IOS MOOT COURT

ased on the facts provided, here are the legal issues and arguments that can be made on behalf of
Mr. B in the moot court scenario.

Legal Issues

1. Breach of Parliamentary Privilege: The core legal issue revolves around whether Mr.
A's publication of Mr. B's speech constitutes a breach of the privilege of the Legislative
Assembly.
2. Freedom of Speech vs. Legislative Privilege: The case raises questions about the
balance between the freedom of speech of a Member of the Legislative Assembly and the
privileges afforded to the legislative body.
3. Nature of the Speech: Whether Mr. B's statements regarding the Chief Minister (CM)
and the issue of the “office of profit” fall under parliamentary privilege and the protection
offered to statements made in the course of legislative duties.
4. Responsibility of the Media: Whether the media (Mr. A) is protected under the right to
freedom of speech and expression for publishing statements made in the assembly,
especially when those statements have not been officially expunged from the public
record.

Arguments for Mr. B

1. Right to Freedom of Speech:

o Mr. B, as a Member of the Legislative Assembly, is exercising his constitutional
right to free speech. Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India guarantees
freedom of speech, which includes the right to express dissent and raise concerns
regarding governance, including allegations of corruption.
2. Parliamentary Privilege:
o Statements made during the legislative proceedings are protected under
parliamentary privilege. Mr. B’s speech, delivered in the Assembly, was intended
to hold the government accountable. The privilege is meant to ensure that elected
representatives can speak freely without fear of repercussions.
3. Media's Role in Democracy:
o The publication by Mr. A serves the public interest by informing citizens about
the activities of their elected representatives. The media has a crucial role in a
democracy to report on legislative proceedings and inform the electorate, thereby
enhancing transparency and accountability.
4. Expunging Statements:
o The Speaker's decision to expunge certain words from the proceedings does not
negate the public interest in the matter discussed. The speech, as a whole, still
reflects legitimate concerns regarding governance and should be part of the public
discourse.
5. Absence of Malice:
o There was no malicious intent behind Mr. B’s statements. His comments were
made in the context of a legislative debate, aimed at highlighting serious issues
 such as corruption and the misuse of office. The concern for public welfare
justifies the statements made.
6. Legitimate Discourse:
o Mr. B's statements about the CM's actions fall within the realm of legitimate
discourse that seeks to ensure accountability in public office. This is a
fundamental aspect of democracy and should be protected under the umbrella of
legislative privilege.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Mr. B's arguments focus on the principles of freedom of speech, the importance of
parliamentary privilege, and the media's role in reporting on legislative activities. He asserts that
his statements were made in good faith to serve the public interest and contribute to the
democratic process, thus defending against the claim of breach of privilege.

4o mini

2. SEARCH

To prepare a memorandum from Mr. B's perspective, we need to carefully address the core
issues of breach of legislative privilege, freedom of speech, and the right to publish in a
newspaper, alongside the potential violation of Article 32. Here's a structured outline for a moot
court memorandum with a focus on Mr. B's position, in light of the Harmonious Construction
rule and relevant legal principles.

1. Cover Page

 Title of the Moot Court

 Name of the Court
 Case Name: Mr. B v. State of Karnataka
 Side Represented: Petitioner (Mr. B)
 Date of Hearing

2. Table of Contents
  Introduction
 Summary of Facts
 Statement of Issues
 Summary of Arguments
 Arguments Advanced
 Conclusion
 Prayer

3. Introduction

 Brief introduction to the case focusing on the accusation of corruption by Mr. B against the CM
of Karnataka, the expunging of Mr. B’s words by the Speaker, and the subsequent publication of
the expunged speech by Mr. A. This introduces the conflict between legislative privilege and the
right to freedom of speech and publication.

4. Summary of Facts

 Mr. B, an MLA from the opposition, accused the CM of corruption during an assembly session on
August 10, 2022.
 The Speaker ordered that part of Mr. B's speech be expunged, labeling the statements as
irrelevant.
 Mr. A published the speech verbatim in his newspaper, “The Paper News.”
 An MLA raised a breach of privilege motion against Mr. A.
 Mr. A filed a writ petition under Article 32, challenging this as a breach of his fundamental rights.

5. Statement of Issues

1. Whether Mr. B’s right to freedom of speech in the Assembly and Mr. A’s right to freedom of the
press conflict with the privilege of the Legislative Assembly.
2. Whether Mr. A’s publication of Mr. B’s speech, even after being expunged, constitutes a breach
of legislative privilege.
3. Whether the doctrine of Harmonious Construction can resolve the apparent conflict between
fundamental rights under Article 19 (freedom of speech and expression) and legislative
privilege.

6. Summary of Arguments
  Mr. B's speech falls under parliamentary privileges, and the legislative privilege should not
conflict with citizens' right to information.
 The expunging of Mr. B’s words by the Speaker is a legislative action that should not infringe
upon the fundamental rights of individuals to publish public records.
 The Harmonious Construction rule mandates balancing the legislature's privileges with
fundamental rights, ensuring no overreach or abuse.

7. Arguments Advanced

Issue 1: Right to Freedom of Speech in the Assembly and Freedom of the Press

 Argument: Under Article 194(1) of the Constitution, every MLA has the right to freedom of
speech in the House, subject to the Assembly's rules. In Raja Ram Pal v. Hon’ble Speaker, Lok
Sabha, the Supreme Court held that legislative privileges are meant to ensure the effective
functioning of the legislature but should not infringe upon other fundamental rights.
 Application of Harmonious Construction: The Harmonious Construction doctrine can be applied
here to balance Mr. B's freedom of speech in the Assembly with the privilege of legislative
immunity, ensuring that the privilege of the House does not extend to suppressing essential
debates on issues of public importance.

Issue 2: Breach of Legislative Privilege by Publishing Expunged Speech

 Argument: The expunction of Mr. B’s words by the Speaker does not negate Mr. A’s right to
publish content related to matters of public interest, especially since the original speech was
made in an open legislative session. In Searchlight Case (Pandit M.S.M. Sharma v. Shri Krishna
Sinha), the Court discussed the balance between legislative privileges and freedom of the press.
 Counter-Argument to Breach of Privilege: Although the Speaker has the authority to expunge
words from the official record, this power is limited to protecting decorum in the House.
Publishing expunged material for public awareness does not constitute a breach of privilege as
long as it is factual and devoid of defamatory intent.

Issue 3: Application of Harmonious Construction

 Argument: Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression,
which includes the freedom of the press. The Special Reference No. 1 of 1964 (Privileges Case)
elaborates that legislative privileges and fundamental rights should be read harmoniously,
allowing both to coexist without undermining one another. Here, the right to publish legislative
proceedings must be balanced with the privilege of legislative freedom to debate.
 Application in the Present Case: Given that Mr. B’s speech discussed significant allegations
against a public figure (the CM), the publication serves a greater public purpose and falls within
the ambit of public interest. Using the Harmonious Construction rule, the privilege to expunge
remarks within the Assembly does not extend to curtailing Mr. A’s right to publish, especially
since this does not hinder the Assembly's legislative functions.
Relevant Landmark Cases

 Raja Ram Pal v. Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha: Legislative privilege must serve the public interest
and should not infringe on individual freedoms.
 Pandit M.S.M. Sharma v. Shri Krishna Sinha (Searchlight Case): Freedom of the press is a
constitutional right that must be balanced with legislative privilege.
 State of Karnataka v. Union of India: Emphasizes the balance between different constitutional
provisions.
 Special Reference No. 1 of 1964: Legislative privilege and fundamental rights must coexist under
the rule of Harmonious Construction, maintaining a balance between parliamentary privilege
and citizens' rights.

8. Conclusion

Based on the above arguments, it is respectfully submitted that Mr. B's speech was within his
privilege as an MLA, while Mr. A’s publication falls under his constitutional right to freedom of
speech and expression. The Harmonious Construction rule, when applied, balances the privilege
of the Assembly with fundamental rights, making Mr. A’s publication valid.

9. Prayer

 Relief Sought: Mr. B prays that this Hon'ble Court declare that:
o Mr. A’s publication does not constitute a breach of legislative privilege.
o The Speaker's decision to expunge Mr. B’s words should not curtail the freedom of
speech or press rights.
o The application of the Harmonious Construction rule is upheld to ensure that legislative
privilege and fundamental rights coexist harmoniously without infringing upon public
rights.

This structure and argumentation should form a solid basis for defending Mr. B’s position in the
moot court, especially in light of the Harmonious Construction doctrine and relevant case laws.