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
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
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
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
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 Websites-

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/5q384575#page-10
https://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/digital-journalists-legal-guide/protection-
satire-and-parody
Miscellaneous
Indian Constitution, 1950
Black’s Law Dictionary
IV
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
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
Issues
1. Whether the suit filed by Amarchand is maintainable?

2. Whether the publication of parody amounts to defamation under tort law?
against Silbil Magazine?
personal distress justiciable?
3
Summary of Arguments
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”.

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.

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.

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
Arguments Advanced

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.

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 first-
hand 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
Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Law of Torts, 27th ed., p. 186.
2
[1921] 3 KB 560
5
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 right-
thinking 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.
4
Hayward v. Thompson, (1981) 3 AII ER 450 (458) (CA).
5
Holdsworth Ltd v. Associated Newspapers Ltd (1937) 3 AII ER 817 (HL).
6
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
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:
7
People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, (2004) 2 SCC 476: AIR 2004 SC 1442.
8
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.
8
“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
Bonnard v Perryman (1891) 2 Ch 269.
16
Hustler magazine v. Falwell (1988) 485 U.S 46.
9
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.

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
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
20
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.
11
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)
23
[1891] 2 Ch 269
24
Sri Navin Das and another v. Smt. Ranjita Singh C.S. No. 7240 of 2014
12
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
485 U.S. 46 (1988)
26
Hustler Magazine v. Falwell 485 U.S. 46 (1988)
13
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
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

Respondent Memo Final PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Respondent Memo Final PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Appeal against the order by the Hon’ble District Court

2nd ANAND SWAROOP GUPTA MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Cases Referred Page No.

Statues and Legislations

Essays, Articles and Websites-

1. Whether the suit filed by Amarchand is maintainable?

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

4. Whether the compensation of Rs. 30 lakhs granted to Baba Satyanand for

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

no injunction should be granted.

You might also like