1

2nd SURANA & SURANA AND Dr. M.S. RAMAIAH NATIONAL TORT LAW MOOT
COURT COMPETITION

_____________________________________________________________________________

IN THE

HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

_____________________________________________________________________________

DISPUTE RELATING TO

DEFAMATION AND VICARIOUS LIABILITY

_____________________________________________________________________________

Application No. _____/2018

_____________________________________________________________________________

IN THE MATTERS OF:

WILSON............................................PETITIONER

v.

RACHEL................................DEFENDANT NO.1

SARTAJ...................................DEFENDANT NO.2

QUIBBLER TV........................DEFENDANT NO.3

___________________________________________________________________________

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

COUNSEL FOR THE PETIIONER

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 The index of authorities

 The statement of jurisdiction

 The statement of facts

 The statement of issues

 The summary of arguments

 The arguments advanced

 The prayer
 3

INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS

 AIR : All India Reporter

 Anr. : Another

 CPC : Code of Civil Procedure

 Edn. : Edition

 IPC : India Penal Code

 Ltd. : Limited

 Ors. : Others

 V. : Versus
 4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES

1. Constitution of India, 1950

2. Indian Penal Code, 1860

3. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

BOOKS REFERED

1. V MITTER, LAW OF DEFAMATION AND MALIIOUS PROSECUTION CIVIL AND

CRIMINAL (FOURTEENTH EDITION, UNIVERSAL LAW PUBLISHING, 2017)

2. SEBASTIAN PAUL, LAW, ETHICS AND THE MEDIA (THIRD EDITION, LEXISNEXIS,

2015)

3. MANOHAR AND CHITALEY, COMMENTARY ON THE INDIAN PENAL CODE

(FIRST EDITION, ALL INDIA REPORTER, NAGPUR, 2014)

4. DURGA DAS BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, VOL.3

(9TH EDITION, LEXISNEXIS)

5. BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, BRYAN A. GARNER (TENTH EDITION, THOMSON)

6. SAMARADITYA PAL, INDIA'S CONSSTITUTION ORIGINS AND EVOLUTION, VOL.2

(LEXISNEXIS)
 5

7. PROF. S.R. BHANSALI, THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, VOL.2 (UNIVERSAL LAW

PUBLISHING)

8. M P JAIN, INDIA CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (EIGHTH EDITION, LEXISNEXIS)

9. W. BLAKE ODGER, ODGER'S LAW OF LIBEL AN SLANDER

SITES REFERED

1. MANUPATRA.COM

2. INDIAKANOON.ORG

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

1. Suri v. Stretch, (1936) 2 All ER 1237 (1240)

2. Lewis v. Daily Telegraph Ltd. (1964) AC 234

3. Bala Ram v. Sukh Sampat Lal, AIR 1975 Raj 40 (41): 1974 Raj LW 215.

4. Bala Ram v. Sukh Sampat Lal, AIR 1975 Raj 40 (41): 1974 Raj LW 215.
 6

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner humbly submits this memorandum to the jurisdiction of Hon'ble High Court of

Delhi. According to Section 6 of CPC, save in so far as is otherwise expressly provided, nothing

herein contained shall operate to give any Court jurisdiction over suits the amount or value of the

subject-matter of which exceeds the pecuniary limits (if any) of its ordinary jurisdiction. This is

explained as every court will have jurisdiction over those disputes which are within its pecuniary

limit and every suit has to be filed in the lowest grade competent to be tried. The pecuniary

jurisdiction is decided on the basis of the value of the suit. The pecuniary limit of the district

court is decided by the high court. According to DELHI HIGH COURT (AMENDMENT) ACT,

2015 sub-section (2) of Section 5, The High Court of Delhi shall have, in respect of the

territories for the time being, included in the union territory of Delhi, the ordinary original civil

jurisdiction in every suit the value of which exceeds Rs 2 Crore.

THE STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Wilson was the founder CEO of Essex Corporation which is one of the top brands in the

financial market that provides financial advisory services to its customers. Wilson's brilliance is

indispensible for the company. It started barely 5 years ago as a small start up of college friends.

2. Umbrella Corporation, a U.S. based giant financial company has been negotiating the

takeover of Essex Corporation for several weeks. If the acquisition were to go through, Wilson,

at the age of 31 years, would be the country’s youngest billionaire.

3. The directors of Umbrella Corporation were meeting Wilson and his team on 24.11.2018 for

finalising the deal. It was the most important meeting of Wilson's life.

4. On 23.11.2018, Quibbler TV aired an interview of Rachel wherein she levelled various

allegations against Wilson. She said “the metoo movement would be a farce unless men like

Wilson who have stalked and harassed women continue to enjoy impunity and are not made to

feel remorse about their actions.”

5. On the basis of these statements, the news anchor of Quibbler TV- Sartaj Singh carried out a 2

hour story on prime time. In the first segment, Quibbler TV called for viewers to vote on

“Whether Wilson should be allowed to get away with harassing women?” The TV channel also

started a twitter campaign with the #wilsonthepervert. In the next segment, a debate was telecast

on how companies need to strengthen their policies and refuse to collaborate with people who

were accused of harassment in the ‘me too’ movement unless they prove their innocence.
 8

6. In light of the developments, Umbrella Corporation informed Wilson that they did not want to

be seen as a company that does business with anyone who is in the middle of a media trial as the

public relations would be a nightmare. The deal was called off.

7. Antagonised Wilson filed a civil suit for defamation, character assassination and damages

before the Delhi High Court arraying Rachel as the First Defendant, Sartaj as the Second

Defendant and Quibbler TV as the Third Defendant. He contended that the accusations of

Rachel and the television program by Sartaj Singh have caused irreparable damage to his

reputation. Further Quibbler TV is vicariously liable for the actions of Sartaj. Wilson sought for

a public apology by all the Defendants to be aired on Quibbler TV along with monetary damages

to the tune of Rs. 100 crores.

8. Upon the receipt of the suit summons, Rachel and the other Defendants have filed their

Written Statement. While Rachel claimed that truth is her sole defence, the Second Defendant

claimed for immunity under the freedom of press, speech and expression. It was further asserted

that there was no factual error in the news program that was telecast on 23.08.2018. If Wilson is

innocent as he claims, he ought to prove his innocence for the requirement is to believe the

victim unless proven otherwise. The Third Defendant too has denied any liability on their part as

Sartaj was hired on a contractual basis.

9. It was the summer of 2012, Rachel after completing graduation, joined Wade Enterprises.

10. Wade Enterprises was one of the leading wealth management companies in the country. The

securities and investments division was headed by Wilson who had made a remarkable name for

himself in the organization. While Rachel’s academic record was not as impressive as many

other applicants, she fared quite well in the interview taken by Wilson and joined the

organization on 01.09.2012
 9

11. While working together, Wilson grew a fondness for Rachel but never expressed it.

12. At the New Year’s Eve, during an office party Rachel had a little too much to drink. As she

was too was too drunk to drive, Wilson stayed up till late night and dropped her back. When they

reached Rachel’s home, she invited him over. As Rachel was intoxicated, Wilson declined and

thought best if he left. Rachel gave him a hug and kissed him goodbye.

13. Wilson couldn’t believe what just happened. His excitement knew no bounds. He

immediately called up his entire friends in the office and told them what happened. The next

morning, when Rachel walked into the office, she was flabbergasted to find her workplace filled

with red heart shaped balloons and decorations. In the centre was Wilson who was down on one

knee with a ring proposing to her.

14. Rachel did not know how to respond. While assimilating all what was happening around her,

she spoke to Wilson and told him that she did not feel that way about him.

15. Wilson was dejected. He tried to persuade Rachel who was just avoiding Wilson under one

pretext or the other.

17. Soon, Rachel received a mail from the HR of Wade Enterprises informing her that she is no

longer with the securities and investment team of Stark Industries and that she will be reporting

to the marketing team henceforth.

18. Rachel was furious, she felt that she is being punished for refusing to date Wilson and argued

that if anybody has to be transferred, it is Wilson. The management did not budge considering

the fact Wade Enterprises needed Wilson in the securities and investment division more than

Rachel who had been with them for barely a few months. Rachel escalated the issue by filing a

complaint against Wilson alleging stalking, unwelcomed physical advances and detrimental

treatment at her workplace to her disadvantage for having refused the advances of Wilson under
 10

the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal ) Act,

2013.

19. In terms of the Act, an Internal Complaints Committee was set up. Wilson was shocked at

the accusations and allegations levelled against him. He was at a loss of words at this move by

Rachel. With a view not to precipitate the matter and to have a closure on the issue, Wilson

tendered his resignation to the company.

20. After working for a couple of months at the marketing division of Wade Enterprises, seeking

no growth in the near future, Rachel left the organization. She then applied at several places

seeking for employment in her desired field of securities and investment. However, in light of

what transpired at Wade Enterprises not many companies were keen on having her on board.

They feared that any negative feedback about her work during her employment or any criticism

of work would invite allegations of sexual harassment.

21. Rachel could not understand where she had erred. She could not find a suitable job elsewhere

and could not stop blaming Wilson for ruining her career. Several years later, when the Me Too

movement started, Rachel found it fit to raise her voice and speak up.
 11

THE STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Was Rachel liable for defamation?

a. Rachel's statement was defamatory

b. It was published.

c. Rachel's defence of truth is not valid.

d. Wilson's reputation has gone down in the minds of the reasonable thinking people in the

society.

e. The Rachel's statement was only and exclusive reason of the cancellation of Wilson's deal

with Umbrella Corporation.

f. A damage of 100 crore is justifiable on Wilson's part.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. Rachel will be liable for defamation.

A. Defendant no. 1’s statement defamed the petitioner.

1. Rachel stated that Wilson stalked and harassed women and that men like him

should be made guilty and punished. As per Section 499 of IPC, her statement

was defamatory in its natural and ordinary meaning. Lord Reid in Lewis v.

Daily Telegraph Ltd.1 stated that Sometimes the libelous sting is contained in

the words themselves. The general principle is would ordinary reasonable

man understand words of to expose C to hatred/contempt/ridicule? Whoever

by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible

representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person

intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such

imputation will harm, the reputation of such person is said, except in the cases

hereinafter excepted, to defame that person2. Hence Rachel should be liable

for defamation.

2. The statement was published by Rachel. The statement was aired in an

interview on Quibbler TV where Rachel leveled various allegations against

the petitioner.

1
Lewis v. Daily Telegraph Ltd. (1964) AC 234.
2
Section 499 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
 13

3. Rachel’s statement clearly referred to Wilson and not any class. She referred

to him by his name while accusing him stalking and harassing women in the

interview.

4. The statement lowered the reputation of Wilson in the estimation of the right-

thinking members of society. As Salmond stated in The Law of Torts, 13th

Edn., p. 355, followed in Suri v. Stretch:3 “The test of defamatory nature of a

statement is its tendency to excite against the plaintiff the adverse opinions or

feeling of other persons. The typical form of defamation is an attack upon the

moral character of the plaintiff attributing to him any form of disgraceful

conduct.” Rachel’s statement affected Wilson’s business. The most important

business deal of his life was called off because of him being in the middle of a

media trial from Rachel’s statements.

B. Truth as an absolute defence is invalid.

1. Rachel accused Wilson of stalking and harassing women. In fact

Rachel was the only female and no other women were involved. As

per the proviso of Section 354D of IPC Wilson’s actions do not

amount to stalking. The proviso (iii) of Section 354D of IPC states in

the particular circumstances such conduct was reasonable and justified

and hence did not amount to stalking. Harassment refers to words,

conduct or action, that being directed at a specific person, annoys,

alarms, or causes substantial emotional distress to that person and

3
Suri v. Stretch, (1936) 2 All ER 1237 (1240)
 14

serves no legitimate purpose4. Wilson did not stalk or harass women

and hence Rachel’s defence of truth is invalid.

C. Rachel is liable for character assassination

1. Rachel’s statement was a vicious personal verbal attack on the petitioner with

the intention of destroying or damaging his reputation or confidence. She

maliciously stated that men like Wilson who have stalked and harassed

women should be punished and made guilty of their actions. Her statement

was a verbal assault designed to damage Wilson’s reputation5.

2. Rachel’s statement of Wilson stalking and harassing women was published in

an interview on Quibbler TV. After the interview was aired Wilson’s

reputation was damaged. Rachel’s words were the predominating cause of all

the damage assigned. He lost the most important deal for his company as

Umbrella Corporation called it off due to him being stuck in the middle of a

media trial.

3. Wilson had acquired a deal with Umbrella Corporation, a giant conglomerate

of financial companies for his own company, Essex Corporation. The

takeover would be enough to make Wilson the country’s youngest billionaire.

This deal was called off due to Rachel’s defamatory statement6. Rachel’s

words were the predominating cause of all the damage assigned. Hence

damages of Rs. 100 crores is justified on the part of Wilson7. The sum must

compensate him for the damage to the reputation; vindicate his good name;

4
HENRY CAMPBELL BLACK, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 637 (Bryan A. Garner, 10 Edn.)
5
Bala Ram v. Sukh Sampat Lal, AIR 1975 Raj 40 (41): 1974 Raj LW 215.
6
Narayanan v. Narayanan, AIR 1961 Mad 254: 74 Mad LW 10: (1961) 2 Mad LJ 189.
7
W. BLAKE ODGER ODGER’S LAW OF LIBEL AND SLANDER 335
 15

and take into account of the distress, hurt and humiliation which the

defamatory statement published has caused8.

8
John v. MGN Ltd. 1997 QB 586; Bala Ram v. Sukh Sampat Lal, AIR 1975 Raj 40 (41): 1974 Raj LW 215.
 16

PRAYER

Wherefore in the lights of the facts stated, issues raised, authorities cited, and arguments

advanced, it is most humbly prayed by the plaintiff before the honourable High Court of Delhi

that it may be graciously pleased to adjudge and declare that:

1. That defendant no. 1 to be held liable for defamation.

2. That defendant no. 3 to be held vicariously liable.

3. That a public apology should be made and aired on Quibbler TV by all the defendants

4. That the plaintiff be entitled for compensation claimed.

And/Or,

Pass any such order that it deems fit and proper in the interest of equity, justice and good

conscience.

And for this act of kindness, the Petitioner shall duty bound forever pray.

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED