TC - 25

4th GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF HELIOPOLIS
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

In the matter of:

ATHENA INC…………………………………………………………………………………………………..PETITIONER

V.

TELEVISION WATCHDOG……………………………………………………………………………………RESPONDENT
n
Clubbed with
W.P (civil no);47 of 2023
and
SLP (civil no);3478 0f 2023

ON SUBMITION BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF HELIOPOLIS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 4th GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE Of ABBREVIATION………………………………………………………….…..2

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………………..…..3

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………………………………………...……5

STATEMENT OF FACT……………………………………………………………...……..6

STATEMENT OF ISSUES………………………………………………………………..…8

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS……………………………………………………………..9

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED……………………………………………………………….10

[Link] REGULATION 9 OF THE TELEVISION BROADCASTING

REGULATIONS,2008 IS VIOLATIVE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE
CONSTITUTION AND IS THUS, UNCONSTITUIONAL?.............................................11

1.1violation of article14……………………………….……………………………...…..…12

1.2violation of article 19……………………………………………………...……..……..…13

1.3violation of article 21………………………………………………………….………..…15

1.4unconstitutional under article 13…………………………………………..…….………...17

[Link] THE JUDGMENT OF HIGH COURT OF MEMPHIS HOLDING

REGULATION 9 IS A FEDRAL SUBJECTS, CAN THE JUDGMENT BE APPLIED
THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY OF HELOPOLIS?......................................................18

2.1 Judicial precedent………………………………………………………………………...18

2.2 Absence of reason of judgment…………………………………………………………..18

2.3 contention of supreme court………………………………………………………………19

2.3 Judicial pronouncement regarding binding……………………………………….………19

[Link] TELECOM WATCHDOG HAS THE POWER TO REGULATE

DURATION OF DURATION OF ADVERTISMENT IN PUBLIC
INTEREST?..........................................................................................................................21

pg. 1
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT
 4th GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 2023

3.1Public interest include the interest of Broadcasting company, that is individual…………..21

3.2 Restriction on duration is arbitrary without reasonable restriction………………..…..…23

3.3 Restriction on duration is arbitrary without reasonable restriction………………...……..24.

3.4 public interest include the interest of broadcasting………………………………………24

PRAYER………………………….………………………………………………………….25

pg. 2
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT
4th GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 2023

TABLE OF ABREVIATIONS

ABBERIVATION EXPANSION

Art article

SC Supreme Court

HC High Court

UOI Union of India

SCC Supreme Court Cases

Vs. Versus

ORS others

Hon’ble Honourable

No Number

& And

Comp. Company

Govt. Government

pg. 3
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT
 4th GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 2023

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

1. In Kedar Nath Bajoria v. West Bengal, Air 1953 Sc 404

2. .Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice s.r. Tendolkar, Air 1958
3. Romesh Thappar Vs State Of Madras,
4. s Rangrajan Vs p Jagjivan Ram , (1989) 2 Scc 574 (1989) 2 Scr 204.
The Constitution Of India Act 1950
4. Ramlila Maidan Incident Vs Home Secretary , Union Of India
5. Brij Bhushan &Another Vs State Of Delhi Air 1950 Scc 605
6. Hamdard Dawakhana Vs Uoi, 1960 Sc 554
7. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corp. (1985) 3 Scc 545: Air 1986 Sc 180, 193, [Deprive
a Person Of His Right To Livelihood And Shall Have Deprived Him Of His Life];
8. Dtc v. Madr Congress, 1991 Supp (1) Scc 600: Air 1991 Sc 101; Delhi Development
9. Horticulture Employees Union v. Delhi Admn., (1992) 4 Scc 99: Air 1992 Sc 789;
10. Narendra Kumar Chandla v. State Of Haryana, (1994) 4 Scc 460: Air 1995 Sc 519.
11. Maneka Gandhi Vs Union Of India Air 1978 Sc 597
12. Sodan Singh Vs New Delhi Municipal Committee
13. Menka Gandhi Vs Union Of India Air 978 Scc 597
14. Megh Singh Vs State Of Punjab Air 2003 Sc 3184
15. Commissioner Of Income - Tax Vs Thana Electricity Supply Ltd , 1993
16. m/s East India Commercial Co. Ltd. Calcutta And Another Vs Collector Of Customs,
Calcutta 1962 (5)Tmi 23 – Supreme Court Of India
17. Ommissioner Of Income Tax Vs Thana Electricity Supply Limited, 1993(4) Tmi 37 ,
Bombay High Court
18. Kameshwar Prasad Vs State Of Bihar, 1962
[Link] Association Of Bengal 1995 Air Sc 1236 :: 1995 (2) Scc 161

Statutes
Cable Television Network Regulation Act, 1994
Cable Television Network Regulations Act, 1995
Television Regulation Act, 2000
Consumer Protection Act, 2019

Books Refrred
Constitution Of India, 1950

pg. 4
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT
 4th GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 2023

J.N Pandey, Constitution of India

D.D Basu Constitution Of India
V.D Mahajan Jurisprudence

pg. 5
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT
 4th GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 2023

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

I W.P(civil) no:47 of 2023

The respondent has approached this Hon’ble court under Art.321 of the Constitution of
Heliopolis.
II SLP(civil) NO: 3478 OF 2023

The respondent has approached this Hon’ble Court under Art.1362 of the Constitution of
Heliopolis.

1
Article 32 of the Constitution of India states-
“Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part- (1) The right to move the Supreme Court by
appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of
habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the
enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2), Parliament may by
law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers
exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this
Constitution.”

2
Article 136, the Supreme Court in its discretion may grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree,
determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter, passed or made by any court or tribunal in the
territory of India. This is called 'Special Leave Petition' (SLP)

pg. 6
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT
 4th GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 2023

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Heliopolis is a sovereign republic and one of the largest democracies in the world. In 1990,
it adopted a new Constitution, which guaranteed fundamental rights to persons and citizens.
Heliopolis is a Union of States with the federal government having power to legislate on
broadcast and airways. The Constitution provides for High Courts in every State and a Supreme
Court at the national capital of Luxor, both having power to enforce fundamental rights.

2. In 2001, the then government introduced a series of economic reforms, which led to The
rapid growth of television industry and private broadcasting companies. It is germane to note
that for these broadcasting companies, advertisements remain to be one of the major sources
of revenue given the nature of cable tv subscriptions, especially in cases such as news
broadcasting channels, which provide a very nominal subscription fee or even free subscription
to millions of viewers.

3. In light of the rapid expansion of private broadcasters, the federal government enacted the
Television Broadcasting Regulations Act, 2006 (“Act”). Under section 19(1) of the Act,
Television Watchdog, the Regulator under the Act, is empowered to make regulations to carry
out the provisions of the Act. This resulted in the publication of Television Broadcasting
Regulations, 2008 (‘Regulations’) setting out several conditions to regulate TV broadcast in
the country.

4. Reference is made to Regulation 9, which seeks to place restrictions on the duration of

advertisements. It reads as follows: No programme shall carry advertisements exceeding 10
minutes per hour, which may include up to 8 minutes per hour of commercial advertisements,
and up to 2 minutes per hour of a channel’s self-promotional programmes.

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

Regulation 9. Athena Inc is a news broadcasting company, which started its broadcasting
operation in the year 2003 and has its registered office in New Memphis, the capital of State of
Memphis. With time, Athena Inc has earned the reputation of being one of the most independent
and reliable news broadcasters in the country. The news channel offers cheap subscription (free
in villages) to its viewers and earns revenue solely from the advertisements broadcasted during
the news breaks.

6. Aggrieved by the implementation of Regulation 9, Athena Inc approached the High Court of
Memphis seeking a writ of declaration to declare Regulation 9 as unconstitutional. The High

pg. 7
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT
 4th GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 2023

Court, in a detailed judgment, ruled in favour of Athena Inc and declared Regulation 9 as
unconstitutional. Parallelly, there was a similar petition filed by news broadcaster TV Hox,
which was filed in the High Court of State of Thinis. This was pending adjudication when the
High Court of Memphis pronounced its judgment.

7. Subsequent to the judgment of the High Court of Memphis, Athena Inc and other news
broadcasters increased the duration of advertisements. In this background, Television
Watchdog issued directions (Directive No: 1 of 2023) to Athena Inc and other broadcasters to
strictly adhere to Regulation 9 in other jurisdictions except State of Memphis wherein the High
Court had declared Regulation 9 as unconstitutional. Such a view was adopted by Television
Watchdog purportedly on the ground that the judgment rendered by the High Court of Memphis
applied only to the State of Memphis. It also highlighted the fact that a similar writ petition
was still pending in the High Court of State of Thinis

8. In view of such a position taken by the Television Watchdog, Athena Inc has preferred a writ
petition (W.P. No: 47 of 2023) under Article 32 before the Supreme Court of Heliopolis
challenging the validity of Directive No: 1 of 2023 issued by the Television Watchdog. On the
other hand, Television Watchdog has preferred a Special Leave Petition against the judgment
of High Court of Memphis before the Supreme Court of Heliopolis (SLP No: 3478 of 2023).
The Supreme Court issued notices in the respective cases and clubbed them for final hearing.
The Television Watchdog has filed a counter affidavit stating that they received multiple
representations from the public regarding increase in advertisements in TV channels. As such,
it was in public interest that they decided to implement Regulation 9.

pg. 8
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT
 4th GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 2023

STATEMENT OF ISSUE

ISSUE 1

WHWTHER REGULATION 9OF THE TELEVISION BROADCASTING

REGULATIONS, 2008IS VIOLATIVE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE
CONSTITUTION ANS IS THUS, UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

ISSUE
WHWTHER THE JUDGMENT OF HIGH COURT OF MEMPHIS HOLDING
REGULATION 9 AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL IS CONFINED TO THE TERRITORIAL
LIMITS OF STATES OF MEMPHIS? OR, SINCE REGULATION 9 IS A FEDRAL
SUBJECT, CAN THE JUDGMENT BE APPLIED THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY
OF HELIOPOLIS?

ISSUE 3

WHWTHER TELECOM WATCHDOG HAS THE POWER TO REGULATE

DURATION OF ADVERTISMENTS IN PUBLIC INTEREST?

pg. 9
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT
 4th GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 2023

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

[Link] THE REGULATION 9 OF THE TELEVISION BROADCASTING

REGULATIONS. 2008 IS VIOLATIVE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE
CONSTITUTION AND THUS, UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

The respondent humbly Submits before the honourable court that the Regulation 9 of the
Television Broadcasting Act 2008, does not violates the provisions of the constitution which
includes the Art.14, which includes Art. 19, which includes Art21 and which includes Art.13
under these article regulation 9 is not violated the provisions of the constitution, on contrary
the respondent submits that the Regulation 9 of the Television Broadcasting Act 2008 is
constitutional.

2. WHETHER THE JUDGMENT OF HIGH COURT OF MEMPHIS HOLDING THE

REGULATION 9 AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL IS CONFINED TO THE TERRITORIAL
LIMITS OF STATE OF MEMPHIS? OR, SINCE REGULATION 9 IS A FEDRAL
SUBJECT, CAN THE JUDGMENT BE APPLIED THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY
OF HELIOPOLIS

The respondent humbly submits before the Hon’ble Court that the judgment of high court of
Memphis holding the regulation 9 as constitutional is confined to the territorial limits of state
of Memphis and the judgment canot applied throughout the country as it is a matter of a high
court and the judgment given by HC is not binding to all over the country as it is a territorial
limits and it is limited to the territory of country and it is not applied throughout the country.

[Link] TELEVISION WATCHDOG HAS THE POWER TO REGULATE

DURATION OF ADVERTISMENTS IN PUBLIC INTEREST?

The respondent humbly submits before the Hon’ble Court that television watchdog has power
to the power to make the law which restrict the time limit of the advertisement as mentioned
under article 19(2) of the constitution and other constitutional provisions and the television
regulatory authority of India which clearly states that any body made by the central government
has the power to make laws for all over the country.

pg. 10
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT
 4th GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 2023

ARGUMENT ADVANCED

1. WHETHER THE REGULATION 9 OF THE TELEVISION BROADCASTING

REGULATION, 2008 IS VIOLATIVE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE
CONSTITUTION AND IS THUS, UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

The respondent humbly submits before the court that the Regulation 9 of the Television
Broadcasting Regulation, 2008 is not violative of the provisions of the Constitution and it is
constitutional on the ground of [1.1] not violating article 14 [1.2] not violating article 19 [1.3]
not violating of article 21 [1.4] constitutional under article 13.

1.1 Not violating Article 14

It is humbly submitted before the court that the regulations 9 of the Television Broadcasting
Regulations 2008 is neither violative of the Art 14 which typically pertains the right of equal
protection of law nor deemed to be void or unconstitutional if it violates the principle of
equality including both principal of equal treatment and prohibition of arbitrary action of
government. The same could be proved by 1.1.1 positive discrimination, equal protection of
law 1.1.2 satisfy the doctrine of reasonable classification

1.1.1positive discrimination, equal protection of law

it is humbly submitted before the court that the Art.14 talks about the equal protection of law
which means that, the right to equal treatment in similar circumstances, both in the privileges
conferred and in the liabilities imposed. the positive discrimination, discrimination between the
alike person

our law does accept that god has not created all of us equal there are some people who are tall
and there some people who are short, some people who are fat some people who are thin. Since
the god has not created every one equal and not human beings are equal the demand from legal
system is not this, that they come up with one law for every one, infact the political parties and
the ideological groups which talks of one law, one group, one religion are not fully understand
the demands of our constitution, our constitution talks pluralism, our constitution does permits
classification and there is laws for different groups.

The universality of law that one law should apply to every one is not the demand of the Art.14
Nevertheless, since Art.14 has been borrowed from the universal declaration of human rights
1948 and India was one of the original party of the UDHR it says that every human being must

pg. 11
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT
 4th GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 2023

be entitled to some inalienable in divisional rights and right to citizenship will be that
fundamental right which is to be guarantee to every human being by virtue of his human nature
by virtue of his character as he/she or the third person so since citizenship is right to it cannot
be deny the in the name of differences religion race cast sex place of birth. After all

SC said that the equal protection of law is guaranteed by article 14 of constitution does not
mean that all the laws must be in general character and universal in application and the state is
no longer to have the power of distinguishing and classifying person or things for the purposes
of legislation so the government is entitled to make differentiation 3 .So, differentiation and
classification is permissible in Art .14 constitution

But, such classification and differentiation satisfy the some test of the classification and then
only government is entitled to make differentiation.

1.1.2satisfy the doctrine of reasonable classification

The Supreme Court held that It is now well established that while Article 14 forbids class
legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation. It
condemns discrimination not only by a substantive law but also by a law of procedure.4

Hence, Art.14 forbids the class legislation but it does not forbid reasonable classification,
however, these classifications must not be 'arbitrary, artificial or evasive

in the case of State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, the Supreme Court of India, stated the
twin test for reasonable classification. The court held that for the classification to pass the test,
two conditions must be fulfilled:

i) Classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes those

that are grouped together from others and
ii) The differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the
Act.
Recognition of different factors are necessary

In the instant case the television watchdog is taking the plea of reasonable classification as the
high court of Memphis has given the judgment that the law will not apply to the whole country
so the television watchdog on the basis of judgment of Memphis high court is based on the

3
In Kedar Nath Bajoria v. West Bengal, AIR 1953 SC 404
4
Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar, AIR 1958

pg. 12
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT
 4th GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 2023

state of Memphis and the other state of the Heliopolis are not in the same situation where equal
law will apply in the same circumstances.

Hence, it is further submitted before the court that The Television watchdog has entitled to
apply the regulation 9 differently on the different place with having reasonable classification
grounds and hence, The Regulation 9 of The Television watchdog is not violating the provision
of constitution

1.2 Not violating article 19

It is humbly submitted before the court that the right to freedom of speech and expression and
Right to freedom of occupation and trade has been read into Art.19 of the constitution under
clause (1) & (6) of Art.19 .And Regulation 9 does not violates the article 19 of the constitution.
on the grounds of 1.2.1 not affecting the freedom of speech and expressions of athena that is
article 19(1)(a) 1.2.2 not affecting the freedom of trade and occupation that is 19(1)(g)

1.2.1 Not affecting the freedom of speech and expressions of Athena

Speech and expression is one of the important fundamental rights of the individuals which is
given under the Art.19(1) of the constitution

Freedom of speech and expression include freedom of propagation of ideas, ensured by the
freedom of circulation5

nothing in this sub-section(a) of clause(1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or
prevent the state from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on
the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interest of [ the sovereignty
and integrity of India] the security of the state , friendly relations with foreign states , public
order decency or morality , or in relation to contempt of court , defamation or incitement to an
offence6 .

The right which springs from article 19(1)(a) is not absolute and unchecked. there cannot be
any liberty absolute in nature and uncontrolled in operation so as to confer a right wholly free
from any restraint7

5
Romesh Thappar vs state of madras,
6
Sub clause (2) of Art.19
7
S rangrajan vs p jagjivan ram , (1989) 2 SCC 574 (1989) 2 SCR 204.

pg. 13
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT
 4th GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 2023

Hence, it is submitted the regulation 9 of the television broadcasting act will not violates the
right to freedom of speech and expression of the advertisement company.

1.2.2 Not affecting the freedom of trade and occupation

It is humbly submitted before the court that, freedom of profession, occupation, trade or
business has read under article 19(1)(g) that is, to practice any profession, or to carry on any
occupation, trade or business. 8 Occupation and business is also one of the most important
fundamental rights of the citizens of the country.

article 19(6) states that nothing in this sub-clause (g) of the said clause shall affect the operation
of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the state from making any law imposing
, in the interests of the general public , reasonable restriction on the right conferred by the said
sub-clause shall affects the operation of the existing law.

in the current scenario it cannot be said that the article 19(1)(g) is violated as the government
has not completely taken over the occupation of the broadcasting company as it is just
restricting the time limit for advertisement.

in this case the court held that the fundamental freedom under section 19(1)(a) can be
reasonably restricted for the purpose mentioned under article 19(2) and the restriction must be
justified on the anvil of necessity and not the quicksand of convenience of expediency9 .

the Sc held that the provision of the public safety act did not violate the fundamental right to
freedom of speech and expression, as long as they were reasonable and necessary to protect
public safety and order. the court observed that the right to freedom of speech and expression
was not an absolute right, and the state could impose reasonable restrictions on it in the interest
of general public10.

further owing to the fact of the commercial advertisement - part of freedom of speech and
expression, advertisement is undoubtedly a form of speech. but every form of advertisement is
not a form of speech or expression of ideas. advertisement when it takes the form of commercial
advertisement no longer falls within the concept of freedom of speech for the object of such
advertisement is not the proposition of ideas – social, political or economic or furtherance of

8
The constitution of India act 1950
9
Ramlila Maidan Incident Vs Home Secretary , Union Of India
10
Brij Bhushan &another vs state of Delhi AIR 1950 SCC 605

pg. 14
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT
 4th GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 2023

literature or human thought. an advertisement of 'commercial nature' is not protected under

article 19(1)(a). such advertisement have an element of trade and commerce.

hamdard dawakhana vs uoi the supreme court held that an advertisement is no doubt a form
of speech but every advertisement is not a matter dealing with the freedom of speech and
expression of ideas. in the present case the advertisement was held to be dealing with commerce
or trade and not propagating ideas. advertisement for prohibited drugs would does not fall
within the scope art.19(g)11

to determine public order12 is to see whether the act leads to the disturbances of the situation
of life of the community so as to amount to a disturbances of the public order or whether it
affects merely an individual being the tranquillity of the social disturbed.

Hence, it is further submitted before the court that the Regulation 9 of the television
Broadcasting act is not violating the the freedom of trade and occupation under Art.19

1.3 Not violating article 21

it is humbly submitted before the court that the protection of life and personal liberty has been
read into art.21 of the constitution as 1.3.1 violated the right to livelihood as 1.3.2 violates the
right to liberty

1.3.1 regulation 9 is not violating the right to livelihood

the right to livelihood is included in the right to life "because no person can live without the
means of living, that is, the means of livelihood and deprive a person of his right to livelihood
and shall have deprived him of his life13

the specific meaning of the term right to livelihood means a mode of securing the necessities
of life. persons work is the main source of his livelihood, the concept of right to livelihood is
an integral part of right to life under Art.21 and if any person's right to livelihood is deprived
then it means that the right to life of that person is taken away. under the current scenario the
government after putting restriction does not affect the livelihood of the broadcasting company

11
- Hamdard Dawakhana Vs Uoi, 1960 SC 554
12
Added by the constitution(1st amendment act, 1951)
13
65 Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corp. (1985) 3 SCC 545: AIR 1986 SC 180, 193, [Deprive a person of his
right to livelihood and shall have deprived him of his life]; DTC v. Madr Congress, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 600: AIR
1991 SC 101; Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union v. Delhi Admn., (1992) 4 SCC 99: AIR 1992 SC
789; Narendra Kumar Chandla v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 460: AIR 1995 SC 519.

pg. 15
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT
 4th GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 2023

as the broadcasting company have just been restricted to give 10 minutes of advertisement in
which 8 min for commercial and 2 min for self-promotion, the company have been the
opportunity to earn with the advertisement as well as by putting charges for subscriptions,
hence no right to livelihood has been affected by the government.

further to state that the restriction put by the government is valid and acceptable under article
21 of the constitution with a case law

And for a procedure to be fair and just the it must embody the concept of natural justice which
is intended to invest law with fairness and to secure justice, the court further said that law
should be reasonable law, and not enacted piece of law

In the case the law enacted is fair and reasonable14 and here it is not completely taking off the
livelihood they still have the opportunity to earn

In this case the five-judge bench of the supreme court has held that, the right to carry on any
trade or business in not included in the concept of life and personal liberty. Article 21 is not
attracted in a case of trade and business. The petitioner hawkers doing business of the pavement
of roads in Delhi, had claimed that the refusal by the municipal authorities to them to carry on
business of their livelihood amounted to the violation of their right under article 21 of the
constitution. the court distinguished the ruling of the court in olga tellis case and held that it is
not applicable in this case15

The term advertisement is considered to be a business as it is a marketing activity that can help
you to reach out the potential customers and encourage them to buy your products or services.

Hence, it is submitted before the court that the regulation 9 is not violating the right to
livelihood of the citizens and they are entitled to get the right to livelihood and thus regulation
9 is not violative provision.

1.3.2 Regulation 9 is not Violating the right to liberty

Liberty The concept of liberty is an integral part of the Art.2116 liberty means to free from the
burden or the restriction. liberty is something which is not imposing any obligation and

14
Maneka gandhi vs union of india AIR 1978 SC 597
15
Sodan Singh vs New Delhi Municipal Committee
16
Menka Gandhi vs union of india AIR 978 SCC 597

pg. 16
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT
 4th GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 2023

restriction, liberty means to whatever a person wants to do in his life either related with the
business or related anything in his life.

article 21 does not exclude article 19 and that even if there is a law prescribing procedure for
depriving a person of 'personal liberty ' and there is consequently no infringement of the
fundamental right conferred by Art.21, such law, in so far as it abridges or takes away any
fundamental right under article 19 would have to meet the challenges of that article17

Here in the current scenario the government have not affected the liberty of the Broadcasting
company as they have the complete right to put what so ever add they want to, the government
has just put restriction on the time limit of the advertisement.

Hence, it is further submitted before the court that the regulation 9 is not violating the right to
liberty and the regulation 9 is constitutional.

1.4 constitutional under article 13

It is humbly submitted before the court that the regulation 9 is constitutional under article 13
of the constitution. as Art.13 says that any laws which is inconsistent with the of fundamental
rights declared void or unconstitutional.

Hence it is further submitted before the court that the Regulation 9 is not violating the
fundamental rights which all are above mentioned and thus Regulation 9 is declared
constitutional on the ground of article 13 as declared void.

Regulation 9 constitutional and the judgment given by the High court of Memphis is not valid
judgment as without giving fair and reasonable judgment18

17
ibid
18
ibid

pg. 17
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT
 4th GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 2023

[Link] THE JUDGMENT OF HIGH COURT OF MEMPHIS HOLDING THE

REGULATIONS 9 IS A FEDERAL SUBJECT, CAN THE JUDGMENT BE APPLIED
THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY OF HELIOPOLIS?

It is humbly submitted before the court that the judgment of high court of Memphis holding
the regulations 9 is a federal subject, and the judgment couldn’t be applied throughout the
country of Heliopolis. Under the grounds of [2.1] judicial precedent [2.2] contention of
supreme court [2.3] judicial pronouncement regarding binding

2.1 Judicial precedent

According to gray19 – precedent covers everything said or done, which furnishes a rule for
subsequent practice. and according to salmond , “ it means the guidance or authority of past
decisions for future cased . only such decisions that lay down some new rules or principle are
known as the judicial precedent20

To contend with the general principle of the judicial precedent it is to be said that the decision
of the supreme courts would be applicable on the high courts and the subordinate courts and
the decision of a high court is applicable upon the subordinate courts and would only have a
persuasive value for the other high courts which means that it is upon the discretion of the other
high court whether to abide by the decision or not or whether to use the contentions put in that
decision in their own.

2.2 Absence of reason of judgment

A judgment is valid and of legal effect only if the court that issued it had competence to decide
the questions of law presented by the case, as well as jurisdiction over the persons or things
involved. If the judgment is having a proper reason of the of judgment then only the judgment
will be valid judgment.

NCLAT held that when judgment is pronounced without reasoning, it is not a judgment in the
eye of law for the reason that the requirement of reasoning either by Original Court or Appellate
Authority is to convey the mind of the judge while deciding such an issue before the Tribunal21

19
Website- [Link]
20
ibid
21
Gandhar Oil Refinery (India) Ltd. Vs City Oil Pvt. Ltd. (NCLAT Delhi)

pg. 18
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT
 4th GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 2023

In the instant case matter the judgment given by the high court of Memphis is not valid
judgement as the reason behind the unconstitutionality of the judgment is not given by the high
court of Memphis.

It is further submitted before the court that the judgment without having proper reason of the
judgement whether it is constitutional or unconstitutional will not be the valid judgment hence
the judgment of high court is not having a reason behind the unconstitutional so, it is will not
be applied throughout the country Heliopolis including the Memphis.

2.3 Contention of supreme court

the supreme court held that “circumstantial flexibility, one addition na different facts may make
a world of difference between conclusion in two cases or between two accused in gthe same
case. Each case depends upon its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another
is not enough because a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect22 .”

The supreme court in the case held that the law declared by the supreme court being binding
on all the courts in India, the decisions of the supreme court are binding on all courts except ,
however the supreme court itself which is free to review the same and depart from itrs earlier
opinion if the situation so warrants. However the decision of the high court is binding on the
subordinate courts and the authorities or under its tribunals superintendence throughout its
territories ,it does not exceed beyond its territorial jurisdiction23

Hence in the current situation the decision given by the supreme court will be binding upon all
the high courts as it the highest judicial body

2.4 Judicial pronouncement regarding binding

Under the federal subject matter the term federal means that the state as well as central
government both have the power to regulate the law and in the current scenario the central
government is majorly referred in the case

To question that whether the decision of one high court is binding upon other high courts in the
territory of country.

22
Megh singh vs state of Punjab AIR 2003 SC 3184
23
commissioner of income - tax vs thana electricity supply ltd , 1993

pg. 19
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT
 4th GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 2023

Article 141 of the constitution of Indiana provides that the law declared by the supreme court
is binding on all the courts within the territory of India but with regard the application of
precedents of the high court there is no direct constitutional provision as article 141

The supreme court held that the law declared by the highest court in the state is binding on
authorities or tribunals under its superintendence. Conflicts on the issue between the benches
of the high court even within a high court have been witnessed in many a case. In such a case
the Same would be referred to a larger bench or it would be decided by the supreme court24.

The high court held that a decision of one high court is not binding as precedent on another
high court unlike a decision of the apex court25

In the instant case the the judgment of high court of Memphis will not be applied throughout
the country of Heliopolis hence it is not valid judgment.

24
M/S east india commercial co. ltd. Calcutta and another vs collector of customs, Calcutta 1962 (5)TMI 23 –
supreme court of India
25
ommissioner of income tax vs thana electricity supply limited, 1993(4) TMI 37 , Bombay High Court

pg. 20
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT
 4th GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 2023

[Link] TELEVISION WATCHDOG HAS THE POWER TO REGULATE

DURATION OF ADVERTISEMENTS IN PUBLIC INTEREST?

It is humbly submitted before the court that the court that the restriction put by the telecom
watchdog which is a regulatory authority authorised by the federal government after seeing the
rapid expansion of the private broadcasters. this power of the advertising control can be used
by the state or the federal governments to regulate the use of advertising around the cities,
hence the federal government has made a regulatory authority which have the power.

3.1 Under Article 19(2) of the constitution of India

Where in it has been clearly mentioned that nothing in the sub section (a) of clause (1) shall
affect the operation of any existing law , or prevent the state from making any law, in so far as
such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-
clause in the interest of the security of the state , friendly relations with foreign states, public
order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an
offence.

In the instant case the television watchdog a regulatory body made by the federal government
has brought the restriction upon the time limit of the advertisement to be 10 minutes because it
was in the interest of the public as people were paying charges for the subscription and have to
see lot of advertisement which was affecting their interest.

In this case the supreme court held that the government has the authority to impose reasonable
restrictions on the exercise of the right to freedom of speech and expression under article
19(1)(a). the court recognized that public order, decency and morality are valid grounds for
imposing restrictions on the exercise of this fundamental right. The case established the
principle that the government has the power to impose restrictions on the right to freedom of
speech and expression in the interest of public order, but such restrictions must be reasonable
and not arbitrary26

3.1.1Constitutional provisions

List 1 (union list) of the seventh schedule to the constitution of India covers “posts and
telegraphs, telephones,wireless, broadcasting and other like forms of communication.” thus the

26
Kameshwar prasad vs state of Bihar, 1962

pg. 21
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT
 4th GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 2023

central government as per article 24627 of the constitution can legislate on these [Link]
use of the expression “other like forms of communication”. The expression would encompass
all similar forms of communication, covering both those in existence at the time when the
Constitution was framed and adopted and those which came into existence subsequently. The
framers of the constitution have decided to make broadcasting a federal subject.

3.2Need for a different regulating body to make laws

Now to look on it inspite the central government have the power to make laws than what is the
need for making a different regulating body for making laws28

In this case the supreme court ruled that there is no doubt that since the airwaves/frequencies
are a public property and are also limited, they have to be used in the best interest of the society
and this can be done either by a central authority by establishing its own broadcasting network
or regulating the grant of licences to other agencies, including the private agencies. What is
further, the electronic media is the most powerful media both because of its audio-visual impact
and its widest reach covering the section of the society where the print media does not reach.
The 19 right to use the airwaves and the content of the programes, therefore, needs regulation
for balancing it and as well as to prevent monopoly of information and views relayed, which is
a potential danger flowing from the concentration of the right to broadcast/telecast in the hands
either of a central agency or of few private affluent broadcasters. That is why the need to have
a central agency representative of all sections of the society free from control both of the
Government and the dominant influential sections of the society.

27
Article 246 of the Constitution deals with the division of power between the Union and the States. It
demarcates the powers of the Union and the State by classifying their powers into 3

lists. They are the Union List, the State List and the Concurrent List.

Union list: The Union List is a list of 100 subjects that the Union or Centre government enjoys supreme
jurisdiction over. It consists of subjects of National Importance like defence, foreign affairs, banking,
atomic energy, railways, post etc.

State list: The state list is a list of 61 subjects that state legislatures enjoy jurisdiction over. It consists of
subjects like public order, prisons, public health, production, manufacture, transport, purchase and sale of
intoxicating liquors, agricultural education and research, fisheries, state public services etc.

Concurrent list: The concurrent list is a list of 47 subjects on which both the Union and State legislatures
enjoy jurisdiction. It consists of subjects like criminal law, criminal procedure, preventive detention,
forests, protection of wild animals and birds, trade unions, industrial and labour disputes etc

28
Cricket association of bengal 1995 AIR SC 1236 :: 1995 (2) SCC 161

pg. 22
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT
 4th GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 2023

3.2.1Telecom regulatory authority of India

A regulatory body set up by the government of India u/s 3 of the telecom regulatory authority
,1997 it regulates the telecommunication sector in India. The regulation of the telecom service
is to be done by the TRAI and the telecom dispute settlement appellate tribunal(TDSAT) which
mandate the disputesbetween the service provider and a group of consumer. The union
government, state government, any local aurthority or any individual can approach TDSAT for
adjudication.

The power and function of the TRAI includes to protect the consumer interest. This television
broadcasting comes under the union list where it can make laws for all over the India , to the
similar case the authority appointed by the government of heliopolis can make laws with regard
to the whole of the country. Like the telecom regulatory authority had issued the standard of
quality of service(duration of advertisement in television channels) regulation 2012, which
regulates the duration of broadcasting on advertisement and the length of the commercial. Main
features of which are-

1. Advertisement exceeding 12 minutes in the clock hour and any shortfall of advertisement
duration in any clock hour shall not be carried over by any broadcaster in any broadcast of its
programme.

2. The time gap between end of one advertisement session and the commencement of next
advertisement session shall not be less than fifteen minutes (thirty minutes in case of a movie),
however, this restriction is not applicable to live broadcast of a sporting event.

Further it is submitted that the restriction imposed is 1.2.1not arbitrary and not without
reasonable restriction 1.2.1 public interest include the interest of the broadcasting company

3.3 not arbitrary and not without reasonable restriction

The regulation 9 imposed by the television watchdog is not arbitrary in nature and hence the
government has the power to make the law because the law gives the suitable opportunity to
the television watchdog to make advertisement upto the period of 10 minutes through which
the government saves the right of both the individuals and the broadcasting companies , the
individuals by the way that they do not have to watch unnecessary advertisement and the
broadcasting company by the way that they also have the opportunity to earn by the way of
advertisement and even by imposing charges on the subscription .

pg. 23
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT
 4th GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 2023

To further the term arbitrary means an unreasonable manner, as fixed or done at pleasure,
without determining any methods or principle, which is not founded in nature of things , not
acted according according to reason but instead on the will. Which is not in the current scenario.

3.4Public interest include the interest of broadcasting interest

The term public interest as per the black’s law dictionary means the term public interest is
something in which the public or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are
affected, the interest shared by the national government.

In the current situation the government have not made any which is affecting the interest of the
of the broadcasting company but infect they have make sure to protect the interest of both the
company and the general public.

pg. 24
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT
 4th GURJEET SINGH MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 2023

PRAYER

Therefore, in the light of the facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare that:

[Link] declare the regulation 9 of the Television Broadcasting Act is Constitutional.

2. to declare that the judgment shall not be applied throughout the country.

[Link] declare the television watchdog has power to regulate the duration of advertisement.

And pass any order, writ or direction which the court may deemed fit in the best interest
of justice, equity, and good conscience.

For this act of kindness, the Counsel for the respondent shall be duty bound, forever.

Sd/- (Counsel for the Respondent)

pg. 25
MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENT