4th Cir. 1985).
36
Falwell, 797 F.2d at 712.

≈ PAGE NO. 22≈
various judicial pronouncements, it is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the
above publication does not amount to mental distress.
IV.WHETHER PERMANENT INJUNCTION SHOULD BE GRANTED AGAINST

SILBIL MAGAZINE?
The Counsel submits that permanent injunction sought by the appellants should not be
granted as the order permanently enjoining future speech is a prior restraint and as such is
presumptively unconstitutional.
Bhagwati, J. in the Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd. & Anr. vs. The Union of India &
Ors37, case speaking for the Court said that “the freedom of speech and expression includes
freedom of propagation of ideas which freedom is ensured by the freedom of circulation and
that the liberty of the press is an essential part of the right to freedom of speech and
expression and that the liberty of the press consists in allowing no previous restraint upon
publication”.
The Apex Court in the recent ruling of Ramlila Maidan Incident vs. Home Secretary, UOI
&Ors38 gave an entire treatise on the freedom of speech and expression and held that it is the
bulwark of a democratic government and is essential for proper functioning of the democratic
process.
The Counsel submits that permanent injunction sought by the appellants is to restrain the
respondents from publishing any material that is defamatory in nature. The prayer is blanket
prayer which cannot be entertained by a Court of Law. Apart from the same being blanket in
nature, it is not even qualified that untrue or false statement should not be made. If factual
37
1959 S.C.R. 12.
38
2012(2) SCALE 682.

≈ PAGE NO. 23≈
circumstances change in a way that affects the defamation calculus, the person enjoined must
risk contempt or seek the court’s permission every time he has to speak.
Any prior restraint comes “bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional
validity,” 39 and “permanent injunctions i.e., court orders that actually forbid speech
activities are classic examples of prior restraints” because they impose a “true restraint on
future speech,”40 As the Supreme Court in case Near vs. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, explained
in its seminal case condemning prior restraints, an injunction against future speech making
any publication of the suppressed speech punishable as contempt is “the essence of
censorship.”41
The courts in possessing jurisdiction, ‘in all but exceptional cases’, they should not issue an
interlocutory injunction to restrain the publication of a libel which the defence sought to
justify except where it was clear that that defence would fail. Where the defendant contends
that the words complained of are true and swears that he will plead and seek to prove the
defence of justification, the court should not grant an interlocutory injunction unless,
exceptionally, it is satisfied that the defence is one which cannot succeed. The plaintiff must
demonstrate that ‘it is clear that (the) alleged libel is untrue.’42
The right of free speech is one which it is for the public interest that individuals should
possess, and, indeed, that they should exercise without impediment, so long as no wrongful
act is done; and, unless an alleged libel is untrue, there is no wrong committed; but, on the
contrary, often a very wholesome act is performed in the publication and repetition of an
alleged libel. Until it is clear that an alleged libel is untrue, it is not clear that any right at all
has been infringed; and the importance of leaving free speech unfettered is a strong reason in
cases of libel for dealing most cautiously and warily with the granting of injunctions.
Defamation by its nature is highly contextual. A statement that is defamatory in one
circumstance, time, or place might not be defamatory in another circumstance, time, or place.
A permanent injunction as a remedy for defamation does not account for constantly changing
contextual factors that affect whether the speech is punishable or protected.
Counsel further argued that the present suit for injunction is not maintainable in as much as
39
Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58 (1963).
40
Alexander v. United States, 509 U.S. 544 (1993).
41
283 U.S. 697 (1931).
42
Bonnard v Perryman,CA ([1891] 2 Ch. 269).

≈ PAGE NO. 24≈
the publications have already been made and the published parody column, containing the
description of Baba Satyanand campaigning in an advertisement of liquor brand, as a parody
to his teaching of non-consumption of liquor was not one which a reasonable reader would
understand would appear in a piece which is humorous. The concerned parody column was
printed contains the disclaimer to show the innocent use of humor.
various judicial pronouncements, it is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the
permanent injunction should not be granted against Silbil Magazine.

