KLE SOCIETY’S LAW COLLEGE, BANGALORE

CLINICL COURSE – IV (MOOT COURT)

ASSESSMENT - I

MOOT PROBLEMS
 PROBLEM NO. 1

1. Lawland College is the preeminent law school in Delhi University. Lawland College provides
official recognition to certain groups of students. This mechanism is known as ‘Lawland College
Registered Student Organization’ (LCRSO) program. This status confers several benefits upon the
group like using official communication channels, financial assistance, college facilities for
meetings and office space, and most importantly Lawland College’s name and logo. This
recognition in turn is granted when these student organizations abide by certain conditions. They
have to comply with Lawland College’s Policy of Non-discrimination, which prohibits
discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex/sexual orientation, place of birth, age,
disability, descent and residence.3 The Lawland College has followed the practice for quite some
time now and takes great pride in the fact that the officially recognized student groups allow any
student to become a member irrespective of their status or belief.

2. Baba Namdev is a renowned yogi of India and he enjoys a great following throughout the
country. Baba Namdev’s teachings primarily urge Hindus to practice radical Hinduism and targets
the youth of India as a major support group. Baba Namdev enjoys a cult status amongst young
Hindu students who have created Faith of Baba Namdev Society (FBNS) in several educational
institutions. Baba Namdev is of the opinion that homosexuality is a curable disease. He firmly
believes that homosexuals or those who tolerate homosexuality have no right to practice radical
Hinduism. Baba Namdev also went to the extent of saying that the Delhi High Court’s judgment
in Naz Foundation was a challenge to radical Hinduism. The Delhi High Court sentenced him to
10 days simple imprisonment for criminal contempt of court in December 2009. In spite of all this
Baba Namdev and FBNS continued their zealous advocacy of radical Hinduism.

3. In May 2011, FBNS submitted its application for the coveted LCRSO status in Lawland College.
The annexure in its application clearly stated that homosexuals and non-Hindus were not eligible
to seek membership. A footnote to the annexure specified that anyone who wishes to become a
member has to sign a document titled ‘Condemn Homosexuality’. The Lawland College rejected
FBNS’s application in June 2011 stating that it does not comply with Lawland College’s Policy of
Nondiscrimination. Lawland College made it clear to FBNS that adherence to the Non-
discrimination Policy is a sine qua non for getting the benefits of LCRSO program but it will not
suppress its activities if it was going to operate outside it.

4. FBNS was incensed by the refusal of LCRSO status. Baba Namdev consulted some of his
disciples who were leading experts of Constitutional Law. In August 2011, FBNS filed a writ
petition in the Supreme Court of India contending that the refusal of LCRSO status violated its
fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, freedom of association, and right to
freedom of religion. Baba Namdev in a televised address stated that the State should not be
permitted to offer benefits to students on the condition that they surrender a portion of their right
to freedom of speech/association/religion.

5. The Lawland College consulted the Advocate General of the State. The Advocate General was
of the opinion that Lawland College had to place conditions on the conferral of LCRSO status in
terms of the Prohibition of Discrimination in Universities Act. The conditions imposed by it were
reasonable and were not meant to harm any student group seeking LCRSO status. The mere fact
that it operated to the disadvantage of FBNS will not make it unconstitutional as it had no
fundamental or constitutional right to State support of its selectivity.

6. The Chief Justice of India has constituted a Five-Judge Bench in light of Article 145(3) of the
Constitution. The Chief Justice of India has given liberty to both the parties to frame issues of their
choice.

PROBLEM NO. 2

1. Indus is a secular country with cultural, religious and linguistic diversities. Different communities
like Hindus, Muslims and Christians freely live and practice their respective religions. There is no
intervention of the State in the religious matters. The Constitution of Indus provides for the right
to Freedom of Religion as a Fundamental Right. Indus, being a secular country, every religion has
a personal law governing the matters like Marriage, Divorce, Succession etc.

2. In a landmark judgement (Shayara Bano v Union of India and others, (2017) 9 SCC 1) in August
2017 the Supreme Court had set aside Talaq-e-bidaat or Triple Talaq, a type of unilateral,
instantaneous and irrevocable divorce by Muslim husband as unconstitutional. To give effect to
that judgment, the Cabinet Committee chaired by the Prime Minister has decided to introduce the
Bill “The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Bill, 2018” in the House of People.

3. The draft Bill in its statement of objects and reason states “In spite of Supreme Court setting
aside Talaq—e- biddat, and the assurance of All Indus Muslim Personal Law Board, there have been
reports of divorce by way of Talaq-e-biddat, hence there is a need for the State action to give legal
effect to the order of the Supreme Court and to redress the grievances of victims of illegal divorce”.
It was further stated that urgent suitable legislation was necessary to give some relief to... the hapless
married Muslim women who suffer from harassment due to Talaq-e-biddat and this is essential to
prevent this form of divorce, wherein the wife does not have any say in severing the marital
relationship.
4. Minister of Law and Justice claims that this Legislation would help in ensuring the larger
constitutional goals of gender justice and gender equality of married Muslim women and help
subserve their fundamental rights of non-discrimination and help empowerment of women.

5. However, due to paucity of time, Parliament could not take up the Bill for consideration in the
Monsoon Session (18th July 2018 -10th August 2018) of Parliament. Therefore, President has
promulgated an Ordinance on 12 September, 2019. The Ordinance makes all declarations of talaq,
including in written or electronic form, to be void (i.e. not enforceable in law) and illegal. It defines
talaq as talaq-e-biddat or any other similar form of talaq pronounced by a Muslim man resulting in
instant and irrevocable divorce. The Ordinance also declares the pronouncement of such Talaq an
offence, punishable with imprisonment which may extend up to 3 years. Talaq-e-biddat refers to the
practice under Muslim personal laws where pronouncement of the word ‘talaq’ thrice in one sitting
by a Muslim man to his wife results in an instant and irrevocable divorce. Even such triple Talaq
by Phone or What’s App were earlier held to be valid.

6. When Parliament reassembled for the Winter Session (11th December 2018-8th January 2019),
the Bill was introduced in Lower House of Parliament on 27th December 2018. It was passed in the
said house by overwhelming majority. However, same was not introduced in the Council of States
in the winter session. Again, President re-promulgated the Ordinance on 12th January 2019.

7. During Budget Session (31st January- 13th February 2019), Government failed to introduce the
Bill passed by House of the People in the Council of States, because majority of members of the
Council of States issued public statements opposing the Bill. On 2nd April 2019, President has re-
promulgated an Ordinance.

8. Mrs. Veena, a renowned advocate and a former Central Minister has Challenged the
Government action of Ordinance by filing a writ petition before the Supreme Court of Indus on the
ground that such re-promulgation would amount to a fraud on the Constitution as opined by the
Supreme Court in its earlier decision (Krishna Kumar Singh v State of Bihar, 2017 (2) SCJ 136).

PROBLEM NO. 3

1. The State of BRAHMA is one of the States in Indiva. Due to wrath of nature the state is facing
an acute scarcity of water and the condition in major part of the state is near to drought.

2. To meet this situation, the state of BRAMHA has taken a policy decision to construct the number
of dams in the State so that the rainy water could be accumulated in the dams which would help in
meeting the growing needs of water for the purpose of drinking, agriculture and also for the
Industries. The Government is also of the opinion that the accumulation water in the dams would
help in recouping the underground water level in the state.
3. One of such dams is to be constructed in a district which is more severely affected. The
construction of the dam would affect ten villages which are adjoining to the location of the dam.
The villagers have agriculture as their main occupation and as a consequence of the water stored
in the dam, their agricultural fields would either be submerged or get water logged which would
deprive them of their right to livelihood.

4. The state of BAMHA for the purpose of the construction of dam had floated global tenders and
one of the companies, Reliable Industries limited has been given a contract to construct a dam. The
reliable industries limited for the purpose of construction of the dam had applied for environment
clearance to the Ministry of Environment and Forest for the purpose.

5. Environment clearance has been given to the company on the ground that the Government has
an authority to do so in larger public interest. The agriculturist in the village are also not in favour
of the construction of the dam since they would be displaced from the land where the dam is to be
constructed and would be deprived of their livelihood.

6. “Alert Indiva” is NGO which for the protection of environment in Indiva. “Alert Indiva” which
is fighting for the cause of environment has appealed to the Government not to proceed with the
construction of the dam since it would lead to an environmental imbalance in the State.

7. However, the state of BRAMHA is determined to proceed with the construction of dam in public
interest. “Alert Indiva” has therefore filed a petition under Art.226 and Art.227 of the Constitution
of Indiva on the ground that the Environment Clearance Certificate granted is bad in letter and
spirit of the constitution and against the national interest. “Alert Indiva” has also taken the cause
of the agriculture who are likely to be displaced and has submitted that the construction of the said
dam is in violation of Art.21 of the constitution of Indiva as regards right to life and Personal liberty
of the agriculturists in the area.

8. The High Court of Judicature of Bramha has admitted the petition for hearing and has framed
the following issues for the purpose of adjudication.