Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
TEAM CODE:
BEFORE
In the matter of
.WILSON…..............................................................PLAINTIF
v.
RACHEL…………….…………………………….DEFENDANT I
SARTAJ SINGH…………………………………..DEFENDANT II
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF ABBREVATIONS ii
iii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
vii
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
viii
STATEMENT OF FACTS
ix
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
x
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1
ISSUE I: Whether the Defendants are liable for defaming Wilson?
6
ISSUE II: Whether Sartaj Singh can take the defence of freedom of press,
speech and expression?
9
ISSUE III: Whether Quibbler TV is vicariously liable?
13
ISSUE IV: Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for damages and a public apology?
16
PRAYER
INDEX OF ABBREVATIONS
AIR All India Reporter
AP Andhra Pradesh
Art. Article
HC High Court
Hon’ble Honourable
Ltd. Limited
Mad Madras
No. Number
Ors Others
Para Paragraph
pg. Page
SC Supreme Court
Sec. Section
TV Television
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
I. TABLE OF CASES
Sl. No. Name of the case Relevant Citation
33 Ogilvie v. The Punjab Akh Bharat & Press co. (1929) 11 ILR Lah 45
Thirteenth Edition
IV. STATUTES
Act, 2013
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
Section 5 (2) of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 prescribes the jurisdiction of the Delhi High
Court as follows:
“Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, the High Court of
Delhi shall also have in respect of said territories ordinary original civil jurisdiction in every
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Wilson was the founder of Essex Corporation. Umbrella Corporation had been negotiating the
takeover of Essex Corporation for several weeks. If the acquisition were to go through then at
the age of 31, Wilson would be the country’s youngest billionaire. The deal was to be finalised
Wilson of stalking and sexual harassment. Based on this, the news anchor of Quibbler TV,
Sartaj Singh carried out a 2-hour story on Prime time. The TV channel started a twitter
campaign with the #wilsonthepervert. Umbrella Corporation did not want to be seen as a
company that does business with anyone who is under media trail. The deal was called off.
Rachel joined Wade Enterprises in the securities and investment division, headed by Wilson.
He developed feelings for Rachel but did not tell her as he feared rejection and this would bring
complications in work as well as in friendship. At the New Year’s Eve office party, Rachel was
too drunk and Wilson dropper her home. Rachel was intoxicated. She invited him over but he
declined and left. She hugged and kissed him goodbye. The next morning, Rachel was petrified
to see Wilson proposing to her with a ring in front of the entire office. Rachel denied any
feelings for him. In spite of this, Wilson persuaded her several times but Rachel avoided him.
Considering the awkward situation Wilson thought it would be best if they did not work at the
same place. The next day Rachel received a mail that she would be reporting to the marketing
team henceforth. Rachel disappointed and escalated the issue by filing a complaint against
workplace. An internal committee was set up. Wilson in order to precipitate the matter,
tendered his resignation. Rachel quit Wade Enterprises after a couple of months. Many
companies did not want her on board as they feared that any negative feedback about her during
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
ISSUE – I
ISSUE – II
SPEECH?
ISSUE – III
ISSUE – IV
PUBLIC APOLOGY?
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the Defendants are liable for defaming
Wilson as their statement has led to irreparable damages to the Plaintiff’s reputation, amounting
ISSUE II: WHETHER SARTAJ SINGH CAN TAKE THE DEFENCE OF FREEDOM
OF SPEECH?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that Sartaj Singh, the second defendant cannot
take the defence of freedom of speech under Art. 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India as
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that Quibbler TV is vicariously liable for the
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the Plaintiff is entitled to receive
damages and a public apology as the statement of the defendants have caused Wilson
irreparable damages to his reputation and also lost him a deal which would have made him
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the Defendants are liable for defaming
Wilson as their statement has led to irreparable damages to the Plaintiff’s reputation,
Defamation is defined as “The tort of publishing a statement which tends to bring a person
into hatred, contempt or ridicule, or to lower his reputation in the eyes of right-thinking
members of society generally, or which tends to make them shun or avoid that person” by
injurious to him in his office, profession, calling, trade or business.1It is not necessary, in
order to constitute defamation, that the statement must have been either orally made or made
in writing. A person can be defamed by some acts. The question, however, in all such cases,
is whether the words spoken or written or an act of the defendant would tend to lower the
1
Halsbury, 4thEdn., Vol.28, para 10, p.7.
2
ChallaSubrayadu v. Darbha Ramakrishna Rao,(1968) 2 Andh LT 101
In order to determine whether a statement is defamatory or not, the first rule to be followed is
that the whole of the statement complained of must be read and not only a part or parts of it.
The second rule is that words are to be taken in the sense of their natural and ordinary meaning
as popularly understood. This method of determination has been elucidated and explained in
Lewis v. Daily Telegraph Ltd.3The determination lies in the answer of the question, “would the
words tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of the society?4
The First Defendant here levelled various allegations against Wilson in an interview that was
aired on Quibbler TV on 23.11.2018. Her statement is directly referred to the Plaintiff alleging
him of stalking and harassment for which the Defendant hasn’t produced any proof whatsoever.
Alleging the Plaintiff to be guilty of stalking and harassing women hampers his reputation and
The Second Defendant carried out a 2 hour story on prime time based on the statements of the
First Defendant. Thereafter, the Third Defendant called for viewers on vote on “Whether
Wilson should be allowed to get away with harassing women?” and also started a twitter
campaign with the #wilsonthepervert. These acts of the Second and Third Defendant also
constitute defamation as they tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking
The statements and acts of the Defendants are prima facie defamatory, which is openly and in
3
(1963) 2 All ER 151, followed in Ramakant v. Devilal, 1969 Jab LJ 968
4
Suri v. Stretch, (1936) 2 All ER 1237, followed in Ramakant v. Devilal, 1969 Jab LJ 968
Publication is the communication of the words, or doing the defamatory act in the presence of
at least one person other than the person defamed. Communication to the plaintiff himself
would not be enough because defamation is an injury to one’s reputation and reputation is what
other people think of a man, and not his own opinion himself. Publication of the defamatory
The publication must cause ill-effect of lowering down the person, about whom such writing
is published, in the esteem of others.6 In ChellapanPillai v. R.K Karanjia7 the accused was
prosecuted for having published a photograph with a false caption with the intention of harming
the reputation of the complainant. It was held that publication of a photograph with a false
In RaghavChadha Vs. State and Ors.,8 attention has been drawn upon Ray v. Citizen-News
Co9wherein it was held that repetition of a false statement is also libellous and also relied on
Waite v San Fernando Pub. Co.10, a decision of the Supreme Court of California, which reads
as :"...a defamatory article which would be libellous per se, if its matter was directly stated,
does not lose its quality in this regard because it is couched in the form of an interview with
another person, or because it seeks to avoid its otherwise obvious character as a libel per se by
the statement that it is reported or asserted or believed to be true". This throws clarity on the
fact that defamatory statements made in an interview leads to publication of the same.
5
ChallaSubarayudu v. Darbha Ramakrishna Rao, (1968) 2 Andh LT 101
6
SopanVithalShinde v. State of Maharashtra, 2008 (2) Bom CR (Cri) 463
7
1961 Ker LJ 1212
8
MANU/DE/3314/2017
9
(1936) 14 Cal. App 2d 6
10
(1918) 178 Cal 303
The Third Defendant being a National TV Channel aired and interview of the First Defendant
wherein she made the allegations against the Plaintiff, hence the publication of the defamatory
statement took place. On 23.11.2018, exactly one day prior to the most important meeting of
Wilson’s life, Quibbler TV called for viewers to vote questioning Wilson’s integrity. Also,
Twitter being one amongst the most popular social networking sites, has scope for reaching
millions of people at once. The channel started a campaign on twitter as well. All these events
occurred during the prime time, reaching large number of audience and hence proving that the
publication of the defamatory sentence and act took place and the Defendants intended the
The legal meaning of malice is ‘ill-will’ or spite towards a party and any indirect or improper
motive in taking an action”. When the defendant does a wrongful act with a feeling of spite,
vengeance or ill will, the act is said to be done “maliciously’. If a man has stated what is false
and defamatory, malice is assumed.11 Malice includes any motive other than a honest desire
and intention to fulfil the purpose which makes the occasion privileged. The defendant is not
entitled to protection if he uses the occasion for some indirect or wrong motive. The language
The allegation of malice means nothing more than that the defendant published a defamatory
statement without lawful excuse. 13Malice may be proved by extrinsic evidence or it may be
inferred from the language used. The extrinsic evidence consists in the circumstances under
which the statement came to be made. The plaintiff has to show what was in the defendant’s
11
Ogilvie v. The Punjab Akhbarat& Press Co., (1929) 11 ILR Lah 45
12
Odgers on Law of Libel and Slander, at p.284.
13
Bromage v Prosser (1825) 4 B&C 247
mind at the time of publication, and of that no doubt the defendant’s acts and words on that
occasion are the best evidence. Every unjustifiable intention to inflict injury on the person
defamed, or any indirect motive other than a sense of duty may be held as proof thereof.
In the instant case, it has been established that the statements made by the defendants are
defamatory in nature, the proof that these statements are also false lies in the fact that Wilson
was never found guilty of the charges that were alleged against him by the Internal Complaints
Committee. The interview took place on 23.11.2018, exactly one day prior to the day that
It is evident from the date of the interview that the motive of the defendant was to deprive
Wilson of this turning point in his professional life. Also the usage of the word ‘pervert’ in the
the channel as to why the interview had to be aired on 23.11.2018 during prime time, prior to
the acquisition that was scheduled on 24.11.2018, hence proving the presence of malicious
FREEDOM OF SPEECH?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that Sartaj Singh, the second defendant
cannot take the defence of freedom of speech under Art 19 of the Constitution of India.
It was stated in a prominent case Gertz v. Welch14that “the people shall not be deprived of
their right to speak, to write, or otherwise to publish anything but false facts affecting
Freedom of speech under Art 19 (1) means expression of views through words, spoken,
written or printed or through any other channel like radio, television or other media. But is
subject to restrictions imposed under Art 19(2) of the Constitution. But it is subject to
K.V. Ramaniah v. Special Public Prosecutor16, the proposition of law has been succinctly
described by the Andhra Pradesh High Court as: “It is therefore impossible to accept the
argument that freedom of speech in Art 19 (1) must be taken to mean absolute freedom to say
or write whatever a person chooses recklessly and without regard to any person’s honour and
reputation. The right guaranteed by the constitution, it must be borne in mind, is to all the
citizens alike. The right in one certainly has a corresponding duty to the other and judged in
14
41 L ed 2d. 789 (730)
15
Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Prof. M.D. Shah, 1992 (3) S.C.J. 84: AIR 1993 S.C. 171 at p. 177
16
AIR 1961 AP 190
that manner also the right guaranteed cannot but be a qualified one. Indeed, the right has its
Just as every person possess freedom of speech and expression, every person also possesses a
right to his reputation which is regarded a property. Hence, nobody can so use his freedom of
speech or expression as to injure another’s reputation. The word ‘defamation’ covers both
crime and tort; and in Art 19(1)(a), it means the entire law of defamation, civil as well as
criminal, and although the former is unwritten, yet the protection of Art 19(2) is not confined
On the basis of the statements made by Rachel, the news anchor of Quibbler TV- Sartaj
Singh (the second defendant) carried out a two-hour story on prime time, the contents of
which constituted to defaming Wilson (the plaintiff) as they lower the reputation of the
Hence the acts and conduct of the second defendant are defamatory to the plaintiff.
The expression ‘freedom of press’ in Art 19 of the constitution of India has been declared by
the Supreme Court to be included in Art 19 (1) (a) which guarantees freedom of speech and
expression18 Under our constitution there is no separate guarantee of freedom of the press. It
is implicit in the freedom of expression which is conferred on all citizens. The extent of
freedom of press, under our constitution is not higher19 than the freedom of an ordinary
citizen20. It is subject to the same limitations as under art 19(2) since the rights under Art 19
17
PurshottamLalSayal v. Prem Shankar, AIR 1966 All. 377
18
BrijBhushan v. State of Delhi, AIR 1950 SC 129
19
Suresh Chandra Banargee, (dr) v. Pundit Golala, 55 Cal WN 745: 52 Cr LJ 1422, AIR 1951 Cal 176
20
Advocate General, Andhra Pradesh v. V RamanaRao ILR 1968 Andh.Pra 12; MB Kanwar v. State, 1964 Punj
LR 1074 AIR 1963 Punj 201
(1) (a) is not absolute21.The constitutional right to Freedom of Speech and Expression
conferred by Art 19 (1) (a) of the constitution which includes the Freedom of Press is not an
absolute right and does not confer any right on press to have an unrestricted access to means
of information. The press is entitled to exercise its freedom of speech and expression by
publishing a matter which does not invade the rights of other citizens and which does not
violate the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, public order, decency
and morality22
The press is not accordingly immune from liability for exceeding the limits of fair reporting
and fair comment, under the law of defamation or contempt of court. Art 19 does not give a
free hand under the guise of free expression and freedom of press of right to go on publishing
The acts of the second defendant of carrying out the two-hour story on prime time
questioning the plaintiff’s character resulted in defaming him. This invaded the right to
reputation of the plaintiff. Based on these acts and conduct of the defendants, the Umbrella
Corporation cancelled the deal between them and the plaintiff as they did not want to be seen
as a company that does business with anyone under media trial. It is evident that reputation of
the plaintiff had come down in the minds of the people which led to the deal being called off.
Hence it is submitted before the Hon’ble Court that Sartaj Singh, the second defendant,
should not be given immunity under freedom of press, speech and expression.
21
KV Ramaniah v. Special Public Prosecutor AIR 1961 AP 190
22
PrabhaDutt (Smt) v. Union of IndiaAIR 1983 SC 6
23
Hari Shankar v. Kailash Narayan AIR 1982 MP 47 at p. 48
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that Quibbler TV, the third
defendant, is vicariously liable for the actions of Sartaj Singh, the second defendant.
It may be thought that the starting point of the inquiry should be to ask whether the parties
themselves have expressly assigned their contractual relationship to one category or another,
but such a declaration can in fact never be conclusive as to the legal classification of the
relationship, though it is one factor to be taken into account by the court 24. Megaw L.J. in
Ferguson v. John Dawson & Partners25case at 1222 would have been prepared to go further
At one time it was generally accepted that the test of the relationship of master and servant
was that of control27, and a contract of service was thought to be one by virtue of which the
employer “can not only order or require what is to be done, but how it shall be done”28. But in
modern conditions the notion that an employer has the right to control the manner of work of
all his servants, save perhaps in the most attenuated form, contains more of fiction than of
fact. Nowadays it is common to take a ‘composite’ approach in which the various elements of
the relationship are considered as a whole. The privy council has said29 that the matter has
“the most that can be said is that control will no doubt always have to be considered, although
it can no longer be regarded as the sole determining factor; and that factors which may be of
importance are such matters as whether the man performing the services provides his own
equipment, whether he hires his own helpers, what degree of financial risks he takes, what
degree of responsibility of investment and management he has and whether and how far he has
Taking into consideration the above said case, it can be understood that Sartaj Singh, the second
defendant, and Quibbler TV, the third defendant, shared a relationship of employer and
There are three reasons a master is held liable for the torts committed by his servant in doing
his business even when his conduct is not blameworthy and he has used the greatest possible
care in choosing the servant. One reason is historical. “The status of a servant maintains many
marks of the time when he was a slave. The master was liable for the tort of the servant because
of the notion that servant’s personality was merged in that of his master31.
Another reason is grounded on public policy that “There ought to be a remedy against someone
who can pay the damages32”, and the master is expected to be in a better position for paying
damages than the servant since the master these days is very often a firm or a corporation with
cover of insurance.
In Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Shatwell33, LORD PEARCE observed: “The doctrine
of vicarious liability has not grown from any clear or logical or legal principle but from social
convenience and rough justice. The master having employed the servant, and being better able
31
HOLMES Common Law pp. 179 (180)
32
HOLMES Common Law p. 9
33
(1965) AC 656 (685) : (1964) 2 All ER 999 (HL)
to make good any damage which may occasionally result from the arrangement is answerable
to the world at large for all the torts committed by the servant within the scope of it.”34
A third reason is expressed in the maxims Respondent Superior and qui facit per aliumfacit per
se. In the words of CHELMSFORD, L.C.: “It has long been the established law that a master
is liable to the third person for any injury or damage done through the negligence or
unskilfulness of a servant acting in the master’s employ. The reason of this is, that every act
which is done by a servant in the course of his duty is regarded as done by his master’s orders,
In the case at hand, it is obvious that the second defendant was acting as the servant of the third
defendant. And from the above stated case, it makes it clear that the third defendant is
vicariously liable for the acts of the second defendant for not only one but three different
reasons.
In actions of wrong, those who abet the tortious acts are equally liable with those who commit
the wrong36. A person who procures the act of another is legally responsible for its
consequences (1) if he knowingly and for his own ends induces that other person to commit an
actionable wrong, or (2) when the act induced is within the right of the immediate actor and,
therefore, not wrongfully as far as the actor is concerned, but is detrimental to a third party and
the inducer procures his object by the use of illegal means directed against that third party37.
34
See further Rose v. Plenty (1976) 1 All ER 97 (CA)
35
Bartonshill Coal Co. v. McGuire (1858) 3 Macq, 300 (306)
36
KasheeNath v. Deb Kristo (1871) 16 WR 240; Golab Chand v. Jeeban (1875) 24 WR 437; Wharton v.
MoonaLall (1866) 1 Agra HC 96
37
Allen v. Flood (1898) AC 1 96; Nam Kee v. Ah Fong (1934) ILR 13 Ran 175
In the case at hand, the third defendant abetted the acts of the second defendant. When the
second defendant started the program on prime time, his conduct on the show led to defaming
the plaintiff. The third defendant encouraged the acts and conducts of the defendant by calling
for viewers to vote on “Whether Wilson should be allowed to get away with harassing
women?” and also started a twitter campaign with the #wilsonthepervert. Hence the acts of the
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the Plaintiff is entitled to receive damages
and a public apology as the statement of the defendants have caused Wilson irreparable
damages to his reputation and also lost him a deal which would have made him the country’s
youngest billionaire.
General damages are those which the law presumes in every case of defamation, as having
been suffered by the party defamed, even though no pecuniary loss has been sustained. They
are generally granted for the loss of reputation, character and credit, and for the inconvenience,
annoyance, mental pain and anxiety. Publication of statements which are false and injurious to
the character of another gives rise to an inference of malice in law and makes the publisher
liable in damages to the person affected. It may be recalled in the case of Ashby v. White38that,
“Whenever the defendant violates any absolute legal right of the Plaintiff general damages to
Thus, it is obvious that the Court should grant substantial damages in the case of injury to the
Municipal Council39,the High Court held that they ought to have granted substantial damages
even though there was no evidence regarding damages adduced by the Plaintiff.
38
(1704) 2Ld Raym 938
39
A.I.R.1982 Knt.287
In D.P. Choudhary and Ors v. KumariManjulata40, it was held that all defamatory words are
actionable per se and in such a case, general damages will be presumed. She was held entitled
defamatory. The Delhi High Court awarded damages of Rs.5 lakhs.Hence, it is humbly
submitted that the Plaintiff is entitled for General Damages as there has been loss of reputation,
Special damages means damages awarded to compensate the Plaintiff for quantifiable financial
loss related to the incident. It is of such a kind that it will not be presumed by law and must
therefore be explicitly alleged in the pleadings so that the defendant may have due notice of
the nature of the claim. The Rajasthan High court held in Bala Ram v. SukhSamaptLal42, in
respect of a loss resulting directly from a defamatory allegation against a person engaged in a
business it will by and large depend on the nature of one’s business. If the person concerned is
dealing with a particular category of customers who regularly approach him, then it may very
As held in Lynch v. Knight43, Where the words are actionable per se these matters may be taken
into consideration by the jury when awarding special damages. In the case of Chamberlain v.
Boyd44, it is the law in England that where the words are not actionable in themselves the special
damages necessary to support the action must be the loss of money or some other material
40
A.I.R.1997 Raj.170
41
AIR 2006 Del 300
42
AIR 1975 Raj 40: 1975 Raj LW 215: ILR (1974) 24 Raj 149
43
(1861) 9 HL Cas 577 (598)
44
11 QBD 407
temporal advantage, capable of being assessed in monetary value. As held in Ratcliffe v Evans45
Bowen LJ, in one of his well-known judgements pointed out that under circumstances, a
slander of trader eg, in a public place or in the presence of a large number of people, may lead
to repetition by others resulting in loss of credit and the costume which might be pleaded as
special damages.
In the instant case, due to the twitter campaign, this lost the plaintiff the deal which would have
made him the youngest billionaire of the country. It is evident that there has been irreparable
and special damage caused to him and hence he is entitled to claim special damages.
It has been established in Tosiba Appliances Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba and
Ors46, Disposing of a two-decade old defamation suit, the High Court of opined that public
apology is a more fitting relief than monetary damages in defamation cases. Justice Rajiv Sahai
observe “…the harm done by defamation being to the reputation of a person, a direction to
issue a public apology or a direction to correct the errors, if any, particularly in defamation
arising out of libel by media appears to be a more appropriate relief than a relief of monetary
damages.”
Thus, it is evident on the part of the plaintiff that there has entitled to recover general damages
as well as special damages along with a public apology as the twitter campaign started by the
Quibbler TV injured the reputation of Wilson and also cost him a deal which would make him
the youngest billionaire of the country so he is entitled to receive the public apology.
45
(1892) 2 QB 124; cfLeetham v Rank (1912) 57 Sol J 111
46
MANU/DE/1184/2017
PRAYER
Wherefore, in the light of the facts presented, issues raised, arguments advanced and
authorities cited, it is most humbly prayed before the Hon’ble Court that it may be pleased to
4. The Plaintiff is entitled to receive Rs.100 crores as compensation and a public apology.
The Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass any other order as it deems fit in the
interest of
For this act of kindness, the Counsel for Plaintiff shall duty bound forever pray.