≈ PAGE NO. 25≈
PRAYER
In light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, reasons given and authorities cited, the
counsel for the Respondent humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased:
In the alternative declare and adjudge:
I. That the concerned publication in Silbil Magazine is neither pertaining to

mental distress nor defamation.
II. That there is no violation or misuse of the freedom of press enshrined

under the Article 19(1) (a) Constitution of India.
III. That the permanent injunction should not be granted against Silbil
Magazine.
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 Respondent in duty bound, shall forever pray.
The Respondent
Sd/-
.................................
(COUNSELS FOR THE RESPONDENT)

≈ PAGE NO. 26≈
BIBLIOGRAPHY
STATUTE/LEGISLATIONS:
1. The Constitution of India
2. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
3. The Specific Relief Act,1963
LIST OF BOOKS:
1. Seervai, H. M., “Constitutional Law of India”, Universal Law Publishing, Allahabad,
2006.
2. De,. D.J, “Interpretation and Enforcements of Fundamental Rights”, Eastern Law
House, Calcutta, 2010.
3. Singh, Avatar, “ Law of Contract and Specific Relief “, Eastern Book Company,
Lucknow, 12th Edition, 2017.
4. Bangia, Dr. R. K., “ The Law of Torts “, Allahbad Law Agency, 23rd edition, 2013.
5. Takwani, C.K., “Civil Procedure “Easten Book Company, 7th Edition, 2013.

≈ PAGE NO. 27≈

Respondent (R)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Respondent (R)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Respondent (R)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TEAM CODE : AFFIDAVIT

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF ……..

IN THE MATTERS OF:-

Baba Satyanand (...Appellant) vs. Silbil Magazine (...Respondent)

Amarchand(...Appellant)vs. Silbil Magazine (...Respondent)

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDANT

 BOOKS AND GUIDELINES REFERRED..................................................................4

I. WHETHER THE CONCERNED PUBLICATION IN THE SILBIL MAGAZINE

II. WHETHER THERE IS A VIOLATION OR MISUSE OF THE FREEDOM OF

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

AIR All India Reporter

CPC Code of Civil Procedure

r/w Read with

SCC Supreme Court Cases

u/a Under Article

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

 BOOKS AND GUIDELINESREFERRED

1. Seervai, H.M., “Constitutional law of India”, Universal Law Publishing, Allahabad,

2. De, D. J., “Interpretation and Enforcement of Fundamental Rights”, Eastern Law

5. Takwani, C.K., “Civil Procedure”,Eastern Book Company,7th Edition,2013.

1. The Constitution of India

2. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

3. The Specific Relief Act, 1963

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

S. No. LEGAL DATABASES

1 Alexander vs. United States 509 U.S. 544 (1993). 24

2 Bantam Books, Inc. vs. Sullivan 372 U.S. 58 (1963). 24

Blackwood & sons vs. A.N. AIR 1959 Mad 410.

4 Bonnard vs. Perryman CA ([1891] 2 Ch. 269). 24

5 Brij Bhushan vs. State of Delhi AIR 1950 SC 129. 20

6 Campbell vs. Acuff Rose music 510 U.S. 569. 14

Dixon vs. Holden

8 Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd vs. Dunlop [1921] IAC367, HL. 13

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd. &

10 Falwell vs. Flynt. 805 F.2d 484, 485 (4th Cir. 22

12 Jones vs. Skeleton [1964] NS WR 485. 15

13 Jordan vs. Kollman 499 US 225, 226 ( 1991 ). 16

Laugh it off promotions CC vs. South

Life Insurance Corporation of India &

17 Milkovich vs. Lorain Journal Co 497 US 1 (1990). 13

Monson vs. Tussauds Ltd.

376 US 254 (1964).

(1840) 6M&W 105,

Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. vs. 106 S. Ct. 1558 (1986).

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

Ramlila Maidan Incident vs. Home

24 Romesh Thappar vs. State of Madras AIR 1950 SC 124. 19

Secretary Ministry of Broadcasting vs. AIR 1995 SC 1236.

26 Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India (2013) 12 SCC 73. 18

29 Tolley vs. J S Fry & Sons Ltd [1931] AC 333 at 351, Hl 13

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO TRY, ENTERTAIN AND

FURTHER SECTION 1513 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908ALLOWS THE

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT

THE RESPONDENTS RESPECTFULLY ASKS THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT,