You are on page 1of 3

MOOT PROPOSITION

IN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF HINDUSTAN


CHILD RIGHTS ADVOCACY FOUNDATION
VS.
THE REPUBLIC OF HINDUSTAN
The

Republic

of

Hindustan

is

countrywhich

is

almost

similar

in

population, geographical area, historical heritage, crime rate and culture as that of the
Republic of India. Similarly, the Constitution of Hindustan and other prevailing domestic laws
are in parimateria with the Republic of India, except in regard to the reduction of the age of
juveniles. The Constitution of Hindustan contained various beneficial provisions for
promoting and protecting the rights and interests of children. The Parliament of Hindustan
enacted and put in place a law by name The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2000 with the laudable object of engendering welfare and well being of
juveniles. The said Act unequivocally delineated a juvenile as a person not attaining the age of
his/her 18th year of age. The print and electronic media in the Republic of Hindustan had
blown out of proportion the incidents of offences of rape, murder, kidnapping, and similar
such offences committed by juveniles against the girl child & women. Certain
women empowering organizations, having been heavily charged with and carried away
by these media stories had been actuated to conduct a random survey on the incidents
of serious bodily offences committed against women by the juveniles. The survey shockingly
and stupendously disclosed that a considerable number of such offences are committed
against women by juveniles. Basing on the findings of the said survey,the women
organizations had successfully lobbied with the key functionaries of the ruling party at the
Central Government and parliamentarians belonging to different political parties for initiating
Amendments to the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 for treating juveniles in between the age of 16
to 18 as adults for the purpose of conducting trial and awarding of punishment in cases of
serious bodily offences against women, Consequently, the said Amendment was successfully
made to the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. The said Amendment clearly provided that any
juvenile in between the age of 16 to 18 years commits any offence of rape, murder,
kidnapping, abduction and offences of such analogous nature then such offender shall be
treated as an adult offender only. Reluctantly, the punishment awarded would be the same

like in the case of the adult offenders in similar such offences by treating the juveniles on par
with the adult offenders. The said Amendment was challenged by a leading child rights
group by name Child Rights Advocacy Foundation a leading Non-Governmental
Organization spearheading the cause of child rights and welfare in the Republic of Hindustan
before the Supreme Court seeking declaration that it is invalid, void and unconstitutional
on various grounds inter alia: that such Amendment was against the very spirit of
the International Covenants like United Nations Convention on the Rights of Children
to which the Republic of Hindustan was a signatory; such Amendment was in flagrant flouting
of the constitutional provisions & core principles of juvenile justice; that such, Amendment
was contrary to the established judicial precedents; that such Amendment, If implemented
would make juveniles into hardened and habitual criminals; that such Amendment would
dehumanize the criminal administration of justice, that such Amendment founded on the
skewed survey was far from the reality at ground level etc., However, the State of Hindustan
strongly defended the said Amendment on the ground that the lowering of the age of juveniles
in regard to serious offences against women was imperative in the light of early maturity
and precocity of the child in the era of globalization, easy access to crime and pornography in
the internet and increasing incidents of rape, murder, kidnapping etc., committed by juveniles
in every succeeding year, to add more deterrence to the existing law and changing face of
juvenile laws across the World. The Child Rights Advocacy Foundation filed a Writ Petition
under Article 32 of the Constitution in the Supreme Court of the Republic of Hindustan
challenging the Amendments made to the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. The Supreme Court of
the Republic of Hindustan was pleased to admit the present petition & further framed the
under mentioned issues for final hearing of the matter.
Issues:
1) Whether the petitioner has locus-standi to file the present petition?
2) Whether the contention advanced by the petitioner that the impugned Amendment is
against the International covenants, constitutional ideals, core principles of juvenile justice
and established judicial precedents is legally tenable?
3) Whether the contention advanced by the respondent that lowering of the age
of Juveniles in the light of survey findings & early precocity of child is legally sustainable?
4) Whether the impugned Amendment dehumanizes the criminal administration of Justice
as contended by the petitioner?
Note:

It is assumed that the Laws of the Republic of Hindustan are in parimateria with the laws
of the Republic of India except in regard to the reduction of the age of juvenile though a bill
to the same has been mooted but it is yet to fructify into law. It is further assumed that crime
rates of juveniles in the
Republic of Hindustan are on par with that of the Republic of India. The moot problem
is, the way it is. Hence, no queries or requests for the clarification will be entertained under
any circumstances. Participants are free to adopt or devise a litigation strategy which will
serve their interests best. Participants are at liberty to frame any new issue pertinent to the
averments and contentions made by the parties in the Moot Proposition.
Disclaimer:

The

and circumstances.

above

moot

proposition

is

based

on

hypothetical

facts