Issue 1:Defamation

The respondents would like to appeal that the petitioner herein claiming the protection of both
the first and the ninth exception to section 499 of the Latverian Penal Code of 1860 has been
convicted in the trial court order dated June 14, 2018 with a imprisonment period of 2 years acc
u/s 500 of the latverian penal code. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner appealed before the
Hon’ble High court of jud. However, the same was dism summarily.
Consequently, petitioner Ms.Mallaya was constrained to file Special Leave Petition (Crl) No. 89
of 2018 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Latveria.
sub issue-1
First exception to section 499 of the Latverian Penal Code
Imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published –
It is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it be for the
public good that the imputation should be made or published. Whether or not it is for the public
good is a question of fact.
(1) Sri E Prasanna S/O Eshwarappa vs Sri H R Sanjeeva on 11 December, 2013

In the case on hand, accused has not controverted the contents of defamatory statement stated
supra. The accused has not established that defamatory statement made against complainant is
true. Though accused has contended that statement was published in public interest, yet the
accused should not have made such imputation without ascertaining the truth. When accused has
failed to prove that statement published by him is true, accused cannot invoke exception 1 or 2
to section 499 IPC. The learned Judge of I-appellate court, without referring to exceptions 1 and
2 to section 499 IPC has made unwarranted observations, which are omnibus in nature. The
learned Judge of I-appellate court was not justified in reversing the judgment of trial court.
Therefore, impugned judgment cannot be sustained.

Sub issue-2
Ninth exception to section 499 of the Latverian Penal Code
Imputation made in good faith by erson for protection of his or other’s interest .-
It is not defamation to make an imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the
interests of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good.
(2) Janab Sultan Salahuddin Owaisi vs Syed Viqaruddin And Anr. on 5 November,
2004
No imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly,
in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the
character of that person in respect of his caste or his calling, or lowers the credit of that person,
or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state
generally considered as disgraceful."

Submissions at length were made by both the Counsel. The Counsel representing the appellant
placed reliance on Exception 9 of Section 499 IPC and contending that the same is not attracted
and on the contrary the learned Counsel representing A-2 placing reliance on Exception 3
of Section 499IPC. Exception 1 of Section 499 dealing with imputation of truth which public
good requires to be made or published, reads.

(3) Ganesh Narayan Hegde vs S. Bangarappa And Others on 10 October,

1999

Mr. B.V. Acharya, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant relying upon the judgment in the
case of Harbhajan Singh v State of Punjab and Another (from Punjab ) submitted that the
respondent 1, did not make this statement in good faith and for the public good. Unless the
statement is made for the public good and in good faith, Exception 9 cannot be invoked. He
submitted that the respondent 1 has been the staunch enemy of Sri Ramakrishna Hegde, the
then Chief Minister. Since he lost the chance of becoming the Chief Minister of Karnataka State,
he was just waiting for any opportunity, come what may, to assassinate the character of Sri
Ramakrishna Hegde. He also submitted that this statement was made just to prejudice the
supporters and mar the prospects of Sri Ramakrishna Hegde to succeed in the election from the
Kanakapura constituency. On the other hand, Mr. C.V. Nagesh, refuted all these submissions.
He also relied upon the same decision. It is submitted by him that imputation that is made by
respondent 1 squarely fits in under Exception 9 of Section 499, Indian Penal Code and also
submitted that the statement is not correctly reported by the press.

Therefore, It is question of fact --Concurrent finding as to good faith by lower Courts Supreme
Court when will interfere in appeal.

Whether or not good faith has been proved by an accused person who pleads in his defence the
Ninth Exception under Section 499 to a charge of defamation under Section 500 of
the Indian Penal Codeis a question of fact. Even if it is assumed to be a mixed question of law
and fact, where the Courts below give a concurrent finding on such a question, the Supreme
Court does not generally re-examine the matter for itself when exercising its jurisdiction
under Article 136 of the Constitution.
ISSUE 2.That Section 124 A of the Latverian Penal Code does not violate provisions of the
Constitution of Latveria.

124A. Sedition — Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible

representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or
attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law in Latveria, shall be
punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which
may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.
Explanation 1— The expression “disaffection” includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity.
Explanation 2— Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the Government with a
view to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred,
contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.
Explanation 3 — Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of
the Government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not
constitute an offence under this section.
In the case of Ram Nandan v. State of U.P. The Hon’ble High Court held that section 124-A
imposed restriction on the freedom of speech which is not in the interest of the general public
and hence declared 124-A as ultra vires. In Kedar Nath v State of Bihar, The Supreme Court
overruled Ram Nandan’s Case and held that Sedition laws are constitutional. The Court, while
upholding the constitutionality of the judgement distinguished between “the Government
established by law” and “persons for the time being engaged in carrying on the administration.
The Supreme Court clarified that the crime of sedition was a crime against the State and was
intended to protect the very existence of the State. The purpose of the crime of sedition was to
prevent the Government established by law from being subverted because “the continued
existence of the Government established by law is an essential condition of the stability of the
State”. The 5 judges constitutional bench observed that any acts within the meaning of s. 124A
which have the effect of subverting the Government by bringing that Government into contempt
or hatred, or creating disaffection against it, would be within the penal statute because the feeling
of disloyalty to the Government established by law or enmity to it imports the idea of tendency
to public disorder by the use of actual violence or incitement to violence. In other words, any
written or spoken words, etc., which have implicit in them the idea of subverting Government by
violent means, which are compendiously included in the term 'revolution', have been made penal
by the section in question. Thus, according to the Supreme Court the essence of the crime of
sedition requires acts which are intended to have the “effect of subverting the Government” by
violent means. The Supreme Court also clarified that mere “strong words used to express
disapprobation of the measures of Government with a view to their improvement or alteration by
lawful means” is not sedition. The Supreme Court clarified that a “citizen has a right to say or
write whatever he likes about the Government, or its measures, by way of criticism or comment,
so long as he does not incite people to violence against the Government established by law or
with the intention of creating public disorder.
The court also viewed this section constitutional by supporting the view of the Federal court in
the case of Niharendu Dutt Majumdar Vs. King Emperor.
Section 124 A of the Latverian Penal Code do not violate Article 19(1) of constitution of
Latveria which grants freedom of speech.
Under Article 19(2) the state may make a law imposing reasonable restrictions on the exercise of
the right to freedom of speech and expression. The expression used in Art. 19(2) “in the interest
of” gives a wide amplitude to the permissible law which can be enacted to impose reasonable
restrictions on the right guaranteed by Art 19(1)(a). The reason behind this is that while it is
necessary to maintain and preserve freedom of speech and expression in a democracy, it is also
necessary to place some curbs on this freedom for the maintenance of social order.
In present case Ms. Mallaya in her column (an open letter to the Oppressors) accused the Prime
minister and members of Bajoran led governments in Latveria of corruption, human rights
violations and wanton discrimination against the Khalas, declared the SSA 2018 to be a
draconian law and underscored the lack of action taken against Mr. Dimitri von Beuren apropos
to the role he played in instigating communal riots of 2016. This was clearly an attempt to excite
disaffection towards, the government established by law in Latveria. Thus, she had committed
the offence of sedition. In Hardik Patel v. State of Gujarat The Gujarat government booked a
Patel leader under sedition for sending messages containing “offensive language against the
Prime Minister, the State Chief Minister and Amit Shah, the President of BJP”. These cases are
indicative of a high level of intolerance being displayed by governments towards the basic
freedom enjoyed by citizens.
The right guaranteed under Art 19(1) (a) is subject to such reasonable restriction as would come
within the purview of clause (2), to Art 19 which comprises
(a) security of the State,
(b) friendly relations with foreign states,
(c) public order,
(d) decency or morality, etc.
(e) Sovereignty and integrity of India

In the present case Ms. Helena Mallaya brings hatred among the peoples of Latveria especially
among the Khalas community against the government and the crowd on the day of resistance
were instigated by phrases of her column as they were heard of chanting some set phrases used
by her in her column (An open letter to oppressors). Thus, for security of state and Public order
she has been arrested which is lawful.

The object of sedition generally is to induce discontent and insurrection, to stir up opposition to
the Government and to bring the administration of justice into contempt, and the very tendency
of sedition is to incite the people to insurrection and rebellion. (Fitzerland, J., in Reg. v. A.M.
Sullivan (1868) 11 Cox CC 44)

A person may be charged not only with exciting but also with attempting to excite and both
successful and unsuccessful attempts to excite dissatisfaction were placed on the same
footing. Q.E. vs Bal Gangadhar Tilak [1898 ILR 22 Bom. 112]
. Aseem Trivedi vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) Aseem Trivedi, best known for his anti-
corruption campaign, Cartoons Against Corruption, was arrested on charges of sedition, in 2010.
The complaint, filed by Amit Katarnayea who is a legal advisor for a Mumbai-based NGO,
condemns Trivedi’s display of ‘insulting and derogatory’ sketches, that depicted the Parliament
as a commode and the National Emblem in a negative manner having replaced the lions with
rabid wolves, during an Anna Hazare protest against corruption, as well as posting them on
social networking sites. He was charged with life imprisonment for his seditious act.

ISSUE 3.That the Security and Solidarity Act 2018 is not ultra vires and does not violate
the constitutional provisions.
Article 19(1)(a) confers freedom of speech to the citizens of this country and, thus, this provision
ensures that the petitioners could raise slogan, albeit in a peaceful and orderly manner, without
using offensive language. Article 19(1)(b) confers the right to assemble and, thus, guarantees that
all citizens have the right to assemble peacefully and without arms.
But this right is not absolute and there can be restr. that can be placed on the same which Article
19(2) states:-
Article 19(2) of Latverian Constitution states that “Nothing in sub clause (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 interests 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 offence”
In Rama. Muthuramalingam v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police the court held that the
rights of freedom of speech and expression and the right to assemble peaceably are subject to
reasonable restr. from the point of view of public order, security of State, etc., and they are not
absolute rights.

There had been similar laws which are held to be constitutional:-

The Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) prohibits any assembly of five or
more people in an area where it has been imposed.
According to the law, every member of such "unlawful assembly" can be booked for "engaging
in rioting". The maximum punishment for such act is three years. Moreover, obstructing police
from breaking up an unlawful assembly is a punishable offence as well.
Anticipatory restr. are imposed generally in cases of eme. , where there is an apprehended danger
of some event that has the potential to cause major public nuisance or damage to public
tranquility. The gist of action under S.144 is the urgency of the situation; its efficacy is the
likelihood of being able to prevent some harmful occurrences. Preservation of the public peace
and tranquility is the primary function of the Government.
In the case of Acharya Jagdisharanand Avadhut v Police Commissioner, Calcutta where the
Anand Margis were prohibited from conducting Tandava dance on the streets or carry skulls in
their processions, by an order of the Commissioner under section 144 of the code
Hidayutallah, C. J., stated in the celebrated case of Madhu Likaye v S.D.M. Monghyr, that
section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not unconstitutional if properly applied and the
fact that it may be abused is no ground for it's being struck down. And the provisions of the Code
properly understood are not in excess of the limits laid down in the Constitution for restricting
the freedom guaranteed in it and that is precisely why the Court held that section 144 of the
Criminal Procedure Code is valid and Constitutional.
Since the propriety of the order is open to challenge, it cannot be said that by reason of the wide
amplitude of the power which section 144 confers on certain magistrates, it places unreasonable
restrictions on certain FR. The conferment of such wide powers on the Magistrate does not
therefore amount to an infringement of the rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The
petitioner here challenged the provision as giving arbitrary powers to the Magistrate. For calling
the power not as arbitrary the court said that as this power can only be exercised in cases of eme.
SSA 2018 was enacted which aimed to restore the status quo in Latverian archipelago. The
security of State and public order was at stake. Therefore, working with article 19(2) SSA does
not violate the provisions of constitution as Govt. is allowed to make rules or laws restricting FR
given under Article 19(1) but the restri. must be on those grounds as specified in Article 19(2).

ISSUE 4: That the amendment made by the government to Security and Solidarity Act of
2018 led to violation of freedom, violation of speech, expression and profession.

The respondents would like to appeal that there was no violation of the rights given in the
constitution of Latveria as acc to the constitution of Latveria the government of it has the power
to restrict the rights of people, press and media to stop them publishing something which is a
sub- judice matter and publishing of the news can affect the overall judgement of the court.
Under article 19(2) of the constitution government can place reasonable restrictions on the rights
of the people under some special circumstances:

(A) Sovereignty and Integrity of India

(B) Secularity of the State
(C) Friendly relations with foreign states
(D) Public Order
(E) To prevent incitement to offence
(F) Decency
(G) Morality
(H) Contempt of Court
(I) Defamation.
In a decision, the Supreme Court indicated the parameter of fair criticism and held that if the
criticism is likely to interfere with due administration of justice or undermine the confidence
which the public rightly response in the courts of law as court of justice, the criticism would
cease to be fair reasonable criticism as contemplated by section 5 but would scandalize courts
and substantially interfere with administration of justice. (1)(Ram Dayal Vs. State of UP,
popularly known as Umaria Pamphlet case, AIR 1978 SC 921.)

Section 7 refers to proceedings of Court in chambers or in camera. In such cases, there are
several categories of prohibited publication namely (a) where publication is contrary to the
provisions of any Act for the time being in force; or (b) where the Court expressly injuncts the
publication of all information relating to the proceeding; or (c) where publication of such
proceeding or information is prohibited on grounds of public policy; or (d) the publication of any
proceeding where the Court sits in Chamber or in camera; or (e) where publications are not
permitted for reasons connected with the public order and the security of the State; or (f) where
the information about such proceeding relates to secret process; or (g) discovery or invention
which is the subject matter of such proceeding. Sub Section (2) of Section 7 provides that a
person shall not be guilty of contempt of court for publishing the text or a fair and accurate
summary of an order made by a Court sitting in Chamber or in camera, unless the Court has
prohibited such publication on grounds of public policy or reasons connected with public order
or security of the State or on the ground that the information relates to the secret process.

(2) (Naresh V State of Maharashtra AIR 1967 SC 1.10.11.) decided by the Supreme Court
holds that, where the ends of justice would be defeated by a public trial, a court has an inherent
jurisdiction to hold the trial in camera. Further, the Supreme Court has held that the power to
hold the trial in camera must include the power to hold a part of the trial in camera or toprohibit
excessive publication of the proceedings held at such trial.the constitutional, statutory and other
restrictions or mandates of media ethics need to be obeyed because such restrictions are not
unreasonable but are founded on good public policy. The media, in my view, can operate quite
effectively and in a responsible manner under the umbrella of fundamental right of freedom of
speech and expression guaranteed to it and respected and recog by law courts in India and people
at large. A right, however fundamental it may be, cannot be devoid of corresponding duty and
obligation not to interfere with such right of others and destabilising the functioning of other
limbs of democracy and the fabric of the Indian Society, the equilibrium of which, in the context
of multi religious, multi lingual and multi ethnic denominations, is extremely delicately
balanced. It is bound to suffer irreparable damage if irresponsible and unbridled reporting is
allowed in the name of freedom of speech and expression. In this context, it will be worthy to
remember the comment of Justice Black in dissenting judgment in (3) Dennis Versus US (1951)
341 US. “There comes a time when even speech loses its constitutional immunity. Speech
innocuous one year may at another time fan such destructive flames that it must be halted in the
interests of the safety of the Republic. When conditions are so critical that there will be no time
to avoid the evil that the speech threatens, it is time to call a halt. Otherwise, free speech which is
the strength of the Nation will be the cause of its destruction”’.

The Constitution of India has not laid down any specific provisions for fundamental rights to be
enjoyed by the media as such. The media persons enjoy the freedom of speech and expression
subject to reasonable restrictions like any other Indian citizen. Law courts in India including the
Apex Court of the country have not failed to observe in no uncertain terms that freedom of
speech and expression enshrined in Article 19 (1) (a) isavailable to media even though, the
Constitution does not specifically refer to media.
Aarushi murder case is a glaring example ofmedia’s overdoing and unethical practice. Such
action of media often induces the general public to believe in the complicity of the person
indicted by the media thereby putting undue pressure on the course of fair investigation by
the police. Privilege of presumption of innocence to which an accused is entitled to is blatantly
discarded by the media in presenting facts, often distorted and unverified and presented with
angularity pointing to the involvement of the person indicted in the commission of crime. It is a
general practice in today world that media and newspaper pick up a case and present it in such a
way that it is thought the person is guilty and if he Is later acquitted it is thought that there must
have been some manipulation by the police or some related emergencies. The section 2(c) of
contempt of courts act include the Criminal contempt which further includes contempt of court
due to words spoken orwritten or even by signs or by visible representations which scandalizes
or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court or prejudices or
interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceeding or interferes or
tends to interfere with or obstructs or tends to obstruct the administration of justice in any other
manner.
In Perspective Publications Vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1971 SC221, 230), the Supreme
Court held that it is open to anyone to express fair, reasonable and legitimate criticism of any act
or conduct of a judge in his judicial capacity or even to make a proper and fair comment on any
decision given by him because ‘justice is not cloistered virtue and she must be allowed to suffer
the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments