TC- 16R

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF

INDISTAN
[FILED UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDISTAN]

Mr. R. C. Kehta ……………………………….……………….…(Petitioner)

v.

Govt. of NCT of Khushal Pradesh

&
Lt. Governor of Khushal Pradesh…………………………….(Respondents)

Memorial on behalf of the RESPONDENTS

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS |Page 1

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVITIONS………………………………...……………………………….3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………...………………………………4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………….……………………………………6

STATEMENT OF FACTS………………….………………………………………………7

STATEMENT OF ISSUES……….…………………………………………………...…...11

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT……………….………………………….………………..12

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED:-

i. The petition is not maintainable before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indistan-13
ii. The Odd-Even scheme implemented by the Govt. of NCT is not violative of the
Fundamental Rights under the Constitution of Indistan...…………………….…14
iii. The satirical sketch uploaded by Mr. Kehta amounts to obscenity and indecent
representation under the Criminal Laws of Indistan…………………………......16
iv. The consultation by Lt. Governor with the Council of Ministers was
constitutionally full and proper………………………………………………..…18
PRAYER………………………………………………………………………………...…..20

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS |Page 2

 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

A.I.R ALL INDIA REPORTER

Anr ANOTHER

Art. ARTICLE

Cr. CRIMINAL

CrLJ CRIMINAL LAW JOURNAL

Ed. EDITION

e.g EXEMPLUM GRATIA

HC HIGH COURT

Hon’ble HONOURABLE

IPC INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

i.e THAT IS

I.L.R INDIAN LAW REPORTER

LR LAW REPORTER

Ors. OTHERS

P. PAGE

SC SUPREME COURT

SCC SUPREME COURT CASES

SCWR SUPREME COURT WEEKLY REPORT

UOI UNION OF INDIA

Viz. NAMELY

& AND

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS |Page 3

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES
1. The Constitution of India.
2. Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. Motor Vehicles Act1988.
4. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 1991.
5. Indecent Representation of Woman (Prohibition) Act, 1986.
6. Information of Technology Act, 2000.

BOOKS
1. Constitutional Law of India, Durga Das Basu, Lexis Nexis, 8 th Edition 2008.
2. Constitution of India, V. N. Shukla, Eastern Book Company, Twelfth Edition, 2013.
3. Civil Procedure, C.K. Takwani, Eastern Book Company, Seventh Edition, 2013.
4. Constitutional Law of India, J. N. Pandey, Central Law Agency, Fifty Fifth
Edition,2018
5. Constutution law of India, Dr, Narendra Kumar, Allahabad Law Agency, Ninth
Edition, 2015.
6. Indian Constitution Law, M P Jain, Central Law House, Sixth Edition, 2010
7. Indian Penal Code, K D Gaur, Universal Law Publishers.

WEBSITES

1. www.indiankanoon.org
2. www.legalblog.in
3. www.casemine.com
4. www.myadva.in
5. www.mondaq.com
6. www.lawyersclubindia.com
7. www.ijtr.nic.in
8. www.latestlaws,com
9. www.livelaw.in
10. www.zegal.in
11. www.sclt.in
12. www.legalcrystal.com
13. www.the-laws.com
14. www.lawyerservices

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS |Page 4

 CASES

1. Manish Goel v. Rohini Goel, AIR 2010 SC 1099.

2. Nizam v. State of Rajasthan, (2016) 1 SCC 550: AIR 2015 SC 3430,
3. Pritam Singh v. The State AIR 1950 SC 169: 1950 SCR 453.
4. Subhas Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 420.
5. Education and Research Center v. Union of India, AIR (1995) 3 SCC 42.
6. Vincent Parikurlangara v. Union of India, AIR (1987) 2 SCC 165.
7. Ajay Goswami v. Union of India, (2007) 1 SCC 143.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS |Page 5

 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indistan has jurisdiction to hear the instant petition under
Article 136 (1) of the Constitution of Indistan.

Article 136 provides as:-

Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court--

(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant
special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any
cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.

(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order
passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to Armed
Forces.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS |Page 6

 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The Democratic Republic of Indistan, a nation that won its Independence from British
colonial rule in 1948, comprises of twenty nine states and one National Capital
Territory (NCT), Khushal Pradesh.
2. Every year in the winter season the Union Territory of Khushal Pradesh i.e. the
National Capital Territory gets enveloped in thick smog. According to the
investigations carried out by some agencies, the accumulation of smog is caused due
to mixed number of factors such as:- the burning of crop in the neighboring state of
Jatland and Uttam Pradesh, weather change, vehicular pollution in Khushal Pradesh
and large amount of open constructions in NCT.
3. For the past couple of years every time the smog covers Khushal Pradesh the people
have harshly criticized the government of Khushal Pradesh. In this present year, 2019
the Chief Minister in his speech in the Independence Day stated that the government
has thought a lot about curbing the smog and ways to prevent it from covering the
capital. Amongst the various means the government is requesting the governments of
neighboring states of Jatland and Uttam Pradesh to ensure that the crops are burnt far
from the borders of Khushal Pradesh and in such manner that the smog is carried
away from the NCT.
4. Another pollution curbing scheme which is explained by C.M is odd-even scheme.
According to that scheme, the cars with odd number in its number plates shall be
allowed to use only on Monday, Wednesday and Friday while even number cars on
Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. On Sunday, it is for each household to decide to use
one of the cars they might have, irrespective of the number of the car. However, the
prohibition shall not be applicable for those cars being used for government functions.
5. The odd-even scheme was initially considered as futuristic promise which would
never see the light of day. But on 15th September the newspaper reports informed the
public that the C.M and his cabinet were actually considering the implementation of
odd-even scheme. This report caused an outrage in NCT and people started to
condemn the C.M and his government. To control this outrage, the C.M called for an
immediate cabinet meeting and where it was decided that the Odd-Even scheme shall
be implemented but after the consultations and public meetings with civil societies.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS |Page 7

 6. This odd-even scheme was proposed to the Lt. Governor on 15th September. On 22nd
September the C.M and his Council of Ministers have paid a visit to the Lt. Governor
for having a discussion in this matter. The Lt Governor accepted the proposal and
thought of implementing the scheme immediately. The C.M and his Council also
wanted to implement the scheme but at a later stage with furthermore consultations.
The Lt. Governor, thinking the dangers of air pollution and its effects implemented
the scheme immediately.
7. On 23rd September 2019 the major newspapers of Khushal Pradesh carried a
notification issued by the office of the Lieutenant Governor of Khushal Pradesh in
which the Lieutenant Governor had notified the implementation of the odd-even
scheme from the 25th of September 2019. The notification is as under:

“In exercise of the powers conferred vide the Motor Vehicles Act of Indistan, the Lieutenant
Governor of the National Capital Territory of Khushal Pradesh, on being satisfied that
further steps are required to control vehicular pollution caused by non-transport four
wheeled vehicles (motor cars etc.), hereby orders, in the interest of public health and safety,
that the following prohibitory / restrictive measures shall be in vogue in the area of National
Capital Territory of Khushal Pradesh; namely The plying of non-transport four wheeled
vehicles (Motor Cars etc.) having registration number ending with odd digit (1,3,5,7,9) shall
be prohibited on Monday, Wednesday and Friday and the plying of non-transport four
wheeled vehicles (Motor Cars etc.) having registration number ending with even digit
(0,2,4,6,8) shall be prohibited on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. These restrictions shall
also apply to the nontransport four wheeled vehicles bearing registration number of other
states. These restrictions shall be applicable from 8 AM to 8 PM of such dates. These
restrictions shall not be applicable on Sundays. These restrictions shall not apply to the
vehicles of such categories as mentioned below:

(i) Vehicles of the President of Indistan;

(ii) Vehicles of the Vice President of Indistan;
(iii) Vehicles of the Prime Minister of Indistan;
(iv) Vehicles of Governors of States;
(v) Vehicles of Chief Justice of Indistan;
(vi) Vehicles of the Speaker of Lok Sabha
(vii) Vehicles of the Ministers of the Union;

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS |Page 8

(viii) Vehicles of the Leaders of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha;
(ix) Vehicles of the Chief Ministers of States and the Union Territories except the
Chief Minister, Government of National Capital Territory of Khushal Pradesh;
(x) Vehicles of the Judges of Supreme Court of Indistan;
(xi) Vehicle of the Deputy Chairman of Rajya Sabha;
(xii) Vehicle of the Dy. Speaker of Lok Sabha;
(xiii) Vehicles of Lieutenant Governors of Union Territories;
(xiv) Vehicles of the Judges of the High Court of Khushal Pradesh;
(xv) Vehicle of the Lokayukta;
(xvi) Emergency Vehicles i.e. Ambulance, Fire Brigade, Hospital, prison, Hearse
vehicles;
(xvii) Enforcement vehicles i.e. vehicles of Police, para military forces etc.;
(xviii) Vehicles bearing Ministry of Defence number plates;
(xix) Vehicles which are having a pilot escort;
(xx) Vehicles of SPG protectees;
(xxi) Embassy Vehicles bearing CD numbers;
(xxii) Compressed Natural Gas driven vehicles (these vehicles should prominently
display sticker 'CNG Vehicle' on the front windscreen - issued by M/s Shudh
Paryavaran Gas Ltd.), Electric vehicles, Hybrid vehicles;
(xxiii) Vehicles being used for medical emergencies - (will be trust based);
(xxiv) Women only vehicles - including children of age up-to 12 years travelling with
them;
(xxv) Vehicles driven/occupied by handicapped persons.

Violation of these orders shall attract a fine of Rs. 20000/- in accordance with the
provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.”

8. Though this came as a shock to a number of people but it has to be done considering
the effects of air pollution.
9. Mr. R.C Kehta, a famous comedian based out of Khushal Pradesh, lives in Hashmukh
Vihar and his office and his recording studio are in Raksha Colony. Since July 2019,
his videos acquired a lot of attention and gathered millions of subscribers to his
channels because he started a series of political satirical comedy. He, being a
comedian also took to satire. He uploaded on his media channels a short satirical
sketch depicting how the C.M of Khushal Pradesh had chanced upon the idea of an

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS |Page 9

 odd-even scheme in the state. In that cartoon sketch he portrayed a likeness of the
C.M’s dressing style onto a caricature. This caricature was juggling between two
women. He would move from one end of the screen where one of the women was
standing to the other end of the screen where the other woman was standing. He
would hug and try to kiss the first woman but the other woman would start abusing,
seeing that. The same happened when he tried to be close and intimate to the other
woman. Fed up with, he puts up a curtain between the two women and then numbers
each of the women as 1 and 2 .He then separately reasoned with them as to how he
would be with one woman on one day and the other woman on the other day. As he
amicably settles the dispute between the two women a light bulb appears over his
head and in a daydream, he feels that this odd-even could solve the problem of
pollution in the state of Khushal Pradesh as the smoke coming out of the cars would
be halved.
10. When the sketch came out there was a complaint against him that the sketch was
obscene and the contents of that sketch ought not to be displayed publicly. The police
proceeded against him and a case of indecent representation of women was registered
against him. At this time he was made aware of this case against him. He thus
consulted his lawyers and approached the High Court.
11. In his petition, he requested that the complaint against him be quashed as there is
nothing obscene about the sketch. He also challenged the constitutionality of the
notification of 23rd September and contended that the notification is legally void as
there was no proper consultation with his Council of Ministers and proper application
of mind by the Lt. Governor before issuing the notification.
12. The High Court dismissed his petition on 10th of November as the Court found that
the scheme does not violate the fundamental rights, that the notification was issued
adequately by the Lt. Governor and it was not necessary for him to apply his mind on
his own to the matter. The court also found that the contents of the sketch were indeed
obscene and indecent and the complaint against him cannot be quashed at this stage.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS |Page 10

 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

I.
Is the petition maintainable before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indistan?

II.
Is the Odd-Even scheme implemented by the Govt. of NCT violative of the
Fundamental Rights under the Constitution of Indistan?

III.
Does the satirical sketch uploaded by Mr. Kehta amounts to obscenity and
indecent representation under the Criminal Laws of Indistan?

IV.
Whether the consultation by Lt. Governor with the Council of Ministers was
constitutionally full and proper?

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS |Page 11

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

I. Is the petition maintainable before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indistan?

The petition is not maintainable as there is no proper grounds for the application of such
petition as well as all the measures taken by the government are consistent with the law and
as per the laws of our country. Sec. 115 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides such
discretionary power to the government of taking necessary measures to restrict the use of
vehicles. And hence no question arises regarding this.

II. Is the Odd-Even scheme implemented by the Govt. of NCT violative of the
Fundamental Rights under the Constitution of Indistan?
No, the Odd-Even scheme implemented by the Govt. of NCT is not violative of the
Fundamental Rights under the Constitution of Indistan as because of the Art. 21 of the
Constitution in itself provides for the right to life and personal liberty which also includes
right to pollution free environment which is to be provided by the government to the citizens.
Here in this case the government had simply taken necessary measures to provide a healthy
and pollution free environment to the citizen with due respect to the provisions of the
Constitutrion.

III. Does the satirical sketch uploaded by Mr. Kehta amounts to obscenity and
indecent representation under the Criminal Laws of Indistan?
Yes, the satirical sketch uploaded by Mr. Kehta amounts to obscenity and indecent
representation under the Criminal Laws of Indistan because the Section 2(c) of the Indecent
Representation of Woman (Prohibition) Act, 1986 clearly describes the meaning of ‘indecent
representation of woman’ as well as Section 292 (1) of IPC states what comes under an
indecent representation as per our criminal laws, which says any representation which injures
or corrupts our moral values can be said to be an indecent representation.

IV. Whether the consultation by Lt. Governor with the Council of Ministers was
constitutionally full and proper?
Art. 239AA (4) of the Constitution and also Section 41 of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi Act,
1991 provides the discretionary power to the Lt. Governor according to which the measures
have been taken and thus it is constitutionally full and proper.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS |Page 12

 ARGUMENT ADVANCED

I. Is the petition maintainable before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indistan?

The petition is not maintainable before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indistan.

1.1. In case Manish Goel v. Rohini Goel1, the Supreme Court discussed the grounds of
special leave to appeal. They are as follows:
 There should be a question of law of general public importance.
 Grave injustice
 Decision which shocks the conscience of the Court.
The Supreme Court held as ‘ There is no vested right of a party to approach the
Supreme Court for the exercise of such a vast discretion, however, such a course can
be resorted to when the Supreme Court feels that it is so warranted to eradicate
injustice. More so there should be a question of law of general public importance or a
decision which shocks the conscience of the Court are some of the prime requisites
for grant of special leave.
1.2. The scheme does not violates the fundamental rights of the Constitution because
Section 115 of the Motor Vehicles Act has conferred powers to the government to
restrict the use of vehicles if it is necessary for the interest of public safety. This case
indeed is a matter of public safety. Thus there arises no question of violation of
fundamental rights so there is no question of law here.
1.3.While implementing the odd-even scheme, the consultation that took place between
the Lt. Governor and Council headed by C.M. was also consistent with the provisions
of the Constitution i.e. Art.239AA and it was not improper consultation. Moreover,
The Lt. Governor did applied his mind while implementing the scheme. Here also no
question of law arises.

In case of Nizam v. State of Rajasthan2, it was held that the Supreme Court will not
interfere in exercise of its power under Art 136, with concurrent findings recorded by
courts below. Supreme Court will only interfere when necessary, when findings of
below Courts are unsupportable from evidence on record, resulting in miscarriage of
justice.

1
AIR 2010 SC 1099.
2
(2016) 1 SCC 550: AIR 2015 SC 3430.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS |Page 13

 Furthermore, it was also held in case of Pritam Singh v. The State3,that the Supreme
Court will not grant special leave, unless it is shown that an exceptional special
circumstances exist, that substantial and grave injustice has been done and that the
case in question presents features of sufficient gravity to warrant a review of the
decision appealed against.
Thus this petition is not maintainable.

II. Is the Odd-Even scheme implemented by the Govt. of NCT violative of the
Fundamental Rights under the Constitution of Indistan?

The Odd-Even Scheme implemented by the Govt. of NCT is not violative of the
Fundamental Rights under the Constitution of Indistan.

2.1. Firstly, Section 115 of the Motor Vehicles Act empowers the Government or any
authority to restrict the use of vehicles in certain circumstances when it is necessary in
the interest of public safety or convenience or because of the nature of any road or
bridge.
Section 115 of Motor Vehicles Act provides as:-
115. Power to restrict the use of vehicles:- The State Government or any authority
authorised in this behalf by the State Government, if satisfied that it is necessary in
the interest of public safety or convenience, or because of the nature of any road or
bridge, may by notification in the Official Gazette, prohibit or restrict, subject to such
exceptions and conditions as may be specified in the notification, the driving of motor
vehicles or of any specified class or description of motor vehicles or the use of trailers
either generally in a specified area or on a specified road and when any such
prohibition or restriction is imposed, shall cause appropriate traffic signs to be placed
or erected under section 116 at suitable places:
Provided that where any prohibition or restriction under this section is to remain in
force for not more than one month, notification thereof in the Official Gazette shall
not be necessary, but such local publicity as the circumstances may permit, shall be
given of such prohibition or restriction.

3
AIR 1950 SC 169: 1950 SCR 453.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS |Page 14

 Thus, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 115 read with clause (41) of
Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Lt. Governor of NCT implemented such
scheme to control vehicular pollution caused by non-transport four wheeled vehicles
in the interest of public safety.
2.2.The pollution coming out of vehicles serves as the major cause of air pollution and
accumulation of smog over NCT. And due to this smog it becomes nearly impossible
to breathe such air during winter. People have harshly criticized the Government of
NCT for this because it is the duty of the State to provide pollution free environment.
On the other hand people were claiming it as their fundamental right i.e. Right to life,
because right to life includes right to pollution free environment. In Subhas Kumar
v. State of Bihar4, it has been held that public interest litigation is maintainable for
ensuring enjoyment of pollution free water and air which is included in ‘right to life’
under Art.21 of the Constitution.
The Government of NCT was also trying hard to provide the same i.e. to curb the
pollution and provide a pollution free environment. The government took various
measures among them the Odd-Even scheme was one.
2.3.The decision of Government of NCT was not only for curbing smog and to provide
the citizens with good quality of air, but it is a necessary step which ought to be taken
in order to save the human kind. It is a matter of urgency. Government need to take
immediate action against such problems. Otherwise people would suffer from various
serious diseases such as asthma, heart disease and even lung cancer. This scheme is
not about restricting people’s liberty but it is about providing their right to health
which also comes within the purview of right to life (Art.21). In Consumer
Education and Research Center v. Union of India5, the Supreme Court has held
that right to health and medical care is a fundamental right under Art.21 of the
Constitution as it is essential for making the life of the workman meaningful and
purposeful with dignity of person.
In Vincent Parikurlangara v. Union of India6, the Supreme Court held that right to
maintenance and improvement of public health is included in the right to live with
human dignity enshrined in Art.21. A healthy body is the very foundation of all

4
AIR 1991 SC 420.
5
AIR (1995) 3 SCC 42.
6
AIR (1987) 2 SCC 165.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS |Page 15

 human activities. In a welfare State this is the obligation of the State to ensure the
creation and sustaining of conditions congenial to good health.
2.4.Thus the Odd-Even scheme is not about restricting people from using their car. The
government is dealing with much more important thing, i.e. our lives and our
environment. If we fail to save our human kind all these rights and liberties will turn
out to be meaningless. Everything comes with a price. If we want to breathe clean air
we need to sacrifice some of our liberties. In this case there are thus two sides but we
have to choose that side where maximum number of people is benefited. Thus the
Odd-even Scheme is not violative of fundamental rights.

III. Does the satirical sketch uploaded by Mr. Kehta amounts to obscenity and
indecent representation under the Criminal Laws of Indistan?

The satirical sketch uploaded by Mr. Kehta amounts to obscenity and indecent representation
of women under the Criminal laws of Industan.

3.1.According to Section 2(c) of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition)

Act, 1986, ‘indecent representation of woman’ means the depiction in any manner of
the figure of a woman; her form or body or any part thereof in such a way as to have
the effect of being indecent, or derogatory to, or denigrating women, or is likely to
deprave, corrupt or injure the public morality or morals;
Here the meaning of depict means to represent, describe, enact and portrary and
indecent means something which is not conforming with generally accepted standards
of behavior or which is derogatory or which is likely to deprave the public morality.
Here in this case the satirical sketch was indecent because there were two women with
whom the caricature was trying to kiss and hug and to get intimated and close to
which would obviously influence the minds of public and would deprave or corrupt
the public morality. Here women are being objectified too as they are being treated as
sex object and represented in derogatory way. Thus it would amount to indecent
representation of woman. Moreover, the caricature was of Chief Minister of NCT. Mr.
Kehta tried to criticize the decision of the Govt. NCT. And these kind of sketches
would create a negative impact on the people and are not supposed to be displayed
publicly, which Mr. Kehta did.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS |Page 16

 3.2. The word ‘indecent’ cannot be put under a précised definition as each and every
country has there own perspective and also the culture of the contemporary society of
such country is the base of judging whether it is a decent or indecent representation.
If we compare the contemporary society of our country to any other countries we will
find huge differences. India has always been known for the cultures, norms, morality
and social values of our society. Objectifying a women’s body is absolutely against
our social values. In our society this kind of representations are considered to be
against our moral values, no women should be disrespected by such kind of
representations.
3.3.Section 292 (1) of IPC also prohibits obscene representation if it is lascivious or if it
depraves or corrupt the minds of the people,
Section 292 (1) of IPC states as:
[292. Sale, etc., of obscene books, etc.]
(1) For the purposes of sub-section (2), a book, pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing,
painting, representation, figure or any other object, shall be deemed to be obscene if it
is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect, or (where it comprises
two or more distinct items) the effect of any one of its items, is, if taken as a whole,
such as to tend to deprave and corrupt person, who are likely, having regard to all
relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it.
In Ajay Goswami v. Union of India7, while examining the scope of Section 292 and
Section 2, 3 and 6 of the Indecent Representation of Woman (Prohibition) Act, 1996,
the Supreme Court held that the commitment to freedom of expression demands that
it cannot be suppressed, unless the situation created by it allowing the freedom are
pressing and the community interest is endangered.
3.4. Section 67 of Information of Technology Act prohibits to transmit any obscene
content in an electric form.
Section 67 of Information of Technology Act states as:
67. Punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic
form. -Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted in the
electronic form, any material which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or
if its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having
regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or

7
(2007) 1 SCC 143.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS |Page 17

 embodied in it, shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to three years and with fine which may
extend to five lakh rupees and in the event of second or subsequent conviction with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and also
with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees.
Here in this case the petitioner transmitted the obscene content on social media, which
means he offence also comes under Section 67 of IT Act.

IV. Whether the consultation by Lt. Governor with the Council of Ministers was
constitutionally full and proper?

The consultation by Lt. Governor with the Council of Minister was constitutionally full
and proper.

4.1. Lt. Governor is the head of a Union territory, appointed by the President. The powers
of a Lt. Governor are much wider than that of a Governor of a State. A Governor of a
State has to act solely on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, whereas, the
Lt. Governor does not need the approval of Council of Ministers on every matter. In
case of Delhi, the government exercises no power in the domain of land, law and
police. The Lt. Governor has complete discretion to decide upon any of those matters.
Section 41 of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991,
delineates the realm of the powers of the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi. The Lt.
Governor shall act in his discretion during a matter that falls outside the range of the
powers conferred on the Legislative Assembly. The Section reads as follows:

41. Matters in which Lieutenant Governor to act in his discretion:-

1. The Lieutenant Governor shall act in his discretion in a matter-
i. which falls outside the purview of the powers conferred on the Legislative
Assembly but in respect of which powers or functions are entrusted or
delegated to him by the President; or
ii. in which he is required by or under any law to act in his discretion or to
exercise any judicial or quasi-judicial functions.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS |Page 18

 2. If any question arises as to whether any matter is or is not a matter as respects
which the Lieutenant Governor is by or under any law required to act in his discretion,
the decision of the Lieutenant Governor thereon shall be final.
3. If any question arises as to whether any matter is or is not a matter as respects
which the Lieutenant Governor is required by any law to exercise any judicial or
quasi-judicial functions, the decision of the Lieutenant Governor thereon shall be
final.
4.2.In this case the Lt. Governor has taken the decision under his discretionary power i.e.
provided under Art 239AA (4) of the Constitution of Indistan and Section 41 of the
Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991. It has been clearly
mentioned in both the statutes that the Lt. Governor may act in his discretionary
power. Furthermore the proposal of implementation of the scheme was given to the
Lt. Governor on 15th September and it was 23rd September on which it was
implemented so he got enough time to apply his mind in this matter. It is not that
decision was taken overnight.
4.3.The implementation of the scheme by the Lt. Governor was an immediate action
which ought to be taken by any government because the problem of air pollution is
expanding day by day. It has become a matter of urgency and thus Lt. Governor had
to take immediate action against such problem.
The proviso clause of Art.239AA(4) provides as: “Provided that in the case of
difference of opinion between the Lieutenant Governor and his Ministers on any
matter, the Lieutenant Governor shall refer it to the President for decision and act
according to the decision given thereon by the President and pending such decision it
shall be competent for the Lieutenant Governor in any case where the matter, in his
opinion, is so urgent that it is necessary for him to take immediate action, to take such
action or to give such direction in the matter as he deems necessary.”
In context to the word ‘urgent’, it clearly states that if the matter is urgent he can take
action against that. So there is no doubt it was an urgent case and the Lt. Governor
had to take such actions. Hence, the consultation between the Lt. Governor and the
Council headed by C.M. was clearly not improper.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS |Page 19

 PRAYER

In the last light of the facts of the case issues raised and argument advanced, reasons given
and authorities cited, this Hon’ble Supreme Court be pleased

To Reject

1. The instant petition filed by the Petitioner.

To Declare

2. That the notification issued by Lt. Governor is constitutionally valid and odd-even
scheme implemented by of the Govt. of NCT was not violative of Part III of the
Constitution.

To hold

3. The order of the High Court, that is, the sketch was indeed obscene and indecent.

And to grant any other relief/s that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased in the
interest of justice, equity and good conscience.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

Counsels for the respondent.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS |Page 20