TEAM :

MOOT COURT ACTIVITY

Before

THE DELHI HIGH COURT

Sandra Kaur....................................................................................................................... Petitioner

Vs

Benedict......................................................................................................................... Respondant

MEMORIAL for the Respondent

 MEMORIAL FOR THE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES..............................................................................................................ii

STATEMENT OF FACTS................................................................................................................vi

ISSUES RAISED.............................................................................................................................viii

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.....................................................................................................viii

WRITTEN SUBMISSION..................................................................................................................1
ISSUE I:...........................................................................................................................................1
ISSUE II:
ISSUE III:
ISSUE IV:

PRAYER FOR RELIEF....................................................................................................................ix

i
 MEMORIAL FOR THE

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Statutes

Foreign Legislations

Cases

1. Kuruma v. The Queen [1954] UKPC 43...................................................................................7

2. Lal Girwar Lal v. Dau Dayal AIR 1935 All 509....................................................................11
3. Lal Mohammad AIR 1931 Pat 337............................................................................................1
4. Limbaji v. State of Maharashtra (2001) 10 SCC 340................................................................3
5. Limbaji v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2002 SC 491..................................................................4
6. M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra [1954] S.C.R. 1077................................................................7
7. M/s Sesa Goa Ltd. v. State Of Goa 2013 SCC OnLine NGT 27.............................................10
8. Magraj Patodia v. R K Birla 1971 AIR 1295............................................................................7
9. Major Gurjinder Singh Benipal v. State Of Punjab (2011) 3 SCC 530.....................................6
10. Malhu Yadav v. State of Bihar AIR 2002 SC 2137...................................................................2
11. Michael Cooper v. National Crime Agency [2019] EWCA Civ 16...........................................8
12. Mithilesh Kumar Singh v. State Of Rajasthan (2015) 9 SCC 795..............................................6
13. Mohamed Maraikkayar v. The Director General of Police and ors. 2014 SCC Mad 9759......6
14. Narattam Das v. Md. Masadharali (1991) 1 Gau LR 197........................................................9
15. Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338 (1939)........................................................................7
16. Narendra Kumar Amin v. Central Bureau of Investigation and ors. (2015) 3 SCC 417.........11
17. O.Babu Reddy v. B.Prabhakara Reddy S.A.No.1834 of 1998.................................................11
18. Paresh AIR 1927 C 93..............................................................................................................6
19. Parkash Rai v. J.N. Dhar AIR 1977 Delhi 73...........................................................................9
20. PyareLal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1963 SC 1094..................................................1
21. Ram Parbes AIR 1944 P 228....................................................................................................5
22. Ramratan AIR 1965 SC 926.....................................................................................................1
23. Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. Collector (2012) 4 SCC 407.............................................................10
24. Reid-Dali v. Hickman 1981 2 SA 315 (ZA) 323.......................................................................5

ii
 MEMORIAL FOR THE

25. Rogers v. Superior Court 46 Cal.2d 3.......................................................................................8

26. S.M. Datta v. State of Gujarat (2001) 7 SCC 659.....................................................................6
27. S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India (1990) 4 SCC 594..............................................................10
28. Sanchaita Investment v. State AIR 1981 Cal157......................................................................5
29. Selvi v. State of Karnatak (2010) 7 SCC 263............................................................................8
30. Sidhartha Vashisht v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2010)6 SCC 1.....................................................6
31. Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States 251 U.S. 385...........................................................7
32. Sitaram AIR 1944 P 222...........................................................................................................5
33. South Lenarkshire Council v. Scottish Information Commissioner [2013] UKSC 55...............8
34. State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu 2005 11 SCC 600........................................................9
35. State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Maharashtra v. K.S. Gandhi
(1991) 2 SCC 716...................................................................................................................10
36. State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad AIR 1961 SC 1808.......................................................8
37. State of Gujarat v. Kishanbhai (2014) 5 SCC 108....................................................................6
38. State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy 1999 (3) SCR 359.....................................................6
39. State of Kerala v. Alasserry Mohammed A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 933................................................8
40. State of Maharashtra v. Vishwanath Tukaram Umale (1979) 4 SCC 23..................................3
41. State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar 2004CriLJ1385...............................................................10
42. State of U.P. v. Rajnath, 1983 Mad LJ 347 Cri........................................................................8
43. State of U.P. v. Sunil 2017 SCC OnLine 520............................................................................8
44. State v. Santprakash 1976 CrLJ 274 FB...................................................................................5
45. Sundar Singh v. State of U.P. AIR 1956 SC 411 (415).............................................................6
46. Swaran Lata Ghosh v. H.K. Banerjee (1969) 1 SCC 709.......................................................10
47. Swarnalingam Chettiar v. Asst. Inspector of Labour AIR 1955 Mad 685................................6
48. The Special Officer, Vellore v. The Presiding Officer Labour (2005) 2 MLJ 132..................11
49. United State v. Grady 185 F.2d 273..........................................................................................7
50. US v. Dionisio [1973] US SC 23..............................................................................................5
51. Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali alias Deepak and ors. (2013) 5 SCC 762......................................10
52. Wong Sun v. United States 371 U.S. 471..................................................................................7

Treaties & Conventions

iii
 MEMORIAL FOR THE

Articles, Books, Commentaries, Dictionaries& Journals

Reports

iv
 MEMORIAL FOR THE

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Benedict(Benoit) is a French young boy who lives in Cognac ( South-western French province)
has just completed his 20th Birthday and is very happy as his father has permitted him to study
medicine at a highly prestigious Bute Medical School (University of St Andrews)Fife, Scotland,
UK. Before he leaves for study, he promises his father that his sole aim will be to achieve a good
degree and to be a good surgeon.
2. The days are passing and Benedict is showing his excellence in his study day by day. One day,
when he was in his fourth and final year of studies, he was doing an autopsy to identify the
reason for accidental death; his classmate naming Sandra Kaur (23 years) a Scottish girl of Indian
Punjabi origin, got fainted to see the horrible inner part of a human body and disgusting smell.
She was rushed to the hospital for first aid and was admitted for recovery, which lasted 4 days,
during which she was passing through mental trauma and sickening hallucinations.
3. Benedict used to visit her every day with a bunch of flowers and used to share lighter jokes to
help her speedy recovery. Even after getting discharged from the hospital, they often used to
share good times together for many months until they got graduated with a respectable grades.
4. Benedict was very happy and eager to share his success with the family, so he rushed back to
Cognac just after completing of academic work. His success was a big blast at the entire
extended family, so the celebration lasted for many days.
5. During his medical studies, in his usual free time, Benedict started reading about para
psychology and occult interpretations of mystic Indian and Nepali, religious and customary
traditions where it was believed that there is a life after death and some people, called ‘Aughad’
do perform practices to give a real experience by inviting spirit through certain occult
performances using man, women and children. Benedict had a huge curiosity to see and
experience that performance.
6. One day when he was talking with Sandra about his desire along with a proposal to visit India
and Nepal, she instantly accepted his proposal and convinced her parents that she will be safe
with Benedict during her visit to India and Nepal.
7. Benedict discussed his idea with the parents, who were initially reluctant to send him alone with
a girl for a quite long time but later got convinced and allowed them to go together to see the
world.
8. The governments of India and Nepal were not very difficult to extend them a joint tourist visa for
a duration of 3 months on a condition that just before completion of the scheduled time they
would return back to their native place instantly.
9. It was a happy moment when Benedict and Sandra boarded their flight from London to New
Delhi with a scheduled return from the same place.
10. On 12th Jan 2014, they landed in Delhi and enjoyed their stay by visiting many beautiful
monuments in Agra and Jaipur . In their visit to Rishikesh and Haridwar, on the bank of river
Ganga, Benedict could identify the place where some ‘Agori’ were worshipping near burnt dead
bodies and performing exotic rituals. It was the same Benedict had been hearing since long. He
asked Sandra to come along and be a witness to the mystic practices but she refused as she had
no interest in that horrific idea.
11. Benedict chose to go alone with one ‘Ramashish’ a young unmarried boy working under a
famous Mastakanand ‘Aghori’ and supporting him to find out about the recent cremations
enabling the Aghori to do the desired practices.
12. It was a huge attraction for Benedict to be a part of the practice but Mastakanand asked him to
come with his wife, as Hindu rituals cannot be performed without a wife and the ‘Tantra’
v
 MEMORIAL FOR THE
practice cannot achieve its desired results and accomplishments.
13. It was a huge setback to Benedict as he was unmarried, and due to his status, the dream was about

