Respondent Memo Final .pdf

2nd ANAND SWAROOP GUPTA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

Team Code-ESTATE R Hon’ble High Court Filed under section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure

Baba Satyanand………………………………………………………………Appellant v. Silbil Magazine……………………………………………………………………..Respondent With Amarchand…………..………………………………………………………Appellant v. Silbil Magazine……………………………………………………………………..Respondent With Silbil Magazine……………………………………………………….Appellant v. Baba Satyanand…………………………………………………………………..Respondent

Appeal against the order by the Hon’ble District Court

2nd ANAND SWAROOP GUPTA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 1

2nd ANAND SWAROOP GUPTA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

Contents List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................... II Index of Authorities ................................................................................................................III Statement of Jurisdiction ........................................................................................................1 Statement of Facts ....................................................................................................................2 Issues .........................................................................................................................................3 Summary of Arguments ..........................................................................................................4 Arguments Advanced ..............................................................................................................5 1. Whether the suit filed by Amarchand is maintainable?............................................5 2. Whether the publication of parody amounts to defamation under tort law? ............5 3. Whether in the view of present condition, can permanent injunction be granted against Silbil Magazine? ....................................................................................................10 4. Whether the compensation of Rs. 30 lakhs granted to Baba Satyanand for personal distress justiciable? ............................................................................................12 Prayer ......................................................................................................................................14 Bibliography ...........................................................................................................................15

I MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

2nd ANAND SWAROOP GUPTA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

List of Abbreviations &

And

AII ER

All England Reports

AIR

All India Reporters

Anr.

Another

Ch

Chancery

Ed.

Edition

EWCA

Court of Appeal of England and Wales

i.e.

That is

Ltd.

Limited

N.Y.L.J.

New York Law Journal

Ors.

Others

SC

Supreme Court

SCC

Supreme Court Cases

SCR

Supreme Court Reports

U.S.

United States

WLR

Weekly Law Reports

II MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

2nd ANAND SWAROOP GUPTA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

Index of Authorities Table of Cases Cases Referred

Page No.

Bonnard v Perryman (1891) 2 Ch 269.

9,12,23

Charleston v New Group Newspaper Ltd (1995) 2 AII ER 313

7

Hayward v. Thompson, (1981) 3 AII ER 450 (458) (CA)

6

Herbage v. Pressdram Ltd [1984] 1 WLR 1160

10

Holdsworth Ltd v. Associated Newspapers Ltd (1937) 3 AII ER 817 (HL).

6

Hustler magazine v. Falwell (1988) 485 U.S 46

9,12,13

In Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd. & Anr. v. The Union of India & Ors.,

10

1959 S.C.R. 12 In Re an Arbitration between Polemis and Furness, Withey & Co. [1921] 3

5

KB 560 Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 1295: (1964) 1 SCR

8

332 Life Insurance Corporation of India & Union of India &Anr. v. Prof Manu

8

Bhai D. Shah & Cinemart Foundation AIR 1993 SC 171 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597: (1978) 1 SCC 248.

8

Martha Greene v. Associated Newspapers Ltd., [2004] EWCA Civ 1462

11

Mendelson v. Carson N.Y.L.J., Feb. 4, 1988, at 13, col. 1

11

Nirmaljit Singh Narula v. Sh. Yashwant Singh & Ors. on 14 September,

8

2012 People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (2004) 2 SCC 476:

8

AIR 2004 SC 1442. Printers (Mysore) Ltd v. Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (1994) 2 SCC

8

434 Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950) S.C.R 594, 597, (50) A.SC. 124 8 Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 305: (1962) 3 SCR

8

842 Sri Navin Das and another v. Smt. Ranjita Singh C.S. No. 7240 of 2014

11,12

Stanton v. Metro Corporation 438 F.3d 119, 123 24 (1st Cir.2006)

12

III MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

2nd ANAND SWAROOP GUPTA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

Books A Lakshminath & M Sridhar, The Law of Torts Barbar Harvey & John Marston, Cases and Commentary on Tort Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Law of Torts S.C.Sarkar, Law relating to Injunction (3rd ed. With supplements, Kolkata, 2016) Winfield & Jolowicz, Torts

Statues and Legislations Code of Civil Procedure, 2017 Press Council of India, Norms And Journalistic Conduct

Essays, Articles and Websiteshttp://escholarship.org/uc/item/5q384575#page-10 https://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/digital-journalists-legal-guide/protectionsatire-and-parody

Miscellaneous Indian Constitution, 1950 Black’s Law Dictionary

IV MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

2nd ANAND SWAROOP GUPTA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

Statement of Jurisdiction It is humbly submitted that the appellant has approached the Hon’ble High Court under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure of India. The court has clubbed three appeals namely Baba Satyanand v. Silbil Magazine with Silbil Magazine v. Baba Satyanand with Amarchand v. Silbil Magazine under the inherent power conferred to the Hon’ble High Court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The respondent submits to the same.

1 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

2nd ANAND SWAROOP GUPTA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

Statement of Facts

A well-known religious leader and preacher Baba Satyanand has established himself as an influential figure through his various teachings. His followers follow him by all means and way and have named themselves as the ‘Satyas’. Among his other mantra his main teaching behind his popularity especially amongst women is his teaching of non-consumption of alcohol. Silbil magazine which publishes stories, poems, cartoons and sketches mainly fictional in nature. Amongst other columns it publishes a parody column of contemporary nature based on factual truth. They modify the factual truth to suit the parody content. Silbil magazine in its August issue publishes a parody describing Baba Satyanand promoting liquor and giving its first-hand experience as a parody to his teaching of non-consumption of liquor. Along with the parody the magazine published a disclaimer claiming the innocent use of humour. Hurt by the parody the follower of Baba Satyanand organized a meeting circulating the copy of the parody to everyone present in the meet. This meet was widely covered by media and newspapers. Subsequently Baba filed a suit against the Silbil magazine for defamation and personal distress claiming compensation and damages of worth Rs. 1 crore and an injunction to the August issue of the magazine. The court negated the civil liability of Silbil magazine of defamation taking into account the use of disclaimer and also did not grant any injunction but awarded Rs30 lakh for personal distress. Unsatisfied with the order of the lower court both the parties to the case filled appeal in the high court. During the pendency of the appeals, one of the follower Amarchand on behalf of the community filled a suit claiming damages and permanent injunction for defaming their Godly figure. His suit was dismissed by the court. He also files an appeal in the high court against the order of the lower court. Now the high court has clubbed all the three appeals taking into consideration the same subject matter.

2 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

2nd ANAND SWAROOP GUPTA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

Issues 1. Whether the suit filed by Amarchand is maintainable? 2. Whether the publication of parody amounts to defamation under tort law? 3. Whether in the view of present condition, can permanent injunction be granted against Silbil Magazine? 4. Whether the compensation of Rs. 30 lakhs granted to Baba Satyanand for personal distress justiciable?

3 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

2nd ANAND SWAROOP GUPTA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

Summary of Arguments 1. Whether the suit filed by Amarchand is maintainable? The suit filed by Amarchand is not maintainable on the first place as the case comes under the domain of civil wrong and more specifically tort wrong. Under tort law one the essential conditions to constitute a wrong is legal injury to the person. In this case there was no legal injury to Amarchand and hence he cannot claim damages. The suit should be dismissed on the grounds of “Sine Damno Injuria”. 2. Whether the publication of parody amounts to defamation under tort law? The publication of parody by Silbil magazine will not amount to defamation under tort law because there is no injury to the reputation of Baba Satyanand as it was for a mere humour purpose and ordinary person or reader would not take the meaning of the parody content in its literal sense. So in the light of the facts of the present case, the magazine did not violate its freedom of press and published the parody with innocent humor.

3. Whether in the view of present condition, can permanent injunction be granted against Silbil Magazine? Permanent injunction can be granted only when there is any kind of defamation, but in the light of the given facts, there is no defamation to the Baba by the parody published in the August issue of the Silbil magazine which was published out of innocence that is without malice, exercising the freedom of Speech and Expression, and violative of right to trade, and thus they are not liable to be under the grant of permanent injunction.

4. Whether the compensation of Rs. 30 lakhs granted to Baba Satyanand for personal distress justiciable? The specific intent to inflict personal or emotional harm enjoys no protection under any law or precedent whatsoever. Any statement which is critical in nature has the inherent capacity to inflict emotional distress but awarding compensation for the same will lead to situation where there will be an indirect restriction on the publication of any critical statement. Therefore compensation of Rs. 30 lakhs should not be awarded to Baba Satyanand only on the grounds of personal distress.

4 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

2nd ANAND SWAROOP GUPTA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

Arguments Advanced

1. Whether the suit filed by Amarchand is maintainable? It is humbly submitted to the Hon’ble High Court that the suit filed by Amarchand is not maintainable on the first place therefore there is no question of any damages or injunction being granted to Amarchand (hereinafter referred as appellant 2). In the law of torts the person is only held liable for the consequences of his act which are not remote and directly related to the act. A person is, therefore not liable for a damage though caused by the tortious act of the respondent if the damage so caused is too remote to the act.1 The principle of the test of directness is the decision of the Court of Appeal in In Re an Arbitration between Polemis and Furness, Withey & Co.2 Acc. To this case the cause of action for a defamation suit should be a direct consequence of the act of the respondent. But here in this case the cause of action of the suit filed by the appellant 2 is not directly connected to the act of the respondent. Another view for the question that who can sue for a defamation action is that the cause of action should reasonably foreseeable. But as it is known that in the present set of facts the cause of action for the suit filed by appellant 2 cannot be reasonably foreseeable by any reasonable man. Therefore appellant 2’s suit should be dismissed on the grounds of not having any locus standi to file a suit.

2. Whether the publication of parody amounts to defamation under tort law? It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble High court that Silbil Magazine in its August 2015 issue, Published the parody column, containing the description of Baba Satyanand (original plaintiff, hereinafter referred as appellant 1) in an advertisement of liquor brand as a parody to his teaching of non-consumption of liquor. The content of the parody column described Baba Satyanand campaigning in an advertisement of Liquor Brand and describing about its firsthand experience. The purpose of Silbil magazine was to create mere humor but the followers of Baba Satyanand and he himself misinterpreted the contents of the parody and took it in a defamatory way.

1 2

Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Law of Torts, 27th ed., p. 186. [1921] 3 KB 560

5 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

2nd ANAND SWAROOP GUPTA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

A defamatory statement is one which injures the reputation of another by exposing him to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or which tends to lower his reputation in the esteem of rightthinking members of society. 3 The parody content will not injure his reputation because it is for mere humor purpose and the disclaimer is also given for the same. Everyone was aware of his character, as he was an influential public figure, and no one can take the parody in its literal sense. Mere insult or abuse do not by itself constitute defamation, although it may be offensive to a man’s dignity, unless and until it is proved to have lowered his reputation in the estimation of the others. In this case, the description of Baba Satyanand holding liquor bottle in his hand was given under parody column, for mere humor purpose, which had a categorical heading of parody. The contention of defamation by Baba Satyanand will not hold any ground on the basis that the first and the foremost essential of defamation is not getting satisfied in this case i.e., the words or representation should lower the reputation of the appellant in the estimation of right thinking members of society generally. There is no defamation in this case because if the person read the parody content as a whole and the description used in it then the ordinary readers of ordinary diligence would think that it is for mere humor purpose and should not be taken in its literal sense. The juxtaposition of the phrase first-hand experience with the picture of Baba Satyanand and with reference to his teaching is merely a hyperbole. The word first hand experience has been used as an overtly emphatic expression primarily with the purpose of making a strong impact, impression without intending it to be taken literally. If the parody content and the word first-hand experience is viewed in this light, it can hardly be said to be defamatory. So the meaning of words in libel action is a matter of impression as an ordinary man gets on the first reading, not on a later analysis.4 The standard of opinion is that which prevails among ordinary, reasonable people of the time and place5 and not the opinion which prevailed in another time, or in another country, or among a special class or abnormally constituted people. In reference to this, the present case holds no ground of defamation because the standard of opinion of reasonable people with ordinary diligence will not take this parody to be defamatory in nature. The contents of parody do not convey any defamatory imputation in its natural meaning because the description is innocent as it is for humor purpose only. 3

Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort, Fifteenth Edition, 1998, chapter 13, p 360. Hayward v. Thompson, (1981) 3 AII ER 450 (458) (CA). 5 Holdsworth Ltd v. Associated Newspapers Ltd (1937) 3 AII ER 817 (HL). 4

6 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

2nd ANAND SWAROOP GUPTA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

If the defamatory statement consists of an article with the headline and photograph the whole of the article, including the headline and photograph has to be taken together and considered whether in its natural and ordinary meaning which may be ascribed to it by ordinary men, it is defamatory to the plaintiff.6 In this case, if the parody content is taken together and considered according to its natural meaning, then it is not defamatory because it is for mocking purposes and there is no malice involved. So there is no defamation on the part of Silbil Magazine. 2.1 Whether the publication amounts to violation of fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression? Baba Satyanand, being a well-known religious leader and an influential public figure, was published as a mocking cartoon in one of the parodies of Silbil magazine. The parody was just for mere humor purpose but the followers of Baba Satyanand and he himself took it in a different way altogether and filed a suit for defamation against publishers. Silbil magazine took the defense of innocent humor and right to freedom of press which is appropriate in present circumstances. The freedom of speech is regarded as the first condition of liberty. It occupies a preferred and important position in the hierarchy of the liberty, it is truly said about the freedom of speech that it is the mother of all other liberties. Freedom of Speech and expression means the right to express one's own convictions and opinions freely by words of mouth, writing, printing, pictures or any other mode. Expression is a matter of liberty and right. The liberty of thought and right to know are the sources of expression. Free Speech is a live wire of the democracy. Freedom of expression is integral to the expansion and fulfillment of individual personality. Freedom of expression is more essential in a democratic setup of State where people are the Sovereign rulers. Iver Jennings said “Without freedom of speech, the appeal to reason which is the basis of democracy cannot be made”. So India being a democratic country also recognizes the importance of freedom of speech and expression. Indian constitution expressly mentions freedom of speech and expression under Part III which deals with the Fundamental Rights given to certain types of Individuals. Article 19 of the Indian Constitution states that all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression. This freedom is necessary not only to promote certain basic rights of the citizen but also certain democratic values in and the oneness and unity of, the country. Article 19 guarantees some of the basic, valued and natural rights inherent in a person. This right has been advisedly set out in broad terms leaving scope for its expansion and adaption, 6

Charleston v New Group Newspaper Ltd (1995) 2 AII ER 313.

7 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

2nd ANAND SWAROOP GUPTA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

through interpretation, to the changing needs and evolving notions of a free society.7 In a series of decisions from 1950 onwards the Supreme Court has ruled that freedom of the press is implicit in the guarantee of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (a) of the constitution of India.8 Although Article 19 (1) (a) does not mention the freedom of the press it was early settled by supreme court decision in Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras9 that the freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of the press and circulation which is the fourth estate.10 In Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras it was held that there can be no doubt that 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, the publication would be of little or no value. According to the Supreme Court, it is possible that a right does not find express mention in any clause of Article 19(1) and yet it may be covered by some clause therein.11 This gives an additional dimension to Article 19 (1) in the sense that even though a right may not be explicit, it may yet be implicit, in various clauses of Article 19. 12 According to this case, every press agency possess the right to freedom of press. In Printers (Mysore) Ltd v. Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, 13 the Supreme Court has reiterated that though the freedom of the press is not expressly guaranteed as a Fundamental Right, it is implicit in the freedom of speech and expression. Freedom of the press has always been a cherished right in all democratic countries and the press has rightly been described as the fourth estate. The Supreme Court has prioritized that the freedom of the press is not so much for the benefit of the press as for the benefit of the general community because the community has a right to be supplied with information. The court thus realised the power of the press to make or mar 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. v. Prof Manu Bhai D. Shah & Cinemart Foundation,14 wherein the Court held that freedom of speech to be a basic human right in the following words: People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (2004) 2 SCC 476: AIR 2004 SC 1442. Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 305: (1962) 3 SCR 842. 9 (1950) S.C.R 594, 597, (50) A.SC. 124. 10 Nirmaljit Singh Narula v. Sh. Yashwant Singh & Ors. on 14 September, 2012 11 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597: (1978) 1 SCC 248. 12 Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 1295: (1964) 1 SCR 332. 13 (1994) 2 SCC 434. 14 AIR 1993 SC 171. 7 8

8 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

2nd ANAND SWAROOP GUPTA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

“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. "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; the right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek and receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers proclaims the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). The People of India declared in the Preamble of the Constitution which they gave unto themselves their resolve to secure to all citizens liberty of thought and expression.” Silbil Magazine reiterated its freedom to publish the same under freedom of press after Baba Satyanand came up with the suit of defamation. The magazine is entitled to do so because it has already been decided by the apex court that freedom of speech and expression also includes freedom of press. The court will not restrain the publication of an article, even though it is defamatory when the defendant says he intends to justify it or to make fair comment.15 Silbil magazine published parody content relating to Baba Satyanand same under freedom of speech and expression which includes freedom of press. According to black’s law dictionary“parody is defined as a transformative use of a well-known work for purposes of satirizing, ridiculing, critiquing, or commenting on the original work, as opposed to merely alluding to the original to draw attention to the latter work.” Parody is just a mimicry of an established concept, idea, or a person and which is different from satire altogether. Parody is really meant for mocking and it may or may not incite the society. Parody is just for entertainment purpose and nothing else. Making parodies of public figures will not protect them from recovering damages for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress caused by defamation.16 In Hustler magazine v. Falwell, the Supreme Court of United States held that the first and fourteenth amendment prohibit public figures from recovering damages for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress and libel, if the emotional distress and defamation was caused by a caricature, parody or satire of the public figure that a reasonable person would not have interpreted as factual. Since Falwell was a public figure and the parody could not have been reasonable considered believable. There is similarity in between US First amendment and India’s freedom of speech and expression. Two great democracies of world America and India very aptly recognizes the right

15 16

Bonnard v Perryman (1891) 2 Ch 269. Hustler magazine v. Falwell (1988) 485 U.S 46.

9 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

2nd ANAND SWAROOP GUPTA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

of freedom of speech and expression. Although the degree differs, The United States and India almost have similar free speech provisions in their Constitutions. Article 19(1) (a) of Indian constitution corresponds to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution which says, “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. In this case Baba Satyanand is a public figure and his parody will not be interpreted by reasonable and prudent readers as a factual truth. These public figures like public officials have an influential role in society and are well known to the general public. The followers are aware of his character and would not raise question against it just because of one humorous parody content. So the act of publishing the parody in its August issue came under the purview of their fundamental right of freedom of press and no action of defamation would lie against Silbil Magazine.

3. Whether in the view of present condition, can permanent injunction be granted against Silbil Magazine? It is humbly submitted before Hon’ble Court that the parody published in august issue of the Silbil magazine is not defaming the personality of the Baba Satyanand and thus permanent injunction should not be granted in the present case. In the present case the District court has already granted the relief from injunction on grounds of parody (which was used for mere humor purpose) and freedom of press.17 As the publication was out of malice it can be stated that the freedom of speech and expression, freedom of press must be considered against granting of injunction. In Herbage v. Pressdram Ltd18 - it was stated by the court that the principles of effect of rule have evolved because the value court has placed on freedom of speech and I think also on the freedom of the press, when balancing it against the reputation of a single individual who, if wrong, can be compensated in damages.” The counsel seeks to bring to the notice of the court that if the magazine is not liable for defamation then on what grounds injunction should be granted. As it was held by the District court that the publication was under freedom of press and mere use of humour. Therefore it can be concluded that if there is no defamation their lies no liability of the magazine and hence

17

In Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd. & Anr. v. The Union of India & Ors., 1959 S.C.R. 12, the Supreme Court held that freedom of speech and expression includes within its scope the freedom of the Press 18 [1984] 1 WLR 1160.

10 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

2nd ANAND SWAROOP GUPTA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

no injunction should be granted. The defendants-respondents being the owner and editor of a newspaper have the freedom of speech, expression and profession. Any order of injunction would amount to curtailment and infringement of such constitutional right. If in view of the impugned order passed, the defendants-respondents will suffer irreparable loss as their constitutional right of freedom of speech, expression and profession will be curtailed.19 The counsel also specify that the court can’t upheld the injunction order until it is proved that the published material is not true. As it is held in the case of Martha Greene v. Associate newspaper ltd. the court while granting injunction has to be more cautious and alert and take into consideration some essential elements mentioned in the case. From the above mentioned case it can be inferred that in an action for defamation a court will not impose a prior restraint on publication unless it is clear that no defence will succeed at the trial. This is partly due to the importance the court attaches to freedom of speech. It is partly because a judge must not usurp the constitutional function of the jury unless he is satisfied that there is no case to go to a jury. The rule is also partly founded on the pragmatic grounds that until there has been disclosure of documents and cross- examination at the trial a court cannot safely proceed on the basis that what the defendants wish to say is not true….” 20 As stated above by the council that the published material was just a representation of innocent humour and was not malicious therefore, mere humour doesn’t amount to defamation and hence injunction can’t be granted on mere ground of defamation. The Press deserves accolades for bringing to light the inducements offered to influence their reporting and such exposure will not amount to defamation. In Mendelson v. Carson21 case the court concluded that the act contained gross exaggerations and nonsensical statements that were comedic, not malicious, and that persons hearing the routine could not possibly take it seriously. Accordingly, the court decided the statements were not defamatory as a matter of law and dismissed the libel action.

19

Sri Navin Das and another v. Smt. Ranjita Singh C.S. No. 7240 of 2014 The Bonnard rule was affirmed in Martha Greene v. Associated Newspapers Ltd., [2004] EWCA Civ 1462, in the following terms, after quoting and relying on Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th Ed, vol 28, para 167: 21 N.Y.L.J., Feb. 4, 1988, at 13, col. 1. 20

11 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

2nd ANAND SWAROOP GUPTA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

Even the magazine had given the disclaimer for the same saying that the material published is just the use of innocent humour and even the disclaimer negates the entire liability of the magazine. In the case of Stanton v. Metro Corporation the Metro Corporation22, Boston Magazine’s publisher, moved to dismiss the defamation complaint largely on the ground that “the disclaimer adequately negates the negative connotations about the plaintiff otherwise arising from the article and the photograph.” The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted the motion. As injunction will infringe the right to trade because it has been already proved by the magazine that it was for mere humour purpose and was not with the intention to defame Baba Satyanand so, therefore the court must be very cautious in granting the injunction. As given in case Bonnard v. Perryman23 that the “…The right of free speech is one which it is for the public interest that individuals should possess, and,…. 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 interim injunctions…” Freedom is to the press what oxygen is to the human being; it is the essential condition of its survival. To talk of a democracy without a free press is a contradiction in terms. A free press is not an optional extra in a democracy.24 4. Whether the compensation of Rs. 30 lakhs granted to Baba Satyanand for personal distress justiciable? It is humbly submitted to the Hon’ble High court the appellant by virtue of the present suit proceeding is seeking damages of Rs 1 crores, which according to its own averments has no justification or basis. Further granting Rs. 30 lakh only for the mere cause of personal distress is not justiciable under any law. Personal distress can be define as a highly troublesome mental or physical reaction such as anguish (extremely distressed about something, severe suffering), humiliation, fright that results from another person’s conduct; emotional pain and suffering. It is humbly contended that the magazine had put Baba Satyanand in situation called as travesty, which means to put someone in a ridiculous, unbelievable setting for the mere purpose 22

438 F.3d 119, 123 24 (1st Cir.2006) [1891] 2 Ch 269 24 Sri Navin Das and another v. Smt. Ranjita Singh C.S. No. 7240 of 2014 23

12 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

2nd ANAND SWAROOP GUPTA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

of effect. Furthermore as it was contended in the case Hustler Magazine v. Falwell25 that all the public figure are supposed to have thick skin.26 This contention was raised on the grounds that if a person is a public figure they are prone to criticism and humour and if they do not have thick towards any type of criticism or humour then that would amount to violation of fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression. Furthermore if the claim of defamation has been negated how the claim of personal distress can sustain as both the claims arose from the same cause of action. As the district court has not found Silbil liable for the tort of defamation how they be held liable for personal distress. There are no objective grounds to prove the liability of Silbil Magazine for personal distress. As the law of torts is not codified there are no fixed criteria to determine the compensation for personal distress, the court has the authority to decide from case to case basis. But while deciding the compensation the court keeps in mind the cause of action for personal distress and the financial condition of the respondent. Making respondents liable for what they had no malice to will be unjust to the magazine. Punishing them for a single misinterpretation with no malice with costly personal distress charges will almost certainly derail any further conversation. If Silbil magazine was to pay the amount then in future any other magazine would not be able to produce any parody or for that matter any caricature for humour purpose which will result in an unjustified restriction on the freedom of speech and expression. Therefore the order granting appellant a compensation of Rs. 30 lakhs should be reversed.

25 26

485 U.S. 46 (1988) Hustler Magazine v. Falwell 485 U.S. 46 (1988)

13 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

2nd ANAND SWAROOP GUPTA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

Prayer In the light of the facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the Counsel for the Petitioners humbly pray before this Hon’ble Court as per the principles of natural justice, equity and good conscience, to kindly adjudge and declare: 1. That the suit filed by Amarchand is dismissed. 2. That the order given by the District Court is reversed and Silbil is not liable to pay compensation. 3. That the publication of parody did not amount to defamation. 4. That the court does not grant injunction to the Appellants. And pass any other appropriate order as the court may deem fit. And for this act of kindness, the Petitioners as in duty bound, shall forever pray.

Respectfully Submitted Sd/ Counsel for Respondent

14 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

2nd ANAND SWAROOP GUPTA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2017

Bibliography Books referred-: 

RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, The Law of Torts, 27th ed.



A Lakshminath and M Sridhar, Ramaswamy Iyer’s The Law of Torts, tenth edn, First Reprint, 2010. Barbara Harvey & John Marston, Cases and Commentary on Tort, 6th ed, reprinted, 2011. Avtar singh ‘contract and specific relief’ twelfth Edition ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE LAWS OF ENGLAND, Vol 6 (1st Edn by A.W. Renton) 464. Winfield & Jolowicz, Tort, 19th ed.

   

Articles referred-: 

Opinion lead freedom of the press and journalistic ethics.



Freedom of Press in Indian Constitution: A Brief Analysis

Website referred-: 

www.thehindu.com



www.ijar.com

Journal referred-: 

International Journal of Applied Research

Miscellaneous-: 

Black’s Law dictionary

15 MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT