Moot problem- please help?
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 04 October 2011
This query is : Open
MOOT PROBLEM
SADHANA, an NGO
V.
Union of India and Others
Five people were hit by a blue Volkswagen car in the state of Samata Pradesh, Union of India on February 12, 2009. The initial testimonies and a 20-minute film recorded next morning led the police to conclude that the hit-and-run was caused by three young drunk men. These three people were Siddhanth, Manik and the alleged driver Sanjeev, who is the grandson of a former General of the Indian Army, and son of a well known arms dealer.
This case came into lime light and caused public uproar on the evening of 25th July, 2009, when two senior advocates – Mr. Khanna, who was the Special Public Prosecutor in the case and Mr. Arun the advocate defending the main accused Sanjeev, son of the former Navy Chief, were shown by PKTV channel allegedly influencing the eyewitness Sunil. The video recording showed the defence lawyer and Sunil getting into a car where they talk of money and of changing testimony. The videos also show a common meeting between the prosecution and the defence lawyer and Sunil where they were trying to persuade him to change his statement and were offering him Rs. 5 crores for the same.
‘SADHANA’, an NGO filed a PIL in the Supreme Court questioning the sting operation and the ‘trail by media’, contending that responsibility of the media is to maintain professional standards by evolving a self-regulatory mechanism, and the sting operation is inconsistent with the freedom of the press.
In the PIL the petitioner complained of the impropriety of intruding into the privacy of the people, especially in the absence of stringent laws protecting the privacy in the country.
Main contentions of the Petitioner are:
1. Sting operations amount to contempt of court as they deal with matters sub judice and attempt to influence the minds of judges.
2. Sting operations intrude upon the privacy of a person and hence they are not covered by the freedom of speech which covers freedom of press under the Constitution of the country. They are also violative of Art. 12 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.
3. Sting operations temp, if not force, someone to commit a crime and encourage law breaking which is unacceptable.
It is suggested by the Petitioner that in the event of such sting operations being found constitutional, still they should be allowed only against public servants that too when they are on duty, and further that the media should take prior permission for conducting such operations on the grounds that it would amount to pre-censorship.
The matter is posted for final hearing.
Counsels are expected to prepare memorandums for Petitioner and Respondent.
