ALLIANCE MOOT COURT SOCIETY

5th INTRA-SCHOOL MOOT COURT

MOOT PROPOSITION

Before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

Press Reader Broadcasting Ltd.

v.
P. B. Amrit

1. The Press Reader is a leading 24 hours English television channel with majority
viewership in the Indian Continent which his owned by a media house known as Press
Reader Broadcasting Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as PRBL).
2. In one of its news broadcast on May 30, 2015 at 6.30 P M it broadcasted a story on a
multi-crore provident fund scam. While mentioning the name of a sitting judge of a high
court, namely Justice P K Amritya who was allegedly involved in the scam it
inadvertently displayed the picture of a retired supreme court judge and former Press
board of India Chairman Justice P B Amrit for 15 seconds due to a mix up of phonetically
similar sounding names.
3. After realizing their mistake, the news channel made amends and did not show the picture
in the subsequent bulletins and apologized to Justice Amrit and ran the apology in scroll
news for five continuous days.
4. However, Justice Amrit whose name was familiar with the media for heading the Press
Board proceeded against the PRBL for civil and criminal liability owing to defamation
arising out of the display of his picture instead of the sitting High Court Judge. According
to him apart from civil liability for damages the channel is liable to fine for offence of
libel which was committed by its employee whose criminal intention should be imputed
to the corporation. The employee responsible for the criminal negligence in showing
wrong coverage should also be punished for his defamation to send a touch message to
the news channel against such irresponsible journalism and libelous act.
5. The argument of Justice Amrit was that "When a wrong information about an honest
citizen of such reputation is aired by the TV channel to the entire nation and beyond, it is
believed by the public which injures the persons reputation. The damage caused by such
a broadcast is irreparable where mere apologies do not restore his damaged reputation
and adequately compensate him. The media cannot be law unto itself. Further on the
'Slap - Say Sorry - Forget' principle had been discarded from our jurisprudence long
back."
6. The District Court in which the case was filed awarded him Rs. 100 Crore as damages.
The PRBL appealed to the concerned High Court which passed an interim order against it
to deposit Rs 100 crore (Rs 20 crore in cash and a bank guarantee for the rest amount of
Rs 80 crore) with the High Court Registrar as a Pre-Condition before hearing an appeal.
7. Ultimately the matter was taken through Special Leave Appeal (SLP) to the Supreme
Court by PRBL against the impugned order.
8. The appellant PRBL argued that the orders of both the High Court and the lower court are
incorrect. Wherein the order should have been just fair and reasonable rather. Instead of
correcting so patent an aberration, the high court imposed a pre-condition to award the
lower courts order for damages (without explaining how it was quantified) for an
inadvertent and trivial human error which violates the 'Doctrine of Proportionality' which
is taken to be well established in jurisprudence.
9. The grossly disproportionate award being unprecedented in this country towards the
world of electronic media, high libel damages are completely out of line with the usual
awards by Indian Courts. In absence of any malice or intentional mistake on the part of
TV Channel the punitive and exemplary damages have a crippling economic effect on
PRBL.
10. According to PRBL it is a corporate body and not a natural person, hence no criminal
liability can be imposed on it as it can have neither malicious intention nor the same can
be imputed to it.
11. PRBL also went ahead to argue that "the judiciary has an excellent record of protecting
the freedom of media and that the media also holds a credible record of helping to
enforce accountability among public and constitutional office-holders by focusing on
corruption. The same judiciary moving on to wholly new and higher level of damages in
libel cases being worrisome. It would have the effect of muzzling the freedom of Indian
media within the freedom of speech and expression enshrined in Art 19(1)(a) of our
constitution."
12. PRBL sought the quashing of the impugned orders and pending criminal proceedings.

Taking into account various aspects of the case matrix, arguments are to be put forward from
the side of both Appellant & Respondent.

Issues raised in the case are as follows:

1. Whether the petitioner has the locus standi to approach this Hon'ble court under art
136 of the Indian constitution?
2. Whether an apology will suffice for news items where the photograph of a person is
wrongly portrayed?
3. Whether the lower court is justified in imposing damages of Rs 100 cr on the
petitioner?
4. Whether criminal proceedings for defamation can be initiated against a corporate
body?

Disclaimer:

1. The proposition is a fictional event and bears no resemblance to any real event,
person - dead or alive. This proposition is purely intended in furtherance of
academic endeavors.

2. The laws applicable for this moot proposition are in Pari Materia to the laws
applicable within the territory of India.

3. Any queries and clarifications related to the same can be forwarded to Alliance
Moot Court Society.

4. Queries can be sent via email to mootcourt@allianceuniversity.edu.in wherein the

subject header should be mentioned as "5th Intra Moot Court Competition - Query"

5. The problem has been drafted by Prof. Manish K Salian along with the Faculties In-
Charge of the AMCS. The Faculties shall not be approached for any kind of
assistance with the Moot Proposition. Any attempt shall lead to disqualification.