PETITIONER SIDES

1ST SPEAKER- May it please this Hon’ble Court, this is counsel __ appearing along with my
co-counsels ___, __ and ____ on behalf of the appellant in the case concerning Indiana Union
For Child Rights v. The State of Jamnagar. The counsel for the petitioner has three contentions
to submit before this Hon’ble Court. Hope the lordship is well versed with the facts of the case.
With your lordships’ kind permission may the counsel move on to her contentions.

The Writ Petition made in furtherance to the Honorable High Court to decide a question of law is
maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as: firstly, the jurisdiction of High
Court can always be invoked; secondly, the Hon’ble HC is well within its rights to accept the
writ petition on application from the petitioners and thirdly, existence of Alternative Remedy is
no bar to file petition.

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that whenever a question of law of general
public importance arises the jurisdiction can be invoked. The jurisdiction conferred under Art.
226 on the High Court are corrective one and not a restrictive one. A duty is enjoined upon the
High Court to exercise its power by setting right the illegality in the judgments is well-settled
that illegality must not be allowed to be perpetrated and failure by the High Court to interfere
with the same would amount to allowing the illegality to be perpetuated.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the remedy under Article 226 of the
Constitution is discretionary remedy. The Court is vested with power to entertain the petition
where there occurs gross miscarriage of justice and effective remedy is not available. This rule of
exhaustion of the statutory remedy is not rigid but somewhat flexible and it is primarily a matter
of the discretion of the writ court. Reliance is placed upon the decision in the case of Whirlpool’s
Corp. v. Registrar of Trade Marks, in which it was held by the Apex Court that the jurisdiction
of the High Court in entertaining a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution would not
be affected although there exists alternative statutory remedies.

Lastly, it is submitted that a writ petition is maintainable when the lis involves a public law
character and when the forum chosen by the parties would not be in apposition to grant
appropriate relief. Question as to when discretionary jurisdiction is to be exercised or refused has

1
to be determined having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule
can be laid down in this regard.

With these humble submissions, the counsel would like to call Mr__ , to deal with the other
contentions.

Much obliged your lordship.

2
2ND SPEAKER- May it please this Hon’ble Court, this is counsel, ___ contending on the issue
that the most crucial change brought about by the JJ Act, 2015 is that, under Section 15 of the JJ
Act, 2015, a child who has completed or is above the age of 16 years can potentially be tried as
an adult. Under the Act, a child has been defined as a person who has not attained 18 years of
age. Therefore, there is no change in the definition of the child per se. Although the Act has not
reduced the age in the definition, Section 15 of the Act has reduced the age of a child from 18 to
16 years for the purpose of treating a child as an adult for heinous offences, thus proving to be a
glaring and unavoidable inconsistency. Section 15 of the JJ Act, 2015 mandates the Juvenile
Justice Board to conduct a preliminary assessment of children to understand their mental status.
The Children's court, in turn, uses Blended sentencing, known also as extended jurisdiction
juvenile (hereinafter referred to as EJJ), in which the courts can try the juvenile either as a child
or as an adult. Further, the child is given a juvenile sentence to be served at a place of safety,
until he becomes a major, after which he is transferred to an adult prison. The blended sentencing
rendered by the courts is more punitive in nature as it allows children to be sentenced as an adult.
This convergence eventually erodes the rationale for a separate juvenile justice system. It is
beyond comprehension and somehow paradoxical as well, that the same courts established for
the protection of the child's dignity is now violating it. The Apex Court has time and again held
that the dignity of a child is of extreme significance and emphasizes on the sustenance of such
dignity.

The Apex Court, in Subramanian Swami v. Raju, through the Juvenile Justice Board, provided
cogent reasons while dismissing the petition against reducing the cut-off age from 18 to 16 years.
In the case of Salil Bali v. Union of India, the constitutionality of definition of child under 18
years was challenged as ultra vires Constitution. The Court held as follows. "The age of eighteen
years has been fixed on account of the understanding of the experts in child psychology and
behavior patterns that till such an age the children in conflict with law could still be redeemed
and restored to mainstream society, instead of becoming hardened criminals in future. It is
probably better to try and reintegrate children with criminal propensities into mainstream society,
rather than to allow them to develop into hardened criminals, which does not augur well for the
future."

3
 Hence, section15 of JJ act has been arbitrary. I would now like to call upon counsel __ to deal
with next contention. Much obliged your lordship.

3RD SPEAKER- Your lordship, It is most humbly submitted before this honorable court that the
amendment being made in the section 15 of the juvenile justice act violates the article 14 and 21 of
the constitution of Indica as article 14 of the constitution states the right to equality before the law
but the amendment the grounds of being unreasonable, arbitrary and hence, in violation of Article
14 of the Constitution. The petitioner contents that’s the implementation of Juvenile Justice Act
2015 has rendered for the natural justice enriched under Art. 21 of the constitution. The Art. 21 of
the constitution envisages the rights to Natural Justice as a fundamental right. Further in order to
establish violation or Art 21 the Act should be subjected to the equality test of Art. 14. Art. 14
strikes at arbitrariness because it neglects, and permeates the entire fabric of the rule of law,
therefore every action of the state must be guided by the reason for public good and not by whim,
Caprice, and abuse of power.

Right of the Fair Trial has been violated: The authorities have failed to apply the principle of fair
trial and right of opportunity to be heard. Right to have fair trial of a juvenile is a fundamental right
guaranteed under Art 21, which would include procedural safeguard. The Juvenile has right to get
his case disposed of expeditiously is a statutory as well as constitutional right and at all stages the
board or the court is required to pass appropriate order under Juvenile Justice Act, 2000,. As per
section 15 explanation (1) and (2) of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 the board shall follow the procedure
trial in summon case under CrPC of India, 1973.

In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is most humbly
submitted that the court may be pleased to adjudge and declare the writ petition to be maintainable,
Hold that the procedure of assessment adopted by the juvenile justice board by the virtue of 2015
amendment is not in consonance with the spirit of welfare legislation and constitutional values and To hold
that there has been breach of fundamental rights. Also, the Court may pass any order, writ, direction
that it deem fit in the interest of justice, equity and good faith. Thank you, your lordship.

4
RESPONDENT SIDE

1ST SPEAKER- May it please this Hon’ble Court, this is counsel __ appearing along with my
co-counsels ___, __ and ____ on behalf of the respondent in the case concerning Indian Union
for Child Rights v. The state of Jamnagar. The counsel for the respondents has three contentions
to submit before this Hon’ble Court. Hope the lordship is well versed with the facts of the case.
With your lordships’ kind permission may the counsel move on to her contentions.
The writ petition filed in the High Court under article 226 is not maintainable as: firstly, there

existed an efficacious alternative remedy and secondly, the writ is not maintainable on account

of non-contravention of any fundamental right. The fundamental rights of the petitioner have not

been violated. Even so, the fundamental rights are subject to inherent limitations which are

imposed by the Constitution itself and an existence of alternative remedy is sufficient to make

the petition fail.

Petitioner has no locus standi in the instant case: The respondent submits that the Court has
held that only if there is a violation of Fundamental Rights can it step in under the Jurisdiction of
Article 226. The petitioner is raising a mere scholarly objection, without any locus standi. No
one has been displaced, there has been no forceful assimilation and no harm has been done to the
juveniles. Hence when there is no damnus, the Petitioner cannot seek a remedy. Moreover, the
enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 has added a new dimension to the existing Juvenile
Justice Act, 2000.

No violation of fundamental rights: The jurisdiction under Art. 226 can be invoked only when
Fundamental Rights are violated. It has been held that if a right, other than a fundamental right is
claimed to be violated then such questions can be addressed only in the appropriate proceedings
and not on an application under Art. 32. In the instant case, that there has been no direct and
inevitable effect on the fundamental rights.

Existence of an alternative remedy:- It is submitted before this Hon’ble court that a HC does
not ordinarily issue a writ when an alternative efficacious remedy is available. Under article 226,
the HC does not decide disputes for which remedy is available under general law. Furthermore, it

5
is submitted that when a right or liability is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or
procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy and
not the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was held this Hon’ble apex
court in Asstt. Collector of Central Excise v. Jainson Hosiery where there is alternative statutory
remedy court should not interfere unless the alternative remedy is too dilatory or cannot grant
quick relief. Thus, the respondents humbly submit that the present writ petition is not
maintainable on the ground that alternative remedy has not been exhausted. Hence, the writ
petition to this regard cannot be maintainable.

2ND SPEAKER- May it please this Hon’ble Court, this is counsel, ___ contending on the issue

That all the requirements of instituting section 15 of JJ Act, 2015 have been filed in the instant
case. First it “does not Violates the very essence of Juvenile Justice Act”

1. Secondly it does not violates various Fundamental Rights

2. The act committed by Rahul , Manish and Suresh was done maturely.

It is respectfully submitted that the present data on juvenile crime by IPC and special and local
laws in 2012 by age and gender, the number of crimes are committed in three age groups i.e.7-12
years, 12-16 years and 16-18 years. According to the NCRB report (2013) only 2% of the
juvenile crime is committed by the children below the age of 12 years, 31% by the children
between the ages of 12-16 years and 67% by children between the ages of 16-18 years. The
logical response to crime as rational behavior is tougher punishment as a deterrent. Deterrence
theory holds that punishment has a general effect, discouraging the general public from engaging
in criminal activity by striking fear in them with threat of punishment. Furthermore, punishment
is more effective if it is administered soon after the violation, and if it is sufficiently severe.
Thus it is respectfully submitted that sec. 15 of JJ Act, 2015 is constitutional.
In the instant case the three minors Rahul Manish and Suresh has committed murder which is a
heinous offence. According to sec. 15 of JJ Act, 2015 states that young offender’s mental
maturity, emotional and intellectual maturity has to be checked. In the instant case both the

6
juveniles were found mentally matured. In this case as the three juveniles Rahul Manish and
Suresh had suitable crime target (Kamlesh) in front of their eyes as all three of them shared their
feelings of hatred towards Kamlesh and when Kamlesh left the Devils party for his own good
and showed them his back, all three of them shared common hatred for Kamlesh and they
decided to take revenge for it.
In the instant case it was very nicely planned by all three of the minors. They called Kamlesh for
a cordial chat on a tea stall on July 5, 2017. After this meeting on Mahmood tea stall Kamlesh
then never retuned back his place. Thus the maturity level of understanding is that the intention
of the crime is deciding factor. In the instant case there was a proper plotting and planning done
by the minors as it is shown by the act that they decided to take revenge from Kamlesh. The
conduct of the minors clearly shows that all of them are matured enough as shown from the way
they executed the plan. After two days, Ramnagar Police founded Kamlesh dead on the bank of
river “Somti” as recognized by the forensic reports of his blood and tissue which was found near
his dead body. The Autopsy also showed the signs of struggle, footmarks, and brain hemorrhage.
And since police proved that the members of the devils party were the last to meet Kamlesh it is
but obvious that they are the ones to kill him because of their grudge against him.
Thus the respondents humbly submits that sec 15 of JJ Act, 2015 is constitutional and also all
three Rahul, Manish and Suresh are mature enough to commit the crime.

Much obliged your lordship.

7
3RD SPEAKER- Your lordship, the counsel is here to deal with the contentions. The
respondent contends that the implementation of the JJ Act, 2015 by the Parliament is not found
to be arbitrary and also the right to fair trial is also not being violated of the juveniles. Thus
there is no violation of Art. 14 and Art. 21. Rule of law has also not been violated by the proper
implementation of the JJ Act, 2015 decision of the Parliament. It is made in pursuance of
ensuring fairness and transparency and instilling public faith in the examination system
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the current Juvenile Justice (Care
and Protection of Children) Act. 2015 (hereinafter as Act.) is very much in consonance with the
provisions of the Constitution of Indiana. All the children in the age group of 16-18 years are
treated equally and no two children in the age group of 16-18 years who commit a heinous
offence are proposed to be treated differently under the current Act. Hence, there will be not
differential treatment of such children on any ground.
It is humbly submitted Art. 21 of the Indiana Constitution envisage the protection of life and
personal liberty. In the instant case the right of opportunity to be heard and the right of natural
justice has not been infringed because in the act ‘Procedure established by Law’ in Art. 21
means the law prescribed by Parliament at any given point of time. Parliament has the power to
change the procedure by enacting a law by amending it and when the procedure is so changed, it
becomes ‘Procedure established by law’. Further in order to establish violation of Art. 21 the act
should be subjected to the equality test of Art. 14 and test of reasonableness under Article 19.
The Art. 14 does not strike at arbitrariness and also the test of reasonableness is also not been
satisfied. It is submitted by the respondents that the implementation of the Juvenile Justice Act,
2015 is not violative of Art. 21.
In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is most humbly
submitted that the court may be pleased to adjudge and declare Dismiss the writ petition, Hold
that the procedure of assessment adopted by the juvenile justice board by the virtue of 2015
amendment is in consonance with the spirit of welfare legislation and constitutional values and
To hold that there has been no breach of fundamental rights. Also, the Court may pass any order,
writ, direction that it deem fit in the interest of justice, equity and good faith. Thank you, your
lordship.