C21-Respondant

IN THE
HONORABLE SUPREME COURT
THE REPUBLIC OF AZURE

INTRA COLLEGE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF DOCTORS (NAD)

Petitioner
V.
THE REPUBLIC OF AZURE
Respondent

MEMORIAL for the RESPONDANT

i
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sr # CONTENTS PAGE
NO.

1 Table of Contents ii
2 List of Abbreviations iii
3 Index of Authorities iv
4 Statement of Jurisdiction v
5 Summary of Facts vi
6 Questions Presented vii
7 Summary of Arguments viii
8 Pleadings ix
a Issue I ix
b Issue II xiv
c Issue III xviii
9 Prayer of Relief xxii

ii
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
C.P.L.A. - Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal
C.A. - Civil Appeal
Const. P. - Constitutional Petition
CrPC - Code of Criminal Procedure
ECHR - European Convention on Human Rights
ICCPR - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
ICESCR - International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
IACHR - Inter-American Court of Human Rights
L.Rs - Legal Representatives
NAD - National Association of Doctors
PPC - Pakistan Penal Code
PEMRA - Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority
PLD - Pakistan Law Digest
SC - Supreme Court
UDHR - Universal Declaration of Human Rights

iii
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
I. Case Laws
➢ Supreme Court of Pakistan
1. Mst. Rehmat Begum v. Mehfooz Ahmed & Others (C.P.L.A. 49-K/2022)
2. Khurshid Ali & Others v. Miangul Adnan Aurangzeb (deceased) thr. L.Rs &
Others (C.A.493/2023)
3. Abid Shahid Zuberi & Others v. Federation of Pakistan
(C.M.Appeal.89/2024)
4. Subha Sadiq v. The State (Crl.P.L.A.786-L/2016)
5. The State through Prosecutor General, Punjab v. Chaudhry Mohammad
Khan (C.P.L.A.671-L/2017)
6. Faqir Syed Anwar-Ud-Din (deceased) v. Syed Raza Haider & Others
(C.P.L.A.3210-L/2023)
7. All Public Universities BPS Teachers Association (APUBTA) v. Federation of
Pakistan (C.P.7/2024)
8. Civil Petition No. 2580 of 2020
9. Civil Petition No. 3506 of 2020
10. Criminal Appeal No. 251/2020
11. Shahida Zahir Abbasi v. President of Pakistan (PLD 1996 SC 632)
12. Muhammad Iqbal v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2010 SC 114)
13. Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. National Accountability Bureau (PLD 2018 SC
265)
14. Muhammad Yousaf v. The State (PLD 2012 SC 567)
15. Muhammad Iqbal v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2010 SC 114)
16. Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. National Accountability Bureau (PLD 2018 SC
265)
17. Muhammad Yousaf v. The State (PLD 2012 SC 567)
II. Statutes
1. 1973 Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (including relevant amendments)
2. Defamation Ordinance, 2002
3. Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) Ordinance
4. Pakistan Penal Code (PPC)
5. Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)
III. International Laws
1. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
2. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
3. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
(CEDAW)
4. European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
5. African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights

iv
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The respondent humbly acknowledges that the Supreme Court of Azure has jurisdiction under
Article 184(3) of the 1973 Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. However, the
respondent contends that the issues raised by the petitioner do not warrant the Court's
intervention under its original jurisdiction. The respondent argues that the matters presented do
not meet the threshold of significant public importance as required for the Court to exercise its
original jurisdiction.
This article empowers the Supreme Court to exercise its original jurisdiction in cases where a
question of public importance with reference to the enforcement of any fundamental rights
conferred by Chapter I of Part II of the Constitution is involved.
The respondent contends that the petitioner has alternative remedies available through lower
courts and regulatory bodies that can address the grievances without invoking the Supreme
Court’s original jurisdiction.
The respondent, therefore, requests this Honorable Court to consider the lack of significant
public importance in the issues raised by the petitioner and determine that the case does not
warrant the exercise of the Court’s original jurisdiction under Article 184(3).

v
 SUMMARY OF FACTS
1. The present case arises from the tragic incident at Maple Heart Care Hospital on July 6,
2023, where a surgical procedure led to unforeseen consequences. Dr. Saad, a reputed
surgeon, was performing a heart surgery on Mrs. Alam, the wife of the Minister of
Human Rights, when a medical cylinder burst during the operation. This unexpected
equipment failure led to the unfortunate death of Mrs. Alam.
2. Following the incident, an internal investigation was conducted by Maple Heart Care
Hospital. The investigation concluded that Dr. Saad was not guilty of any professional
misconduct and that the equipment failure was an unforeseen accident. Allegations
surfaced suggesting that the inquiry's findings were influenced by Dr. Saad’s close
relationships within the hospital’s administration. Following the incident, Dr. Saad
appeared on a morning show on 12th August 2023, where he stated that continuing the
surgery was the best course of action. This statement, however, sparked a wave of negative
media coverage, with various outlets branding Dr. Saad and his colleagues as negligent.
3. The negative media coverage led to widespread public outrage and condemnation of the
medical community. Reports by National Medical Mysteries on August 20, 2023
highlighted the rate of accidental deaths caused by surgeons, further fueling public
dissatisfaction.
4. Influenced by public outcry, Senator Hannan called for stricter regulations on doctors'
conduct on national television in late January, which garnered significant attention and
intensified the scrutiny of medical professionals.
5. In response to the growing public dissatisfaction, doctors across the Republic of Azure
organized protests. Some of these protests escalated into acts of vandalism and arson,
causing significant property damage.
6. Law enforcement agencies, based on CCTV footage and other evidence, arrested over
400 doctors involved in the protests. The arrests were conducted to maintain public order
and prevent further unrest.
7. The National Association of Doctors (NAD) filed a constitutional petition in the Supreme
Court of Azure, challenging the legality of the arrests and the media's defamatory
portrayal of the doctors.
8. The respondent maintains that the media acted within the bounds of freedom of speech
and that the arrests were lawful and necessary to maintain public order and safety.
Hence the present matter before this Honorable Court.

vi
 QUESTIONS PRESENTED

I.
Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to entertain this case under original
jurisdiction?

II.
Whether the media propaganda against the doctors is ultra wires of their right to dignity
and honor, mentioned in the constitution of Azure?

III.
Whether the arrest of 400 doctors is unlawful and ultra wires, if yes should they be
released forthwith?

vii
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE I
The respondent respectfully contends that the issues raised by the petitioner do not meet the
threshold of significant public importance required for the Supreme Court to exercise its original
jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. The matters presented involve individual
grievances that can be adequately addressed by lower courts and regulatory bodies without
necessitating the Supreme Court's intervention. Past precedents indicate that the Supreme Court
refrains from exercising its original jurisdiction in cases that do not involve significant
constitutional questions or issues of broad public interest. Therefore, the respondent argues that
the case should be dismissed on the grounds of lacking substantial public importance.

ISSUE II
The respondent argues that the media's coverage, though critical, falls within the bounds of
freedom of speech as guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution. The media has the right to
report and comment on matters of public concern, provided it does not cross into unlawful
defamation. In this case, the media acted within legal and ethical boundaries, addressing issues
relevant to public safety and professional accountability. The respondent maintains that the
allegations of defamation should be addressed through existing legal frameworks rather than
through a constitutional petition. Thus, the media's actions do not constitute a violation of the
petitioners' constitutional rights to dignity and honor.

ISSUE III
The respondent maintains that the arrests of the doctors were lawful and justified in response to
the violence and unrest during the protests. Law enforcement acted on credible evidence, including
CCTV footage, to arrest individuals involved in acts of vandalism and arson. The procedural
safeguards outlined in the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) were followed, ensuring that the
rights of the arrested individuals were respected. The right to peaceful protest does not extend to
violent actions, and the respondent argues that the arrests were necessary to maintain public order
and safety. Therefore, the respondent asserts that the mass arrests were legally justified and
necessary to prevent further disorder.

viii
 PLEADINGS
ISSUE I
WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO
ENTERTAIN THIS CASE UNDER ORIGINAL JURISDICTION?

“Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court”

The respondent argues that the issues raised by the petitioner do not meet the threshold of
significant public importance required for the Supreme Court to exercise its original jurisdiction
under Article 184(3) of the 1973 Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The
respondent submits that the matters presented involve individual grievances that can be
adequately addressed by lower courts and regulatory bodies.
1. Threshold for Original Jurisdiction
The respondent contends that the issues presented by the petitioner do not raise significant
questions of public importance requiring constitutional interpretation. The Supreme Court’s
original jurisdiction, under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, is reserved for cases that have far-
reaching implications for the public and require the Court’s unique position to interpret and
enforce fundamental rights. The petitioner’s claims, while serious, are specific to individual
grievances regarding professional reputations and procedural irregularities, which are not matters
of broad public importance. These issues can be resolved through the existing judicial and
administrative channels without necessitating the Supreme Court's intervention. The petitioner’s
grievances do not involve novel constitutional questions or widespread implications that would
affect the general public, thus failing to meet the threshold for significant public importance.
2. Adequate Alternative Remedies
The respondent argues that the petitioner has alternative remedies available through lower courts,
administrative bodies, and regulatory frameworks that are better suited to address the specific
grievances. The legal system in Pakistan provides various avenues for individuals to seek redress
for their grievances. For instance, issues related to defamation and media conduct can be
addressed through the Defamation Ordinance, 2002, and the regulatory oversight of PEMRA.
Similarly, allegations of unlawful arrests can be challenged in lower courts where due process
can be thoroughly examined. These mechanisms are designed to handle such disputes effectively,
ensuring that individuals have access to justice without overburdening the Supreme Court. The
availability of these remedies makes it unnecessary for the Supreme Court to exercise its original
jurisdiction, as the petitioner can achieve adequate relief through these established channels.
3. Consistency with Judicial Precedents
The respondent will cite cases where the Supreme Court has refrained from exercising its
original jurisdiction in similar matters, reinforcing the principle that not all grievances involving
fundamental rights warrant the Court's direct intervention. Judicial precedents such as Benazir

ix
Bhutto v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1988 SC 416), Shahida Zahir Abbasi v. President of
Pakistan (PLD 1996 SC 632), and Mehmood Khan Achakzai v. Federation of Pakistan
(PLD 1997 SC 426) demonstrate the Supreme Court’s cautious approach in exercising its
original jurisdiction. In these cases, the Court emphasized that its original jurisdiction should be
invoked only in matters of significant public importance that require constitutional interpretation.
The issues raised by the petitioner in the current case do not align with these precedents, as they
do not present new constitutional questions or broadly impact the public. By following these
judicial principles, the Supreme Court ensures that its resources are focused on cases that truly
necessitate its involvement.
4. Principle of Judicial Economy
The respondent contends that the principle of judicial economy supports the argument against
invoking the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction for matters that can be resolved at lower
judicial or administrative levels. Judicial economy refers to the efficient and effective use of
judicial resources to ensure that courts can address and resolve disputes in a timely manner. The
Supreme Court's role is to handle cases that require its unique constitutional mandate, while
lower courts and administrative bodies deal with more routine matters. By preserving its docket
for cases of national and constitutional significance, the Supreme Court can maintain judicial
efficiency and effectiveness. Invoking the Supreme Court's jurisdiction for the petitioner's
grievances would set a precedent that encourages the use of the highest court for individual
disputes, potentially leading to delays and inefficiencies in the judicial process. This approach
undermines the hierarchical structure of the judiciary and the principle of resolving cases at the
most appropriate and immediate level.
5. Specificity of Fundamental Rights Involved
The respondent argues that while the petitioner's claims involve fundamental rights, the nature of
these rights does not raise constitutional questions of significant public importance that warrant
the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction. The issues of dignity, defamation, and procedural
fairness are routinely handled by lower courts and do not necessitate the Supreme Court’s direct
intervention. Fundamental rights such as the right to dignity and due process are critical;
however, the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction is intended for cases where the interpretation
or enforcement of these rights has broad implications for the entire populace, not isolated
incidents affecting a small group.
6. Prioritization of Judicial Resources
The respondent asserts that invoking the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction for individual
grievances would set a precedent that burdens the Court with cases that are more appropriately
handled at lower judicial levels. This would divert the Court’s focus from more pressing
constitutional issues of national importance. The Supreme Court's docket is already congested
with cases requiring immediate constitutional interpretation and resolution. Allowing cases of
lesser public importance to be heard directly by the Supreme Court could delay justice in other
critical cases, thereby affecting the overall efficiency of the judicial system.

x
7. No Demonstrable Impact on Public Interest
The respondent maintains that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate how the issues raised have
a significant impact on public interest. The matters are largely personal grievances related to
professional reputation and procedural fairness, which do not resonate with the broader public in
a manner that justifies the Supreme Court's intervention. For an issue to be of public importance,
it must affect a large segment of society and require a constitutional interpretation that impacts
the general populace. The grievances of Dr. Saad and his colleagues, while serious, do not meet
this criterion as they are specific to the individuals involved.
8. Role of Specialized Tribunals and Regulatory Bodies
The respondent argues that specialized tribunals and regulatory bodies are better equipped to
handle the specific issues raised by the petitioner. For instance, PEMRA can address concerns
about media conduct, while the medical regulatory authorities can deal with professional
reputation and misconduct allegations. These bodies have the expertise and procedural
mechanisms to effectively address and resolve the petitioner’s claims. Resorting to the Supreme
Court bypasses these established institutions and undermines their role in the judicial and
regulatory landscape.
9. Precedent Cases:
• Benazir Bhutto v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1988 SC 416): Emphasized that the
Supreme Court's original jurisdiction is reserved for cases of significant constitutional
importance.
• Shahida Zahir Abbasi v. President of Pakistan (PLD 1996 SC 632): Reinforced that
not every violation of fundamental rights warrants the Supreme Court's intervention.
• Mehmood Khan Achakzai v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1997 SC 426): Clarified
that the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly and only in
matters of substantial public interest.

10. Principle of Subsidiarity

The respondent argues that the principle of subsidiarity should be applied, whereby issues are
addressed at the most immediate level capable of resolving the problem. This ensures that higher
courts, like the Supreme Court, are reserved for cases requiring their unique constitutional
mandate. By addressing these issues at lower courts or through regulatory bodies, the legal
system ensures efficiency, appropriateness of the forum, and adherence to judicial hierarchy. The
principle of subsidiarity supports the argument that the Supreme Court should not exercise
original jurisdiction in this case.
11. Principle of Proportionality
The respondent argues that the principle of proportionality should be applied when determining
whether the Supreme Court should exercise its original jurisdiction. The issues presented by the

xi
petitioner, while important, do not justify the direct involvement of the highest court in the land.
The proportionality principle requires that the level of judicial intervention be commensurate
with the importance and impact of the issues raised. Proportionality ensures that judicial
resources are allocated effectively. Given that the petitioner's grievances can be addressed by
lower courts without impacting the broader public, invoking the Supreme Court's jurisdiction is
disproportionate to the nature of the case.
12. Doctrine of Exhaustion of Remedies
The respondent contends that the petitioner has not exhausted all available remedies before
approaching the Supreme Court. The doctrine of exhaustion of remedies mandates that
individuals must first seek redress through all available legal channels before escalating the
matter to higher courts. Lower courts, administrative tribunals, and regulatory bodies offer
adequate mechanisms to address the petitioner's grievances. By bypassing these avenues, the
petitioner undermines the hierarchical judicial system designed to efficiently manage and resolve
disputes at appropriate levels.
13. Absence of Constitutional Interpretation Requirement
The respondent maintains that the present case does not involve any complex or novel questions
of constitutional interpretation that would necessitate the Supreme Court's intervention. The
issues of defamation, media conduct, and unlawful arrests are governed by well-established legal
principles and statutory frameworks that do not require reinterpretation by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court’s role in exercising original jurisdiction is to resolve significant
constitutional questions that impact the entire nation. In this case, the legal questions raised do
not require a constitutional re-examination, as they are adequately covered by existing laws and
precedents.
14. Public Policy Considerations
The respondent argues that public policy considerations support the view that the Supreme Court
should not exercise its original jurisdiction in this case. Encouraging parties to approach the
Supreme Court directly for matters that can be resolved by lower courts could lead to judicial
inefficiency and undermine the role of subordinate courts. Public policy favors a judicial system
where cases are heard at the appropriate level, ensuring that higher courts are reserved for
matters that truly require their unique expertise. This approach maintains the efficiency and
integrity of the judicial process.
15. Legal Precedents on Jurisdictional Restraint
The respondent will cite additional legal precedents where the Supreme Court has demonstrated
jurisdictional restraint in similar matters, reinforcing the principle that not all grievances
involving fundamental rights warrant the Court's direct intervention:
• Shehla Zia v. WAPDA (PLD 1994 SC 693): Highlighted the need for significant public
importance in invoking the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction.

xii
 • Shamsher Ali and Another v. State (PLD 2018 SC 801): Demonstrated the Court's
discretion in declining jurisdiction where alternative remedies are available.
• Nasir Aslam Zahid v. President of Pakistan (PLD 1994 SC 78): Reinforced the criteria
of significant public interest for the Court’s original jurisdiction.

Conclusion
The respondent respectfully submits that the issues raised by the petitioner do not meet the
threshold of significant public importance required for the Supreme Court to exercise its original
jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. The matters can be effectively addressed
through alternative remedies available in lower courts and administrative bodies. Therefore, the
respondent requests this Honorable Court to decline jurisdiction and dismiss the petition on these
grounds.

xiii
 ISSUE II
WHETHER THE MEDIA PROPAGANDA AGAINST THE DOCTORS
IS ULTRA WIRES OF THEIR RIGHT TO DIGNITY AND HONOR,
MENTIONED IN THE CONSTITUTION OF AZURE?
“Media Propaganda and Constitutional Rights”
The respondent argues that the media's coverage of Dr. Saad and the medical community, while
critical, falls within the bounds of freedom of speech as guaranteed under Article 19 of the 1973
Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The respondent maintains that the media did
not violate the petitioner's constitutional rights to dignity and honor.
1. Freedom of Speech and Public Interest
The respondent contends that the media's coverage, while critical, is protected under Article 19
of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression. The media has a duty to
report on matters of public interest, and the incident involving Dr. Saad and the subsequent
public reaction were of significant concern to the public. Freedom of speech is a fundamental
right that allows the media to report on and critique public figures and events. The critical
coverage of Dr. Saad and the medical community was aimed at highlighting issues of public
safety and accountability, which are legitimate subjects of public discourse. The media acted
within its rights to inform the public and hold professionals accountable for their actions,
provided such coverage did not cross into unlawful defamation.
2. Legal and Ethical Boundaries of Media Conduct
The respondent argues that the media acted within the legal and ethical boundaries set forth by
the Defamation Ordinance, 2002, and the PEMRA Ordinance. The coverage did not constitute
defamation as it was based on factual reporting and legitimate criticism. Under the Defamation
Ordinance, 2002, defamation involves false statements made with the intent to harm another's
reputation. The media coverage in question was based on the incident at Maple Heart Care
Hospital and subsequent public statements made by Dr. Saad. The reporting was factual and
aimed at informing the public about a matter of significant concern. The PEMRA Ordinance
provides guidelines for responsible journalism, which the media adhered to by reporting
accurately and ethically.
3. Remedies for Defamation
The respondent submits that any perceived defamation should be addressed through the existing
legal frameworks for defamation, not through a constitutional petition. The petitioner has the
option to seek redress under the Defamation Ordinance, 2002, which provides a structured legal
process for addressing such grievances. The petitioner has not exhausted the available remedies
under the Defamation Ordinance, 2002, which allows individuals to file defamation suits in civil
courts. This legal framework is specifically designed to handle defamation cases, ensuring that
all parties have the opportunity to present evidence and arguments in a fair and impartial forum.

xiv
Resorting to a constitutional petition bypass these established legal processes and undermines the
role of lower courts in adjudicating defamation claims.
4. Role of Media in Democracy
The respondent argues that a free and independent media is a cornerstone of democracy, playing
a critical role in informing the public, fostering debate, and holding public figures accountable.
The media's role in covering the incident involving Dr. Saad and the subsequent public reaction
is an exercise of this democratic function. A vibrant and free press ensures that information of
public interest reaches the masses, enabling informed decision-making and accountability. The
media's coverage of the incident at Maple Heart Care Hospital served to inform the public about
potential issues in the healthcare sector. By reporting on these events, the media fulfilled its duty
to foster transparency and accountability in society.
5. Lack of Malicious Intent
The respondent maintains that the media's coverage lacked any malicious intent to defame or
harm Dr. Saad and the medical community. The reports were based on factual information and
legitimate public concern, rather than any intent to malign the petitioners. Defamation requires
the presence of malicious intent to harm someone's reputation. The media's actions, in this case,
were driven by a duty to inform the public about a significant incident and its implications. There
is no evidence to suggest that the media acted with malice or sought to defame Dr. Saad and his
colleagues intentionally.
6. Public's Right to Information
The respondent contends that the public has a right to information about matters that impact their
lives, including the performance and accountability of medical professionals. The media's
coverage addressed this right by providing information about the incident and the responses from
the involved parties. The public's right to information is a fundamental aspect of a democratic
society. The media serves as a conduit for this information, ensuring that the public is aware of
issues that may affect their health and safety. By reporting on the incident and the subsequent
developments, the media fulfilled its role in safeguarding the public's right to be informed.
7. Protection of Journalistic Sources
The respondent argues that protecting journalistic sources and the confidentiality of information
is crucial for a free press. The media's reliance on information from the hospital, regulatory
bodies, and eyewitnesses was part of their duty to report accurately and thoroughly. Journalists
often rely on confidential sources to obtain information that would otherwise remain hidden.
Protecting these sources is essential to ensure that journalists can continue to report on matters of
public interest without fear of retaliation. The media's use of such sources in this case was in line
with journalistic standards and practices.
8. Distinction Between Criticism and Defamation
The respondent emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between legitimate criticism and
defamation. Criticism, even if harsh, is protected under the freedom of speech, while defamation

xv
involves false statements made with the intent to harm someone's reputation. The media's
coverage of Dr. Saad and the medical community involved legitimate criticism based on the
incident and its aftermath. This criticism, while severe, was aimed at highlighting issues of
public concern and did not amount to defamation. The petitioner must demonstrate that the
media's statements were false and made with malicious intent to qualify as defamation.
9. Context of Public Outcry and Legislative Response
The respondent argues that the media's coverage was influenced by the broader context of public
outcry and legislative calls for greater accountability in the healthcare sector. The media acted
within its role to reflect and report on these societal concerns. The media's role is not only to
report events but also to reflect the sentiments and concerns of society. The incident at Maple
Heart Care Hospital led to significant public outcry and legislative actions, which the media
reported on to provide a comprehensive view of the situation. This context justifies the media's
critical coverage as part of its duty to inform the public and stimulate debate.
10. Context of Responsible Journalism
The respondent contends that the media followed the principles of responsible journalism, which
include accuracy, fairness, and impartiality. The critical reporting on Dr. Saad and the medical
community was aimed at maintaining high standards of accountability and professionalism
within the healthcare sector. Responsible journalism requires that reporters verify their
information and present it in a balanced manner. The media coverage in this case adhered to
these principles by reporting on verified incidents and providing a platform for different
viewpoints, including statements from Dr. Saad and the hospital administration.
11. Importance of Public Debate
The respondent argues that the media's coverage fostered public debate on important issues
related to healthcare standards and accountability. Such debates are essential for a healthy
democracy, as they allow citizens to engage with critical issues that affect their lives. Public
debate is crucial for democratic societies, as it promotes transparency, accountability, and
informed decision-making. By reporting on the incident and its implications, the media
facilitated a national conversation on healthcare standards, encouraging public scrutiny and
potential policy reforms.
12. Absence of Prior Restraint
The respondent emphasizes that there should be no prior restraint on the media’s freedom to
report on matters of public interest. Prior restraint refers to censorship or restrictions imposed
before the publication of information, which is generally disfavored in democratic societies. The
principle against prior restraint ensures that the media can operate freely without undue
interference from authorities. The media's ability to report freely is essential for the
dissemination of information and the protection of democratic values. Any attempt to restrict the
media’s coverage through prior restraint would undermine these principles.
13. Protection Under International Law

xvi
The respondent asserts that international human rights instruments, such as the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR), protect freedom of expression, including the media's right to report on matters
of public interest. International law recognizes the importance of freedom of expression and the
role of the media in a democratic society. Articles 19 of both the UDHR and ICCPR affirm the
right to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds. The media’s coverage in this
case aligns with these international standards, reinforcing the legitimacy of their actions.
14. Media's Role in Highlighting Systemic Issues
The respondent argues that the media plays a vital role in highlighting systemic issues within
various sectors, including healthcare. The coverage of Dr. Saad’s case brought attention to
broader issues of medical negligence and regulatory oversight, which are of significant public
concern. By reporting on specific incidents, the media can draw attention to systemic problems
that may require policy changes or regulatory reforms. The coverage of Dr. Saad’s case
highlighted the need for better oversight and accountability within the healthcare sector,
prompting discussions that could lead to improvements in patient safety and care standards.
15. Addressing Public Misinformation
The respondent contends that the media’s role includes correcting misinformation and providing
accurate information to the public. In this case, the media reported on verified facts and provided
balanced coverage to ensure that the public received accurate information about the incident.
Misinformation can have harmful effects on public perception and decision-making. The media’s
responsibility is to provide accurate and balanced reporting to counteract misinformation. By
adhering to this responsibility, the media ensured that the public was well-informed about the
incident and its implications.
Conclusion
The respondent respectfully submits that the media's coverage of Dr. Saad and the medical
community falls within the bounds of freedom of speech as guaranteed under Article 19 of the
Constitution. The media acted within legal and ethical boundaries, focusing on matters of public
interest and accountability. Any perceived defamation should be addressed through the existing
legal frameworks rather than through a constitutional petition. Therefore, the respondent requests
this Honorable Court to dismiss the petition on these grounds.

xvii
 ISSUE III
WHETHER THE ARREST OF 400 DOCTORS IS UNLAWFUL AND
ULTRA WIRES, IF YES SHOULD THEY BE RELEASED
FORTHWITH?
“Lawfulness of Arrests”
The respondent maintains that the arrests of the doctors were lawful and justified in response to
the violence and unrest caused during the protests. These actions were necessary to maintain
public order and prevent further disruption.
1. Necessity and Proportionality of Arrests
The respondent argues that the mass arrests were a necessary and proportionate response to the
violence and unrest during the protests. Law enforcement agencies acted within their legal
mandate to maintain public order and safety. The protests, initially peaceful, escalated into acts
of vandalism and arson, endangering public safety and property. The authorities, based on
credible evidence such as CCTV footage, identified individuals involved in these unlawful
activities. The arrests were carried out to prevent further violence and restore order, which is a
legitimate function of law enforcement agencies.
2. Compliance with Procedural Safeguards
The respondent contends that the arrests were conducted in compliance with the procedural
safeguards outlined in the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the Police Order, 2002. These
safeguards ensure that the rights of the detainees are respected. The law enforcement agencies
followed due process by obtaining warrants, informing the detainees of the charges against them,
and ensuring their right to legal representation. The procedural safeguards were adhered to,
ensuring that the arrests were not arbitrary or unlawful.
3. Balancing Rights and Public Order
The respondent argues that the right to peaceful assembly and protest does not extend to violent
actions that threaten public safety. The arrests were necessary to balance the individuals' rights
with the broader public interest in maintaining order and safety. While the Constitution
guarantees the right to peaceful assembly, this right is not absolute and must be balanced against
the need to protect public order. The protests turned violent, necessitating law enforcement
intervention to prevent further harm and chaos. The actions taken were in line with the legal
framework that allows for restrictions on rights when public safety is at risk.
4. Precedents on Lawful Arrests
The respondent cites several precedents that support the lawfulness of the arrests in situations
where public order is threatened:

xviii
 • Criminal Appeal No. 251/2020: Discusses due process under the Pakistan Penal Code
and the safeguards against arbitrary detention.
• Dost Muhammad Khan v. State: Highlights the necessity of following legal procedures
in arrests and the consequences of failing to do so.
• Muhammad Bashir v. Station House Officer, Okara: Reinforces the principle that
arbitrary and unlawful arrests constitute a serious breach of constitutional rights.

5. Public Interest Considerations

The respondent maintains that the arrests were in the public interest, aimed at preventing further
violence and ensuring the safety of the community. The law enforcement agencies acted to
protect both public and private property and to uphold the rule of law. Public interest necessitates
that law enforcement agencies take action to prevent violence and maintain order. The mass
arrests were a proactive measure to safeguard the community and restore peace. The authorities
acted in a manner consistent with their duty to protect citizens and enforce the law.
6. Due Diligence by Law Enforcement
The respondent argues that law enforcement agencies conducted due diligence before making the
arrests. This involved reviewing evidence, including CCTV footage, and conducting
investigations to identify individuals who were directly involved in the violent activities during
the protests. Due diligence by law enforcement ensures that arrests are based on credible
evidence and not arbitrary decisions. The process involved identifying individuals who were
captured on CCTV footage engaging in acts of vandalism and arson, thereby ensuring that only
those with demonstrable involvement in illegal activities were detained.
7. Protection Against Collective Punishment
The respondent contends that the arrests were not a form of collective punishment but were
targeted actions against individuals identified through evidence as participating in the unlawful
activities. Collective punishment involves penalizing a group of people without distinguishing
individual culpability. In this case, the arrests were based on specific evidence against each
individual, ensuring that only those who committed unlawful acts were detained. This approach
respects the principle of individual responsibility.
8. Provision of Legal Rights
The respondent maintains that the detainees were provided with their legal rights, including the
right to be informed of the charges, the right to legal representation, and the right to a fair
hearing. These provisions ensure that the arrests were conducted in accordance with the law.
Ensuring that detainees are informed of the charges against them and have access to legal
counsel is a fundamental aspect of due process. By adhering to these legal provisions, the law
enforcement agencies upheld the constitutional rights of the detainees, reinforcing the lawfulness
of the arrests.

xix
9. Judicial Oversight
The respondent argues that the arrests were subject to judicial oversight, with detainees being
presented before magistrates to review the legality of their detention. This oversight provides an
additional layer of protection against arbitrary arrests. Judicial oversight ensures that arrests and
detentions are subject to review by an impartial authority. By presenting detainees before
magistrates, the law enforcement agencies ensured that the legality of the arrests was scrutinized,
providing a safeguard against arbitrary detention.
10. Impact on Public Safety
The respondent emphasizes that the primary motivation for the arrests was to protect public
safety and prevent further violence. The actions taken were in response to a clear and present
danger posed by the escalation of the protests into violent activities. Public safety is a paramount
concern for law enforcement agencies. The escalation of protests into violence necessitated swift
action to prevent further harm to individuals and property. The arrests were a necessary measure
to restore order and ensure the safety of the community.
11. Deterrence Against Future Unrest
The respondent argues that the mass arrests served as a necessary deterrent against future
incidents of violence and unrest. By taking decisive action, law enforcement sent a clear message
that such behavior would not be tolerated, thereby preventing further escalation. Deterrence is a
fundamental aspect of law enforcement, aimed at discouraging unlawful behavior by making it
clear that there will be consequences for such actions. The arrests of individuals involved in
violent protests demonstrated the authorities’ commitment to maintaining public order and
deterring similar actions in the future. This approach helps ensure long-term peace and stability.
12. Restoring Public Confidence
The respondent maintains that the prompt action by law enforcement was essential to restoring
public confidence in the rule of law and the effectiveness of the authorities in handling public
disturbances. Public confidence in the legal system and law enforcement agencies is crucial for
maintaining social order. The decisive action taken to arrest those involved in the protests
reassured the public that the authorities were capable of managing the situation and upholding
the law. This restoration of confidence is vital for the continued trust and cooperation of the
community.
13. Proactive Measures to Protect Property
The respondent contends that the arrests were necessary to protect both public and private
property from further damage. The protests had escalated into acts of vandalism and arson,
posing a significant threat to property. Law enforcement has a duty to protect property and
prevent damage during public disturbances. The proactive arrests of individuals involved in
vandalism and arson were essential to prevent further destruction and ensure the safety of
properties. This action helped to mitigate the impact of the unrest on the community and
businesses.

xx
14. Legal Framework for Preventive Detention
The respondent argues that the legal framework in Pakistan allows for preventive detention in
situations where there is a threat to public order. The arrests were made under provisions that
authorize the detention of individuals who pose a risk to public safety. Preventive detention is a
legal tool used to maintain public order and prevent imminent threats. The authorities acted
within their legal rights to detain individuals who were identified as being involved in the violent
protests. This framework provides a basis for lawful detention aimed at preventing further
disturbances.
15. Alignment with International Standards
The respondent asserts that the actions taken by law enforcement align with international
standards and practices for maintaining public order and safety. The measures adopted were
consistent with those employed by other democratic countries facing similar situations.
International standards recognize the need for law enforcement to take decisive action to
maintain public order and safety. The respondent can cite examples from other democratic
countries where preventive measures, including mass arrests, are used to manage public
disturbances and prevent violence. This alignment with global practices reinforces the legitimacy
of the actions taken by the authorities in this case.
Conclusion
The respondent respectfully submits that the mass arrests of the doctors were lawful, necessary,
and in compliance with procedural safeguards. The actions were taken to maintain public order
and safety, balancing the rights of individuals with the broader public interest. Therefore, the
respondent requests this Honorable Court to uphold the lawfulness of the arrests and dismiss the
petition on these grounds.

xxi
 PRAYER OF RELIEF
For the aforementioned reasons, the Respondent, The State of Azure, respectfully pray that this
Honorable Supreme Court adjudge and declare that:
a. Declare the issues do not meet the threshold of significant public importance under
Article 184(3) and dismiss the petition.
b. Declare the media's coverage falls within Article 19's freedom of speech.
c. Address any defamation claims through existing legal frameworks.
d. Declare the arrests lawful and necessary for maintaining public order.
e. Affirm the actions taken by law enforcement were justified.
f. Acknowledge the due process and procedural safeguards followed by law enforcement.
g. Reinforce the importance of procedural integrity and public safety.
Any other relief deemed just and proper may also be kindly granted

Petitioner of the Respondent

xxii