SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Monday, September 12, 2022

Printed For: Rohit kumar, Delhi University Law School
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2nd MAIMS National Moot, 2021

Winner Team Memorial - Respondent

Before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of IDEE

Under Article 32 and 132 of the Constitution of IDEE
In the Matter of Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Article 19 of the Constituiton of IDEE
Article 21 of the Constituiton of IDEE
W.P (C) No. _____/2021
Moore
Versus
State
Heard Along With
Mr Reader and Others
Versus
Union of Idee
Heard Along With
Susan
Versus
Union of Idee
Heard Along With
Ms Lacid and Ms Bond
Versus
Union of Idee
Before Submission to Hon'ble Chief Justice and his Companion Justices of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS IV
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES V
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION VIII
STATEMENT OF FACTS IX
STATEMENT OF ISSUES X
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS XI
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 1
ISSUE I: WHETHER MR MOOREIS ENTITLEDTO BAIL IN 1
CRIMINAL CASE REGISTERED VIDE FIRNO. 96/2020?
[I.A] Nature and Gravity of the Offence is Serious 1
[I.B] Mr. Moore committed an economic offence 3
[I.C] Medical Grounds cannot be used to grant bail 5
[I.D] Personal Liberty is not an absolute right 6
ISSUE II: WHETHER SEX WORKERS HAVE AN INHERENT RIGHT 7
OF TRADE AND OCCUPATION?
[II.A] Sex workers are restricted by Article 19(2) 7
[II.B] The right to free trade will violate Article 21 of the 8
Constitution
[II.C] Giving the right to free trade to sex workers violates 10
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 2 Monday, September 12, 2022
Printed For: Rohit kumar, Delhi University Law School
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article 23 of the Constitution

[II.D] Sex workers are a threat to family institutions 11
I SSUE III: W HETHER THERE EXISTS ANY 12
ENFORCEMENT/I MPLEMENTATION MECHANISM AGAINST CHILD PORN
CONTENT?
[III.A] Legislations condemn child porn and that it is 12
implemented
[III.B] Executive Actions Against Child Porn 15
[III.C] The Judiciary may not frame guidelines 15
I SSUE IV: WHETHER MS. LAID AND MS. BOND HAVE AN I NHERENT 17
RIGHT OF PRIVACY AGAINST MEDIA TRIALS?
[IV.A] The Right to Privacy is not enforceable against the 17
Media
[IV.B] Restrictions to the freedom of speech and expression 18
shall not include privacy
[IV.C] Govt. has not abdicated its duty 20
PRAYER 21
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATION FULL FORM
AIR All India Reporter
Anr Another
Art. Article
CoC Act Contempt Of Courts Act
CrPC Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
DPSP Directive Principles of State Policy
Ed Edition
Govt. Government
Hon'ble Honorable
HC High Court
IT Act Information Technology Act, 2000
IPC Penal Code, 1860
MLA Member Of Legislative Assembly
MoU Memorandum Of Understanding
NCRB National Crime Records Bureau
NCMEC National Center for Missing & Exploited Children
Ors. Others
POCSO Protection Of Children from Sexual Offenses Act
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
UNTOC United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime
UNCRC United Nations Convention on the Rights of Child
Vol. Volume
& And
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Anil Kumar Tulsiyani v. State of U.P., (2006) 55 ACC 1014 (SC) 4
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 1 Scale 69 18
Asharam Bapu v. State of Rajasthan, LQ RajHC 2014 513 5
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 3 Monday, September 12, 2022
Printed For: Rohit kumar, Delhi University Law School
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ashwini Kumar Patra v. Republic of India, 2021 SCC OnLine Ori 438 5
Asif Hameed v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 15
364 : AIR 1989 SC 1899
Avnish Bajaj v. State, (2008) 105 DRJ 721 14
B.K. Adarsh v. Union of India, AIR 1990 AP 100 2, 3
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 812 8
Common Cause v. Union of India, (2003) 8 SCC 250 16
Dr. Shashi Tharoor v. Arnab Goswami, (2018) 167 DRJ 119 19
G. Bassi Reddy v. International Crops Research Instt., (2003) 2 17
Scale 136
Id. at 3 4
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Limited v. Union of 18
India, (1985) 1 SCC 641
Janhit Manch v. Union of India, LQ BomHC 2010 507 14
Kamlesh Vaswani v. Union of India, LQ SC 2014 445 16
Malvinder Mohan Singh v. State, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 200 5
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 : AIR 1978 SC 9
597
Mr. Nilesh Navalakha v. Union of India, 2021 (2) ABR 179 20
Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 466 3
P.D. Shamdasani v. Central Bank of India Ltd, (1952) 3 SCR 391 19
Raj Bahadur v. Legal Remembrancer of the Government of West 10
Bengal, AIR 1953 Cal 522
Rohit Tandon v. The Enforcement Directorate, 2017 7 AD (DELHI) 3
336
Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras, 1950 SCR 594 18
RP Ltd. v. Proprietors Indian Express Newspapers, Bombay Pvt. 18
Ltd., (1988) 4 SCC 592
Ryan John Michael Thorpe v. The State of Maharashtra, Bail 2, 3
Application No. 1027 of 2021
Sabu Mathew George v. Union of India, 2016 SCC OnLine SC 681 15
Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd v. SEBI, (2012) 10 SCC 19
603
Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, 1962 (2) SCJ 400 18
Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40 4
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1 : AIR 2015 SC 18
1523
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 6
SCC 694
State of Maharashtra v. Sitaram Popat Vetal, (2004) 7 SCC 521 4
State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga, (1998) 4 SCC 117 8, 9
State of WB v. Subodh Gopal Bose, AIR 1954 SC 92 17
State Through C.B.I v. Amaramani Tripathi, (2005) 3 ACR 2995 4
(SC)
State v. Jaspal Singh Gill, (1984) 3 SCC 555 : AIR 1984 SC 1503 5
Supreme Court Women Lawyers Association (SCWLA) v. Union Of 16
India, (2016) 3 SCC 680 : AIR 2016 SC 358
The State of Bihar v. Amit Kumar, Criminal Appeal No. 767 of 2017 5
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 5 Scale 453 16
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 4 Monday, September 12, 2022
Printed For: Rohit kumar, Delhi University Law School
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439 3

Statutes & Rules
Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, § 19, No. 7, Acts 18
of Parliament, 1995 (India)
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, § 3, No. 70, Acts of Parliament, 18
1971 (India)
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 § 2(f), Acts of Parliament, 9
1956 (India)
Penal Code, 1860, § 292, No. 45, Acts of Imperial Legislative 13
Council, 1860 (India)
Penal Code, 1860, § 366A, § 372, § 373, No. 45, Acts of Imperial 13
Legislative Council, 1860 (India)
Penal Code, 1860, § 375, § 377, § 354, No. 45, Acts of Imperial 13
Legislative Council, 1860 (India)
Information Technology Act, 2000 § 2(1)(w), No. 21, Acts of 11
Parliament, 2000 (India)
Information Technology Act, 2000 § 67A, No. 21, Acts of 12
Parliament, 2000 (India
Information Technology Act, 2000 § 67B, No. 21, Acts of 12
Parliament, 2000 (India)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act, 11
2019, § 2(a)(da), No. 25, Acts of Parliament, 2019 (India)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, § 13, No. 11
32, Acts of Parliament, 2012 (India)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Rules, 2020 § Rule 3 12
(4), Rules Ministry Of Women and Child Development 2020 (India)
Other Authorities
A report on the conference of partner NGOs, Ministry of Women & Child 14
Development, (Oct, 09, 2017)
https://www.wcd.nic.in/sites/default/files/Conference%20of%20partner%
20NGOs_WCD%20Book.pdf
United Nations, Coalition against Trafficking in Women, 1 (2005) 9
https://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/vaw/ngocontribute/Coalition%
20Against%20Trafficing% 20in %20Women.pdf
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UNITED NATIONS, (Jan 1, 2015, 8 : 30 7, 8
PM) https://www.un.org/en/udhrbook/pdf/udhr_booklet_en_web.pdf
World Health Organization, Addressing Violence against Sex Workers, 22 8
(August 10, 2013, 7 : 34 PM),
https://www.who.int/hiv/pub/sti/sex_worker_implementation/swit_chpt2.pdf
Constitutional Provisions
INDIA CONST. art. 15, cl. 3 11
INDIA CONST. art. 19, cl. 1 17
INDIA CONST. art. 19, cl. 2 17
NDIA CONST. art. 39, cl. f 11
Journal Article
Cho, Seo-Young, Dreher, Axel, Neumayer & Eric, Does Legalized 10
Prostitution Increase Human Trafficking? 41 World Dev. 67, 73
(2012)
Dr. Dilip Kumar Upadhayay, Horizontal application of Fundamental 17
Rights: Issues and Concerns, MADHAV UNIVERSITY BLOG, (NOV. 11,
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 5 Monday, September 12, 2022
Printed For: Rohit kumar, Delhi University Law School
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2021, 10 : 30 PM),
https://www.madhavuniversity.edu.in/horizontal-application.html
Janice G. Raymond, Ten Reasons for not legalizing prostitution and 9
a Legal Response to the demand for prostitution, 2 J. Trauma Pract,
315, 315-317 (2004)
M. Sullivan and S. Jeffreys, Legalising Prostitution is Not the 10
Answer : the Example of Victoria, Australia GAATW 1, 3 (2011)
Books
R.V. KELKAR, R.V. KELKAR'S CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 291 (Eastern Book 1, 2
Company 2012)
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The petitions have been clubbed and moved to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of IDEE.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of IDEE has the jurisdiction to hear the present matter
under : Article 32 reads as:
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 clause (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
AND
Article 132 reads as:
1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final
order of a High Court in the territory of India, whether in a civil, criminal or other
proceeding, [if the High Court certifies under article 134A] that the case involves
a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution.
3) Where such a certificate is given, any party in the case may appeal to the
Supreme Court on the ground that any such question as aforesaid has been
wrongly decided.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Mr. Moore is a famous businessman in the country of IDEE. He developed an 18+
app named ‘Rose’ which had explicit content. Due to the on-going COVID restrictions,
the app became a huge hit. After a brief meeting with an NGO named ‘Protection
against Immoral Trafficking’, a well-known journalist, Mr. Reader realized that the
Rose App led to detention, human right abuse and exploitation of women involved
with the application. Mr. Reader constituted an investigative unit to track the
happenings of Rose App. It was found that various actresses, models and sex workers
were a part of the app, and were detained due to the draconian legislation known as
the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. Further investigation also showed the
involvement and exploitation of minor girls.
2. Later, Mr. Moore was arrested due to the media trial caused by Mr. Reader's
article. A special investigation team was constituted under the Federal Unit of
Investigation (FUI). In the preliminary investigation, it was found out that the app
was being used for illegal trafficking, as well as money laundering. Mr. Moore was
arrested by FUI and charged under various Sections of IDEE Penal Code, The
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 6 Monday, September 12, 2022
Printed For: Rohit kumar, Delhi University Law School
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and
for a case under S.4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Mr. Moore filed for
bail in the Sessions Court and the High Court, but his requests were denied. The
Barrister General suggested that the Centre should hold such economic offenders
liable and must not grant bail as they can flee abroad at the first instance.
3. Simultaneously, a petition was filed by Mr. Reader and PAIT before the Supreme
Court to recognize the right of sex workers as it was not an immoral act. They claimed
that sex workers would be better protected if they were recognized under the law.
4. Meanwhile, NGO named ‘Susan’ filed a petition before the Supreme Court stating
that there are no laws governing the content on digital media and the Supreme
Court's guidelines on child porn are not being observed.
5. Further, two actresses, namely Ms Lacid and Ms Bond who were alleged to be
part of the app moved to the Supreme Court seeking protection against media trials as
they impeached their privacy.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
ISSUE I.
WHETHER MR MOORE IS ENTITLED TO BAIL IN CRIMINAL CASE REGISTERED
VIDE
FIR NO. 96/2020?
ISSUE II.
WHETHER SEX WORKERS HAVE AN INHERENT RIGHT OF TRADE AND
OCCUPATION?
ISSUE III.
WHETHER THERE EXISTS ANY ENFORCEMENT/IMPLEMENTATION MECHANISM
AGAINST CHILD PORN CONTENT?
ISSUE IV.
WHETHER MS LAID AND MS BOND HAVE AN INHERENT RIGHT OF PRIVACY
AGAINST MEDIA TRIALS?
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE I : WHETHER MR MOORE IS ENTITLED TO BAIL IN CRIMINAL CASE
REGISTERED VIDE FIR NO. 96/2020?
The Applicant shall not entitled to bail because of the graveness of his offence as he
committed an economic offence. Furthermore, since he failed the triple test of
economic offences, the Hon'ble Court can deny him bail. Medical grounds cannot be a
reason to grant bail in cases of such serious offences. Additionally, bail can be denied
on the grounds of personal liberty as reasonable restrictions are allowed.
ISSUE II : WHETHER SEX WORKERS HAVE AN INHERENT RIGHT OF TRADE
AND OCCUPATION?
It is humbly contended before this Hon'ble Court that sex workers do not have an
inherent right to free trade and occupation as they violate Articles 19, 21 and 23 of the
Constitution and go against the personal laws of the country.
ISSUE III : WHETHER THERE EXISTS ANY ENFORCEMENT/IMPLEMENTATION
MECHANISM AGAINST CHILD PORN CONTENT?
It is humbly contended that the mechanism against child porn content is enforced
through various legislations, and executive actions thereby fulfilling their obligations
by taking a zero-tolerance policy against child porn in India. Furthermore, relying on
the doctrine of separation of powers, it is contended that the Supreme Court shall not
over reach its jurisdiction over that of the legislature and/or the executive.
ISSUE III : WHETHER MS LAID AND MS BOND HAVE AN INHERENT RIGHT OF
PRIVACY AGAINST MEDIA TRIALS?
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 7 Monday, September 12, 2022
Printed For: Rohit kumar, Delhi University Law School
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is humbly contended that the respondents do not have an inherent right to

privacy enforceable against a private entity like the media and thereby media trials.
The restriction of this freedom may lead to infringement of the right of media implied
under article 19(1)(a). It would be cumbersome for the higher courts to intervene in
every violation of privacy against private entities especially the law of defamation and
contempt of court already addressing the dilemma of media trials.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ISSUE I : WHETHER MR MOORE IS ENTITLED TO BAIL IN CRIMINAL CASE
REGISTERED VIDE FIR NO. 96/2020?
1. Non-bailable offences include all those offences which are not included in bailable
offences in the First Schedule. In case of non-bailable offences, the bail can be
granted at the discretion of the Court, subject to conditions given in Section 437 of
CrPC. The Courts ought to keep the following factors into consideration before
granting/refusal of the bail.1
2. The same shall be humbly contended before this Hon'ble Court in a three-fold
manner as the Applicant's alleged offenses cannot be given bail because the [I.A]
Nature and gravity of the offence is serious; [I.B] he has committed an economic
offence; [I.C] Medical grounds cannot be a ground to refuse bail in serious offences;
and [I.D] Personal liberty can be reasonably curtailed.
[I.A] NATURE AND GRAVITY OF THE OFFENCE IS SERIOUS
3. It is humbly contended before this Hon'ble Court that the nature and gravity of
the offence committed by the Applicant is serious, as it is non-bailable and imposes a
risk on the societal fabric of the society. Since the State has a duty to protect the
societal interest in cases of grave concern, it is contended that the Applicant shall not
be entitled to bail.
[I.A.1] The offences are non-bailable in nature.
4. Non-bailable offences are serious offences where bail is a privilege and only the
courts can grant it. On being arrested and taken into custody for a serious or non-
bailable crime, a person cannot ask to be released on bail as a matter of right.2
5. In the present scenario, the offences alleged to have been committed by the
applicant are non-bailable in nature and therefore, shall not be entitled to pray for bail.
[I.A.2] The offences destroy the social and moral fabric of the society
6. In a recent order of the Bombay High Court3 , the Hon'ble Court laid down that
one of the most important considerations for refusal or the grant of bail would be the
nature and gravity of an offence. It was also added that the alleged offences of money
laundering, and sale of pornographic material were detrimental to the health and/or
moral values of the society, and these shall be vital to value societal interest in such
cases.4 Indecent or obscene activities convey one common idea : offences against the
recognized standards of propriety prevailing in the society of the day.5
7. Criminal offences are not offences against an individual, but offences against the
society. Therefore, the impact of such offences is detrimental to the society. Hence, it
is contended that the application for Bail by the Applicant be denied, owing to the
nature of the offences committed by him.
[I.A.3] The State is obligated to protect societal interest in cases of grave
concern
8. The State as a patria parentisor as a guardian6 , and promotor of general welfare
has a social interest or community interest to interdict motion picture which
transgresses the bounds of decency and reaches obscenity to exhibit pornography or
obscene film for exploitation of sex for a base purpose or commercial motivation.
Pornographic scenes undermine the social fabric of a country.7
9. In the current scenario, wherein the acts of the Applicant have a significant
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 8 Monday, September 12, 2022
Printed For: Rohit kumar, Delhi University Law School
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

impact of undermining the social and moral fabric of our Nation, the State shall be
obligated to protect the public interest at larger against the right of the Applicant, and
thereby deny the application for bail.
[I.B] THE APPLICANT I S ALLEGED TO HAVE COMMITTED AN ECONOMIC OFFENCE
10. It is humbly submitted that this Hon'ble Court had comprehensively looked into
economic offenses and had explained the nature of economic offences to hold that
such offences having a deep-rooted conspiracy and involving huge loss of public funds
ought to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy
of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of
the country. 8
11. Furthermore, in a recent case before this very Court9 , wherein the accused was
alleged to have been involved in illegal possession and supply of the newly issued
currency following demonetization was denied bail, given the gravity of the offence.
12. After analyzing the factual matrix, the Applicant has been charged under
Section 4 of the Money Laundering Act10 and has been declared as an economic
offender. Therefore, owing to the fact that a serious economic offence has been
committed by the Applicant, he ought to be denied bail by the Hon'ble Court.
[I.B.1] The Applicant may not be granted bail under the Triple Test Of
Economic Offences
13. It is humbly submitted that the Triple Test i.e., abscondence, tampering the
evidence and the possibility of influencing the witnesses is a test employed by the
Judiciary, while analyzing the applications bail.11
14. The reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of
threat to the complainant is a valid ground to refuse bail.12 Additionally, bail was
denied by the High Court of Allahabad13 wherein the accused had a significantly
stronger position and standing as advocate in the High Court which would have been
misused. Furthermore, even a political leader was denied bail considering the fact that
the charged accused was a sitting MLA who was also influential financially, who could
have easily made use of their political and financial influence to tamper evidence. 14 In
a recent case, the magistrate affirmed that the release of the accused will hamper the
process of investigation and rejected the bail applications of the accused. 15
15. In the current scenario, the Applicant is a famous and well-established
businessman. He has the public stature, and significant financial resources and
political support to influence witnesses and obstruct investigations. The Applicant may
also flee the country to abscond to a safe haven from being prosecuted and convicted
of their charges and/or well as tamper evidence. Therefore, in light of the submissions
made herein, it is humbly contended that the Applicant be denied bail.
[I.B.2] Economic Offences destroy the democratic fabric of a country
16. Economic offences are offences which corrode the fabric of democracy and are
committed with total disregard to the rights and interest of the nation and are
committed by breach of trust and faith and are against the national economy and
national interest. 16 Socioeconomic offence has deep rooted conspiracies affecting the
moral fiber of the society and causing irreparable harm, needs to be considered
seriously. 17 A judgement along the same lines was given by the Hon'ble HC of Odisha
wherein it was held that, granting bail to the petitioner in economic offences shall be
construed to be against the larger public interest.18
17. Country of IDEE, being a Welfare State has always upheld and always shall
uphold the welfare of the country. Therefore, granting bail to an economic offender,
i.e., the Applicant in the present case may be construed as the State's attempt to put
its resources, sovereignty, and integrity vulnerable to attack(s). Hence, in light of the
submissions made herein, it is humbly contended that the Hon'ble Court duly consider
the nature and gravity of the offences alleged to have been committed by the
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 9 Monday, September 12, 2022
Printed For: Rohit kumar, Delhi University Law School
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Applicant and the impact it would have on the economy and the democratic
framework, to rightfully deny the Applicant their prayer for bail.
[I.C] MEDICAL GROUNDS MAY BE USED TO GRANT BAIL
18. Reliance can be placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court19
wherein it was held that even though the accused had undergone a cardiac operation
and he needed constant medical attention, he could not be released on bail on medical
conditions when charges against the accused were prima facie made out based on the
material available on record. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court refused to
consider the prayer for grant of bail even when the petitioner therein was about 85
years old and he suffered from numerous medical conditions. 20
19. In the present case, the Applicant shall not be entitled bail on the basis of
medical grounds, especially where his health status has not been revealed to the
Hon'ble Court specifically.
[I.D] PERSONAL LIBERTY IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT
20. It is humbly submitted that under Article 21 of the Constitution, the State may
only impose restrictions on the right to life and liberty, subject to them being fair,
reasonable, and just, and as per the procedure established by law.
21. In a Supreme Court judgment21 , it was suggested that the society has a vital
interest in grant or refusal of bail because every criminal offence is the offence against
the State. The order granting or refusing bail must reflect perfect balance between the
conflicting interests, namely sanctity of individual liberty and the interest of the
society. It is imperative to shield the society from the hazards of those committing
crimes and potentiality of repeating the same crime while on bail. 22
22. The Applicant's actions have deeply impacted the social, moral and democratic
fabric of the country. Hence it is contended that his right to life and personal liberty
under Article 21 can be curtailed, as this is a matter of public interest.
23. In light of the submissions made herein, it is humbly contended that the
Applicant shall not be entitled to bail considering the gravity of the offence coupled
with the well-established triple tests. Furthermore, medical grounds are not a ground
to deny bail when the offence is of such serious nature. Lastly, he cannot be given bail
on the grounds of personal liberty as it can be curtailed reasonably for the better
interest of the society.
ISSUE II : WHETHER SEX WORKERS HAVE AN INHERENT RIGHT OF TRADE
AND OCCUPATION?
24. It is humbly contended before this Hon'ble Court that sex workers shall not
have a right to free trade and occupation as [II.A] the right maybe reasonably
restricted by Article 19(2) of the Constitution; [II.B] They are further restricted by
Article 21 of the Constitution; [II.C] The right if recognized shall violate Article 23 of
the Constitution; and [II.D] shall go against the personal matrimonial laws of the
country.
[II.A] SEX WORKERS ARE RESTRICTED BY ARTICLE 19(2)
25. It is humbly submitted that the present position of law` is that every person
has normally got a right to practice any profession or carry on any occupation, trade or
business of his choice but such right is subject to the right of the State to make laws
imposing, in the interests of the general public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise
of the right to practice that profession or to carry on that occupation, trade or
business.23 The right of every citizen to pursue any lawful trade or business is
obviously subject to such reasonable condition as may be deemed by the governing
authority of the country essential to the safety, health, peace, order and morals of the
community.24
26. Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that, in its most general sense, prostitution
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 10 Monday, September 12, 2022
Printed For: Rohit kumar, Delhi University Law School
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

is the setting of one self to sale or devoting to infamous purposes what is in one's
power. In its restricted and legal sense, it is the practice of a female offering her body
to an indiscriminate intercourse with men, as distinguished from sexual intercourse
confined to one man, or as sometimes stated, common lewdness of a woman for gain :
the act of permitting a common and indiscriminate sexual intercourse for hire.25
27. It is still perceived as an immoral activity in the country, and therefore, can be
reasonably restricted by Article 19 (2) because it counts ‘morality’ as one of the
grounds to impose reasonable restrictions on right to freedom. In the present case,
the nature of work is deeply exploitative and dehumanizing. Furthermore, prostitution
and sex work are immorally seen by the country, hence, subject to reasonable
restrictions. Therefore, allowing the right to free trade to sex work will only increase
immorality and illegality in the country.
[II.B] THE RIGHT TO FREE TRADE WILL VIOLATE ARTICLE21 OF THE
CONSTITUTION
[II.B.1] It violates Right to Health
28. It is humbly submitted that Article 25(1) of Universal Declaration of Human
Rights26 provides everyone with the right to a decent standard of living adequate for
the health and well-being of themselves and of their family, including food, clothing,
housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in
the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of
livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. It was this that had encouraged the
judiciary to inculcate right to health under the ambit of Article 21. In a landmark
Supreme Court case27 , it was held that although the DPSP are not binding obligations
but hold only persuasive value, yet they should be duly implemented by the State.
Further, the Court held that dignity and health fall within the ambit of life and liberty
under Article 21. In the Ram Lubhaya case,28 it was stated that the right endowed
under Article 21 forces an equal obligation on the state which is additionally
strengthened as under Article 47.
29. As per a WHO Report29 , violence against sex workers is associated with
inconsistent condom use or lack of condom use, and with increased risk of STI and
HIV infection. Violence also prevents sex workers from accessing HIV information and
services.
30. Since sex workers are at a great risk of passing on sexually transmitted disease,
it is the State's duty to ensure the transmission of such diseases is controlled. This is
why, sex workers do not have an inherent right to free trade and occupation, because
legalizing sex work would aggravate issues that are a part of Article 21 of the
Constitution.
[II.B.2] It violates the Right to a dignified life
31. In a Supreme court ruling,30 Justice Bhagwati stated that it is the fundamental
right of everyone in this country to live with human dignity free from exploitation.
32. As per the World Health Organisation's Report on Protection of Sex Workers,31
female, male and transgender sex workers face high levels of violence, stigma,
discrimination and other human-rights violations. Male, female and transgender sex
workers may face violence because of the stigma associated with sex work, which in
most settings is criminalized, or due to discrimination based on gender, race, HIV
status, drug use or other factors.
33. Dignifying prostitution as work doesn’t dignifies the women, it simply dignifies
the sex industry and it sends a message that women are sexual commodities and that
prostitution is harmless fun.32 The Apex Court has included the ‘right to dignity’ in the
ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution. 33 Treating women as a commodity goes against
the right to dignity, and therefore, sex workers do not have a right to free trade and
occupation.
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 11 Monday, September 12, 2022
Printed For: Rohit kumar, Delhi University Law School
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

34. The report also stated that sex work is one of the most alienated forms of
labour where women work with a heart, were conscience-stricken, forced and had
negative self-identities. 34
35. The profession per se is dehumanizing on various levels. Therefore, it is the
responsibility of the State to rehabilitate sex workers and provide them safer, and
more secure jobs. Providing them the right to free trade will act as a violation of Article
21 of the Constitution, as it endangers the right to a dignified life.
[II.C] GIVING THE RIGHT TO FREE TRADE TO SEX WORKERS VIOLATES ARTICLE 23 OF
THE CONSTITUTION
36. Prostitution means the sexual exploitation or abuse of individuals for
commercial purposes.35
37. Furthermore, A 2012 study published in World Development, 36 investigates the
effect of legalized prostitution on human trafficking inflows. It discovered that
countries with legalized prostitution are associated with higher human trafficking
inflows than countries where prostitution is prohibited. On average, countries with
legalized prostitution report a greater incidence of human trafficking inflows.
Furthermore, a UN Report37 states that trafficking and prostitution are inextricably
linked as the demand for prostituted sex is the engine that drives the worldwide crisis
of trafficking in women and girls. It is the demand for prostitution and other
commercial sexual services that makes vulnerable women and girls such enticing
cargo for traffickers. Reports suggest that legalized or decriminalized prostitution
industries are one of the root causes of sex trafficking. Moreover, legalization of
prostitution aided other forms of sexual exploitation, such as tabletop dancing,
bondage and discipline centers, peep shows, phone sex, and pornography.38
38. Giving the right to free trade and occupation to sex workers is an open
invitation to all forms of trafficking. Therefore, it can be said that sex workers do not
enjoy the right to free trade and occupation.
39. Article 23 of the Constitution states that traffic in human beings and beggar
and other similar forms of forced labor are prohibited and any contravention of this
provision shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law. This Article therefore
declares traffic in human beings to be an offence punishable in accordance with law.
Traffic in women for immoral purposes has been held to be covered by the expression
“traffic in human beings” in Article 23(1) of the Constitution of India.39 Moreover,
Section 4 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights prohibits slave trade and
trafficking. By the means of Article 51(c) of the Constitution, the country is obligated
to abide by international conventions.
40. Since the interconnection between prostitution and human trafficking is very
close, and trafficking is prohibited in India, therefore sex workers do not enjoy the
right to free trade and occupation. If declared otherwise, it would be an ‘offence’ as
suggested by Article 23 of the Constitution.
[II.D] SEX WORKERS ARE A THREAT TO FAMILY INSTITUTIONS
41. Prostitution is often thought of as a threat to the marriage-family institution;
law-makers are often afraid that, the delicate threads which binds the society together
will be broken if people are free to engage in coitus for pleasure; laws, it is stated, are
often not enforced adequately because the police have too many other things to do;
judges also know that incarceration will not rehabilitate a prostitute, nevertheless,
laws exist to emphasize that prostitution is not a socially acceptable form of
behavior.40
42. Sex work poses a danger to the Hindu Marriage Act, and other personal laws as
adultery is a ground for divorce in various personal laws. Hence, sex workers do not
hold the fundamental right to free trade and occupation.
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 12 Monday, September 12, 2022
Printed For: Rohit kumar, Delhi University Law School
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

43. Therefore, it is humbly contended before this Hon'ble Court that sex workers do
not enjoy an inherent right to free trade as it would go against Article 19, 21 and 23 of
the Constitution. It also poses a risk on family institutions and personal laws, which is
why, the right to free trade and occupation cannot be given to sex workers.
ISSUE III : WHETHER THERE EXISTS ANY ENFORCEMENT/IMPLEMENTATION MECHANISM
AGAINST CHILD PORN CONTENT?
44. It is humbly submitted before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of IDEE that there
indeed exists an enforcement mechanism against child porn content and that Govt.
has exercised its duties and all directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its entirety
and that with law effectively dealing with the same, the judiciary shall not have the
authority to exercise the power of the legislature or the executive in the present
matter. The contentions for the same shall be made in a three-fold manner by
submitting that [III.A] Legislations condemn child porn and that it is implemented;
[III.B] Govt. collaborates with various bodies to combat child porn content; and that
[III.C] The Judiciary may not frame guidelines.
[III.A] LEGISLATIONS CONDEMN CHILD PORN AND THAT IT IS IMPLEMENTED
45. Several legislations have been made by the government to combat child
pornography and they are as follows : III.A.1] POCSO and POCSO Rules; III.A.2] IT
Act, 2000 and IT Intermediary Rules, 2021; and III.A.3] Other Miscellaneous
provisions.
[III.A.1] POCSO and POCSO Rules
46. It is submitted that POCSO protects children from sexual assault, harassment
and exploitation for pornography. Section 13 of POCSO41 makes the use of children for
pornographic purposes a criminal offence that can lead to being jailed for up to five
years and subsequent convictions up to seven years besides the fine amount
mentioned in Section 14(1). Furthermore, the (Amendment) Act 2019, clearly defined
child pornography as “any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a child
including photographs, video, digital, or computer-generated image indistinguishable
from an actual child.”42
47. POCSO derives its power from the Constitution43 , which empowers the State to
make special provisions concerning children, and Article 39(f) of the Constitution44
provides for the State to secure the tender age of children so that they are not abused,
and their youth is protected against exploitation.
48. Furthermore, the newly notified POCSO Rules, 2020, allows for the
implementation of recent amendments to the Act, including more stringent provisions
for the commission of offenses against a child providing for the reporting of child
pornographic content as a duty on intermediaries as defined under the IT, Act, 200045
to bring to the kind attention of the authorities of child porn content to Special
Juvenile Police Unit or local police.46 To add on to this laudable rule, the new rule also
calls for frequent and periodic police verification and background checks of the staff to
ensure the protection of child.47 In light of the submissions made herein, it is humbly
contended that there is an enforcement mechanism in place.
[III.A.2] Information Technology Act, 2000 and IT Intermediary Rules, 2021
49. It is submitted that the IT Act, 2000 adequately addresses cyber pornography
specifically that of child pornography under Section 67B of the Act and provides for the
punishment of every act pertaining to the same.48 Punishment for the first conviction
is imprisonment for a period extending to 5 years and a fine of 10 lakh rupees and in
the event of subsequent conviction, imprisonment up to 7 years and a fine up to 10
lakh rupees.
50. Furthermore, the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital
Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 also provides for the social media intermediaries to
enable the identification of the first originator of the information.49 It is contended that
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 13 Monday, September 12, 2022
Printed For: Rohit kumar, Delhi University Law School
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the rule shall enable the government to track the source of child porn content shared
over the various social media platforms to readily protect the child subject to sexual
abuse.
51. It is pertinent to note that the Bombay HC held that Court did not find a
requisite to exercise extra ordinary jurisdiction to completely ban websites displaying
sexual content emphasizing that the IT Act50 readily deals with the same as contended
above, following a complaint and a prosecution. It is contended that the same shall
apply to Section 67B of the act.51
[III.A.3] Other Miscellaneous provisions
52. It is submitted that the substantive and procedural components of crimes
against women, including those that pertain to minors, are governed by the IPC and
the CrPC. Sections 375, 377 and 354 of the IPC52 govern sexual offences including
rape, unnatural crimes and outraging the modesty of women respectively.
Furthermore, certain specific offences against young girls, such as inducing, forcing, or
seducing to illicit intercourse, selling of girls for prostitution, and buying of girls for
prostitution are all governed by Section 366-A, Section 372 and Section 373 of the IPC
respectively53 .
53. IPC makes publication and transmission of child porn a crime, wherein
obscenity is an offense, making it illegal to transmit child porn content.54 Furthermore,
Section 292(2)(d) of IPC is wide enough to include an attempt at making known “by
any means whatsoever” that “such obscene object can be procured.”55
[III.B] EXECUTIVE ACTIONS AGAINST CHILD PORN
54. It is humbly submitted that it cannot be said that the govt. has abdicated its
duty from protecting the children from being subjected to or exploited for child
pornography. National Crime Records Bureau, headquartered at New Delhi acts as a
nodal agency for proper functioning of On-Line Cyber Reporting Portal of India
(www.cybercrime.gov.in.) and readily forwards reports made on the portal with the
law enforcement agencies.
55. It is also pertinent to note that NCRB has also entered an MoU with NCMEC to
receive Cyber tipline reports relating to suspected Child porn content. Furthermore,
such an arrangement has also been made with various foreign national entities
including that of USA.56
56. Following the directions of this Hon'ble Court57 , the respondents had convened
a meeting with the technical experts, primarily consisting of govt. servants from
various departments to deal with the circulation of child porn content. Furthermore,
the ministry of women and child development promotes policy research and various
other initiatives to further our fight against child porn.58
57. In light of the submissions made herein, it cannot be said that the govt. has
abdicated its duty in taking up a zero-tolerance policy against child porn content.
[III.C] THE JUDICIARY MAY NOT FRAME GUIDELINES
58. It is humbly submitted that though the doctrine of separation of powers is not
acknowledged in its full rigor in the Constitution, and that the constitution makers
have methodically delineated the functions of the three organs to act within their own
realms delimited by the Constitution.59
59. Under the separation of powers provided for by the Constitution, courts shall
not make laws and seek to execute them, and so one organ of the state should not
infringe on the realm of another. Hence, the court shall not attempt to fulfil legislative
or executive duties, especially where there is no void60 . Furthermore, it is contended
that the courts shall not create offenses or impose or regulate penalties.61
60. It is pertinent to note that, the rationale adopted in the Vishaka case62 was that
the duty under international conventions and norms were to be duly considered in the
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 14 Monday, September 12, 2022
Printed For: Rohit kumar, Delhi University Law School
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

absence of a duly enacted domestic law occupying the field and that it would also be
essential for the absence of an enacted law to be coupled with constitutional silence,
for the judiciary to step in like it did in the Vishaka case.63
61. The submission made hereinabove, was reiterated by the wherein it also
emphasized how the courts cannot provide a higher punishment any act classified as
an offense in IDEE and that the courts are only empowered to suggest to the
legislation to duly look into an issue.64 Furthermore, it would only be possible to ban
child pornography and not possible to ban pornographic websites as they are not
under any country's jurisdiction.65
62. In light of the submissions made herein, it is humbly contended that the
Respondents have duly addressed the matter at hand and has no abdicated its
constitutional duty and moral duty for that matter in any possible way. Following the
direction of this Hon'ble Court, the Respondent notified the POCSO Rules, 2020 and
that it readily acts under the mechanism in place. With the legislature's enactment of
the varied legislations as submitted hereinabove, it is contended that the Judiciary
may not exercise the power of the legislature in abidance to the constitutional
provisions.
ISSUE IV : WHETHER MS. LAID AND MS. BOND HAVE AN INHERENT RIGHT OF PRIVACY
AGAINST MEDIA TRIALS?
63. It is humbly submitted before this Hon'ble Court that the petitioners shall not
have an inherent right of privacy against media trails enforceable against the state.
The same shall be contended as [IV.A] The Fundamental Right to Privacy is not
enforceable against the Media; [IV.B] Media's right to freedom of speech and
expression cannot be restricted further; and [IV.C] Govt. has not abdicated its duty.
[IV.A] THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY IS NOT ENFORCEABLE AGAINST THE MEDIA
64. It is humbly submitted that the object of expressly providing the fundamental
rights under Part III of the constitution was to protect and enforce those rights against
the state. 66 The framers of the constitution adopted the American ‘State action
doctrine’ making the fundamental rights generally enforceable only against the state.67
65. It is submitted that the Apex Court has not expressly recognized the horizontal
application of the fundamental right to privacy against non-state entities.
Furthermore, It is contended that media or the press shall not be construed to be
state under article 12 of the constitution as it has been that for an entity to be
construed as state under article 12, it ought to undertake a public function that are
undertaken by the state in its sovereign capacity.68
66. It is pertinent to note that with respect to rights that have been horizontally
applied by the Apex Court, only those rights have been recognized to which there had
been no alternate remedy or any recourse to meet the ends of justice, wherein the
court(s) felt that it was requisite for the state or the judiciary to intervene. However,
considering the circumstances at hand and an access to a varied number of remedies
under Tort Law and Criminal Law, there does not arise a situation for the courts to
horizontally apply the right to privacy against the Media or the Press
67. Furthermore, It is submitted that the rights under Article 21 has also been
extended to cover right to know as an inherent right for the efficient functioning of a
democracy.69 With two conflicting rights the Supreme Court would have to balance the
right to know under Article 21 and Right to freedom of Speech under Article 19(1)(a)
with Right to privacy and the same shall be contended hereinafter.
[IV.B] RESTRICTIONS TO THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION SHALL NOT
INCLUDE PRIVACY
68. It is humbly submitted that press is construed to be the 4th pillar of democracy.
The right of press is drawn from article 19(1)(a) of the constitution70 which provides
for the freedom of speech and expression which is not absolute with article 19(2)71
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 15 Monday, September 12, 2022
Printed For: Rohit kumar, Delhi University Law School
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

providing reasonable restrictions for the same as constitutional safeguards. It is

pertinent to note that the right has been comprehensively analysed and evaluated in
multiple cases72 by the Apex Court wherein it was held that freedom of speech and
expression is the bedrock of democracy and that it was requisite to be protected and
duly enforced for the tolerance of every opinion including the unpopular ones.
69. Furthermore, it was observed by this very Court that freedom of press was a
right which all countries attained at a considerable sacrifice and suffering and that the
chilling effect of restricting the right would undermine the scope of the media to
provide precise and well-founded information.73
70. With respect to the present circumstance, it was the media that brought to the
kind of the public the alleged offenses of exploitation of sex workers, trafficking, child
pornography and various shady deals. Had the right of the press been restricted under
the right of privacy, the media and journalists would held back from exercising their
freedom of speech and expression which would amount tantamount injustice and
chaos with a varied number of injustices being unreported coupled with infringement
of the right to know.
71. Furthermore, with regards to the invasion of privacy by other individuals and
groups, it is not something against which concrete rights to privacy can be enforced
for it would have a chilling effect on the right to speech and expression, which is why
the private right to privacy and reputation has been expressly recognized under Tort
law and Criminal law.
72. It is pertinent to note that Article 19 of the constitution shall only be
enforceable against the state, analysing the language and structure and the intention
to protect the freedoms guaranteed from arbitrary state actions.74 With this very
recognition in place, the right to freedom of speech cannot be restricted under
defamation or contempt of speech against private individuals beyond a reasonable
limit.
73. It is submitted that the aggrieved persons subjected to media trails have a
recourse to approaching an authorized officer under section 19 of Cable Television
Networks (Regulation) Act75 , primarily from the district Magistrate or the police or
under CoC Act76 , primarily from the higher courts for injunctions in cases of
defamation. Furthermore, the regulatory structure in India penalizes the broadcasts.77
74. Furthermore, it is contended that the Delhi High Court established the principle
of denying an injunction, stating that Article 19(2) restricts freedom of expression,
which excludes freedom of the press and was one of the essential foundations of a
democratic society, and that there ought to be a balance between competing rights. In
addition to this, it was concluded that in India, courts have the ability to grant a pre-
publication injunction should the dual conditions of need and proportionality are
fulfilled, and there are no acceptable alternatives to prevent the danger.78
75. In light of the submissions made herein, it is contended that the Right of press
has been reasonably restricted by the courts and the legislature with adequate
safeguards and recognition of the right to privacy. However, imposing a broader
restriction on freedom of press, a pillar of democracy is not something that would
satisfy the common law principles of justice, equity, and good conscience.
[IV.C] GOVT. HAS NOT ABDICATED ITS DUTY
76. It is humbly submitted that there is no constitutional silence with respect to
the same and that the state has taken requisite measures in the past. The Respondent
central govt. has the requisite authority to regulate and media and has indeed
suspended tv channels and issued advisories in the past to sanction tv networks as
submitted in the Bombay HC recently.79
77. It is submitted that respondent's actions have all abided by the mechanism in
place and that they have not abdicated its duty, wherein there has been no failure to
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 16 Monday, September 12, 2022
Printed For: Rohit kumar, Delhi University Law School
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

exercise power. Though it is not denied that there exists an urgent need to strike a
careful balance between the rights of the media and press and the rights of the
affected individuals, there cannot be a right to privacy against the media which would,
as submitted earlier be contradictory to the common law principles of justice, equity
and good conscience.
PRAYER
Wherefore it is prayed, in the light of the facts stated, issues raised,
authorities cited and arguments advanced, that this Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to:
1. HOLD that the Applicant shall not be entitled to bail.
2. DECLARE that sex workers do not have an inherent right of trade and
occupation.
3. HOLD that enforcement mechanisms against child porn exists.
4. DECRARE that Ms. Lacid and Ms. Bond do not have an inherent right to privacy
against media trials.
AND/OR
Pass any other order, writ or direction that it deems fit in the interest of justice, equity
and good conscience.
For this act of kindness, the Respondents shall duty bound forever humbly pray.
SD/-
COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
———
1 R.V. KELKAR, R.V. KELKAR'S CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 291 (Eastern Book Company 2012).
2 Id. at 1.
3 Ryan John Michael Thorpe v. The State of Maharashtra, Bail Application No. 1027 of 2021.

4 Id. at 3.
5 B.K. Adarsh v. Union of India, AIR 1990 AP 100.
6 Id. at 3.

7
Id. at 5.
8
Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439; Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 466.
9 Rohit Tandon v. The Enforcement Directorate, 2017 7 AD (DELHI) 336.
10 Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, § 4, No. 15, Acts of Parliament, 2002 (India).
11 Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40.
12 State of Maharashtra v. Sitaram Popat Vetal, (2004) 7 SCC 521.

13 Anil Kumar Tulsiyani v. State of U.P., (2006) 55 ACC 1014 (SC).

14 State Through C.B.I v. Amaramani Tripathi, (2005) 3 ACR 2995 (SC).
15 Id. at 3.
16 Malvinder Mohan Singh v. State, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 2001.
17 The State of Bihar and Anr v. Amit Kumar, Criminal Appeal No. 767 of 2017.
18 Ashwini Kumar Patra v. Republic of India, 2021 SCC OnLine Ori 438.

19 State v. Jaspal Singh Gill, (1984) 3 SCC 555 : AIR 1984 SC 1503.
20 Asharam Bapu v. State of Rajasthan, LQ RajHC 2014 513.
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 17 Monday, September 12, 2022
Printed For: Rohit kumar, Delhi University Law School
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

21 Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694.

22 Id. at 21.
23 INDIAN CONST. art. 19 cl. 1.
24
Cooverjee B. Bharucha v. The Excise Commissioner, AIR 1954 SC 220.
25 Carpenter v. People, 8 Barb., N.Y., 610, Mahalingam Pillai v. Amsavalli, 1972 Mad LJ (Cri) 150.
26 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UNITED NATIONS , (Jan 1, 2015, 8 : 30 PM)
https://www.un.org/en/udhrbook/pdf/udhr_booklet_en_web.pdf.
27 Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 812.
28
State Of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga, (1998) 4 SCC 117.
29 World Health Organization, Addressing Violence against Sex Workers, 22 (August 10, 2013, 7 : 34 PM),
https://www.who.int/hiv/pub/sti/sex_worker_implementation/swit_chpt2.pdf.
30 Id. at 24.
31
Id. at 26.
32
Janice G. Raymond, Ten Reasons for not legalizing prostitution and a Legal Response to the demand for
prostitution, 2 J. Trauma Pract, 315, 315-317 (2004).
33 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 : AIR 1978 SC 597.
34
Id. at 32.
35
Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 § 2(f), Acts of Parliament, 1956 (India).

Cho, Seo-Young, Dreher, Axel, Neumayer & Eric, Does Legalized Prostitution Increase Human Trafficking? 41
36

World Dev. 67, 73 (2012).

37
United Nations, Coalition against Trafficking in Women, 1 (2005)
https://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/vaw/ngocontribute/Coalition%20Against%20Trafficing%20in%
20Women.pdf.
38M. Sullivan and S. Jeffreys, Legalising Prostitution is Not the Answer : the Example of Victoria, Australia
GAATW, 1, 3 (2011).
39 Raj Bahadur v. Legal Remembrancer of the Government of West Bengal, AIR 1953 Cal 522.
40
Law Commission of India, The Suppression Of Immoral Traffic In Women and Girls Act, 19565 (1975)
41 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, § 13, No. 32, Acts of Parliament, 2012 (India).
42
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act, 2019, § 2(a)(da), No. 25, Acts of Parliament,
2019 (India).
43
INDIA CONST. art. 15, cl. 3.
44 INDIA CONST. art. 39, cl. f.
45
Information Technology Act, 2000 § 2(1)(w), No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 2000 (India).
46
Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Rules, 2020, G.S.R. 165(E) Ministry Of Women and Child
Development.
47Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Rules, 2020, § Rule 3(4), Rules Ministry Of Women and Child
Development 2020 (India).
48 Information Technology Act, 2000 § 67B, No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 2000 (India).
49
Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, G.S.R 139(E) §
Rule 4(2), Rules Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, 2021 (India).
50 Information Technology Act, 2000 § 67A, No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 2000 (India).
 SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 18 Monday, September 12, 2022
Printed For: Rohit kumar, Delhi University Law School
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

51 Janhit Manch v. Union of India, LQ BomHC 2010 507.

52
Penal Code, 1860, § 375, § 377, § 354, No. 45, Acts of Imperial Legislative Council, 1860 (India).
53 Penal Code, 1860, § 366A, § 372, § 373, No. 45, Acts of Imperial Legislative Council, 1860 (India).
54 Penal Code, 1860, § 292, No. 45, Acts of Imperial Legislative Council, 1860 (India).
55
Avnish Bajaj v. State, (2008) 105 DRJ 721.
56The Business Standard, https://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/us-to-help-india-check-online-
child- pornography-119052900590_1.html (last visited Nov. 11, 20
57 Sabu Mathew George v. Union of India, 2016 SCC OnLine SC 681.
58
A report on the conference of partner NGOs, Ministry of Women & Child Development, (Oct, 09, 2017)
https://www.wcd.nic.in/sites/default/files/Conference%20of%20partner%20NGOs_WCD%20Book.pdf.
59 Asif Hameed v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 364 : AIR 1989 SC 1899.
60 Common Cause v. Union of India, (2003) 8 SCC 250.
61
Supreme Court Women Lawyers Association (SCWLA) v. Union Of India, (2016) 3 SCC 680 : AIR 2016 SC 358.
62 Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 5 Scale 453.
63 Id at 51.
64
Id at 50.
65 Kamlesh Vaswani v. Union of India, LQ SC 2014 445.
66 State of W.B. v. Subodh Gopal Bose, AIR 1954 SC 92.
67
Dr. Dilip Kumar Upadhayay, Horizontal application of Fundamental Rights : Issues and Concerns, MADHAV
UNIVERSITY BLOG , (NOV. 11, 2021, 10 : 30 PM), https://www.madhavuniversity.edu.in/horizontal-application.html.
68 G. Bassi Reddy v. International Crops Research Instt., (2003) 2 Scale 136.
69 RP Ltd. v. Proprietors Indian Express Newspapers, Bombay Pvt. Ltd., (1988) 4 SCC 592.
70
INDIA CONST. art. 19, cl. 1.
71
INDIA CONST. art. 19, cl. 2.
72Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras, 1950 SCR 594; Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, 1962 (2) SCJ 400;
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1 : AIR 2015 SC 1523; Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020)
1 Scale 69.
73
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Limited v. Union of India, (1985) 1 SCC 641.
74 P.D. Shamdasani v. Central Bank of India Ltd, (1952) 3 SCR 391.
75 Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, § 19, No. 7, Acts of Parliament, 1995 (India).
76
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, § 3, No. 70, Acts of Parliament, 1971 (India).
77
Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd v. SEBI, (2012) 10 SCC 603.
78 Dr. Shashi Tharoor v. Arnab Goswami, (2018) 167 DRJ 119.
79
Mr. Nilesh Navalakha v. Union of India, 2021 (2) ABR 179.
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/
notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be liable in any manner by reason of any mistake
or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/
rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The
authenticity of this text must be verified from the original source.