vi
 MEMORIAL FOR THE
to destroy. He requested Mastakanand to give a solution to his problem and asked, what if, he
could be married to Sandra, would it work? Mastakanand consented to solemnize their marriage
first and thereafter include them into the practice by honouring them as Husband and Wife.
14. Sandra refused the idea as she was not ready to marry Benedict in this manner and without
approval from her parents. Benedict tried to convince her that it is not an actual marriage like
Christians (where a boy and a girl do promise against each other in a Church and the parents ,
relatives and friends do witness the marriage with the blessings of a Priest), it is just a little
formality of Hindu ritual where Benedict and Sandra will be ‘considered only’ married for a
specific purpose and after doing a ‘Saptapadi’ (a marriage pattern of Hindus, where a Boy and a
Girl take seven steps around fire and promise to each other for protection, care and maintenance
for life). He insisted that after ‘Saptapadi’, they would be allowed to perform the practice.
15. After a long discussion and initial hesitation, Sandra and Benedict decided to pass through the
formalities of Hindu marriage and to be a part of the ‘Aughad’ practice. Mastakanand and
Ramashish were the witness of the marriage where Benedict and Sandra got married as per the
directed Hindu pattern, including Saptapadi, and exchanged garlands to each other. The
photographs were collected for the occasion and for the ‘Aughad’ practice purpose also.
16. The ‘Aughad’ practice was extremely horrific, strange and exotic to both of them. Sandra was
shivering with fear, curiosity and disgust and also not feeling comfortable in the disguised
presence of Mastakanand and Ramashish at that lonely bank of the river in a chilling cold night
but struggling hard to remain supportive of seeing Benedict’s happiness. Both Mastakanand and
Ramashish were drinking alcohol and eating human flesh and also insisted both Benedict and
Sandra to do the same. Sandra refused to do so but Benedict took some alcohol and also tasted
the human flesh with reluctance initially but later, he started enjoying human flash like a hungry
animal.
17. During ‘Aughad’ practice, when Benedict and Sandra were performing the guided activities,
Benedict was intoxicated and deeply thrilled, collecting strange photographs and uploading them
on facebook and other social sites instantly. He was dancing, singing and behaving like
completely insane, having no mind.
18. Benedict and Sandra could return back to the hotel early morning and sleep. Next day by
afternoon, they could get up late and after lunch, they planned to see the rest of the temples and
scenic places across. The photographs of Benedict, while eating human flash along with
Mastakanand and Ramashish were published by many local newspapers prominently. Benedict
was feeling normal but Sandra was still uncomfortable with the recollection of the previous
night.
19. Due to Aughad’s performance as a foreigner couple, cannibalism and publication of horrifying
photographs, It became a hue and cry by the local community and religious groups, demanding
Benedict and Sandra be arrested for showing disregard to religion and public sentiments. One
lawyer Mr. Rajratnam from Delhi High Court made a complaint case against the couple for
cannibalism and destroying social harmony.
20. As per the schedule, Benedict and Sandra had to move to Nepal in the next two days. Within this
time Sandra observed that Benedict had started dictating terms and often started calling her as
wife; although it was usually in the lighter mood but still it was identifiable.
21. After reaching Nepal, while check-in hotel he got their names registered as Mrs. and Mr.
Benedict. Sandra gave it a damn and moved in, as she was tired and wanted a deep sleep.
22. Nepal was a pleasant stay and they were roaming to see beautiful temples and monuments across.
While visiting ‘Pashupatinath Temple’ Sandra was intimated by the tour guide that today early
morning the temple authorities found an infant of barely one month on the staircase. Sandra got
moved and wanted to see the infant, a baby girl. The baby was extremely cute like a white teddy
bear, and was crying due to hunger and cold. She requested the temple authorities to allow her to
keep the child but they refused to do so until both Benedict and Sandra proposed to adopt the
child by surrendering their identities. Benedict suggested her reveal the newly acquired
vi
 MEMORIAL FOR THE
identity of a

vi
 MEMORIAL FOR THE
married couple to keep the child. It was difficult for Sandra to do so but to see the infant, she
accepted the proposal and showed their status as ‘Married’ along with photographs. After
surrendering certain documents and photographs and with the little formalities, the child was
handed over to them.
23. Sandra and Benedict were very happy and thrilled to have the child and enjoyed the presence of a
third soul in the middle by keeping it warm, fed and relaxed like parents. It was a wonderful
feeling Sandra could live with. Both newly adopted parents lived in Kathmandu for almost a
week and purchased a lot many things for an adopted child.
24. While returning back to Delhi, at Tribhuvan International Airport, Kathmandu, the immigration
officer asked the passport of all three along with a valid visa issued by Indian Ministry of Foreign
Affairs but the newly adopted child had none so was refused to get a clearance. Sandra and
Benedict were deeply disappointed to see the legal technicality of the issue so they rushed back
to the local administration to make some ad-hoc arrangements to get the work done and to fetch
permission to take the child along with them.
25. The local administrative authorities asked the couple to show the documents reflecting the child’s
identity and establishing parenthood. Besides this, the couple were unable to reveal the marital
status of Benedict and Sandra, whereas some photographs were the only support to establish
them as a married couple. It was not possible for them to adopt a child without having the status
of a married couple. On special request, extended by French Embassy in Nepal, and after
submitting an undertaking along with an affidavit by the French Councillor, to maintain the very
best upbringing of the child, the couple was allowed to leave the country along with the infant.
26. The very moment the couple landed in India, the immigration officer asked to show the identity
of the child, as there was no specific document of adoption, and the couple had one additional
person with them, who was not registered while departing for Nepal. The police took them into
custody, assuming that the child had either been bought or stolen by the couple.
27. Benedict and Sandra contacted French Embassy but they denied any help and suggested
returning the child to Nepalese authorities. The British Embassy suggested them to get married in
Embassy itself to legitimize their marital status and so the adoption of the child as per the Indian
laws.
28. Benedict got furious and agitated on the proposal as he had no idea of getting married without
parental approval and to adopt a child without intention. Sandra was also disappointed to see the
legal hassles but despite she was ready to fight for the protection of the child and to carry on with
her recently acquired parenthood.
29. Benedict had a consultation with his father, who was very angry with these developments and
directed him to return back to France instantly.
30. Benedict suggested that Sandra to leave the child at its own fate and return back to UK but
Sandra denied doing so as she felt it inhuman and against all ethics, she learnt. They had a bitter
fight, and after that, Benedict decided to leave for France without even consulting Sandra. The
joint decision of parenthood and marriage was ignored by him and without understanding her
emotional attachment with the child and also forthcoming legal complexities he left for France.
31. The moment he landed in Cognac, his father took him to the local Registrar of Marriage and got
his marriage nullified on the basis of the illegality of the marriage solemnized in India without
any approval of his parents and without any appropriate rituals. Such marriage is not accepted in
France and the Christian religion.
32. Sandra remaining alone in India contacted British Embassy again with the recent developments
but they refused to help except by suggesting her to return back to UK without the child.
33. Badly tired, Sandra met one NGO meant for orphan children for help and requested them to
adopt the child, enabling her to return back to the UK, who denied help on the basis of her
capacity to give the child in adoption and also the nationality concern of Sandra and the child.
34. Sandra filed a case in Indian Court on the following grounds,
ix
 MEMORIAL FOR THE

ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE I:

ISSUE II:

ISSUE III:

ISSUE IV:

ISSUE V:

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE I:
It is humbly submitted

ISSUE II:

It is humbly submitted

x
 MEMORIAL FOR THE

ISSUE III:

It is humbly submitted

ISSUE IV:

It is humbly submitted

xi
 MEMORIAL FOR THE

WRITTEN SUBMISSION

ISSUE I:.

ISSUE II:

1
 MEMORIAL FOR THE

ISSUE III

ISSUE IV:

1
 MEMORIAL FOR THE

PRAYER

WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND

AUTHORITIES CITED, IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THIS HONORABLE COURT
MAY BE PLEASED TO DECLARE THAT:

AND PASS ANY OTHER ORDER, DIRECTION, OR RELIEF THAT IT MAY

DEEM FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, FAIRNESS, EQUITY AND GOOD
CONSCIENCE

Counsels for the Respondent