PROPOSITION

Disclaimer regarding Moot Problem

The facts and circumstances as made out in the Moot Problem(s) of the SDG
Summit Chandigarh Chapter - Moot Court does not resemble the facts of
any living and/or adjudicated litigation. Further, the characters created in
the veil of the facts and circumstances of the Moot Problem do not resemble
any person dead or alive. If any resemblance is so found the same is pure
coincidence and not intentional. However, if any person finds that a similar
set of facts and circumstances prevails in any institution of higher
education, it is the moral and fundamental responsibility/duty of the said
person to take steps in accordance with the law to eradicate illegality and
under qualification from the said institution at once. The instant Moot
Problem is framed to ensure that the students get an academic approach
and takes advantage of the Clinical Method of learning of implementation of
laws. It is essential that a student get an opportunity to look into a legal
problem with a 360-degree view.

Case Proposition for See You in Court - Round 1

Case - The case of Ravi Verma v Professor Arjun Singh, alleged

murder attempt on the basis of provocation and harassment

Case background-
In the fictional city of Avalora, there has been a shocking incident involving a
college student, Ravi Verma, and his teacher, Professor Arjun Singh. Ravi, a
diligent student known for his exceptional academic performance, has
allegedly attempted to murder Professor Singh due to a history of
ill-treatment by the teacher. The incident has created a widespread debate
regarding the limits of self-defence and the responsibility of educators
towards their students. The case has now reached the Supreme Court of
Avalora, where the participants of the moot court will argue the legal issues
at hand.

The Incident:

Ravi Verma, a final-year college student pursuing a degree in literature, had

been facing persistent ill-treatment and harassment by Professor Arjun
Singh, his mentor and academic advisor. Professor Singh, known for his
strict disciplinary approach, had allegedly singled out Ravi for public
humiliation, unfairly graded his assignments, and repeatedly made
derogatory remarks about his capabilities.

On a fateful day, following another humiliating incident in front of the class,

Ravi lost control of his emotions and impulsively attacked Professor Singh
with a knife. The attack was eventually thwarted by other students and
faculty members, resulting in non-fatal injuries to the professor. Ravi was
apprehended by the college security and later charged with attempted
murder.
Legal Issues to Consider:

Self-defence: The central issue in this case is whether Ravi's actions can be
justified as an act of self-defence. Participants will need to delve into the
concept of self-defence, analysing whether Ravi reasonably believed that his
life was in imminent danger, justifying his use of force.

Issue- Whether or not Ravi’s actions can be justified as an act of self

defence?

Provocation: Another important consideration is the role of provocation.

Ravi's defence argues that the sustained ill-treatment and harassment by
Professor Singh provoked his violent reaction. Participants will need to
determine if the defence can establish that Ravi's actions were a result of
"adequate provocation" under the law.

Issue- Whether or not “provocation” is fair grounds for instigating violent

reaction towards the alleged “provocator”.

Reasonable Force: The moot court participants must analyse whether

Ravi's use of force was proportionate to the threat he perceived. They will
need to examine the degree of harm inflicted and whether Ravi could have
used a lesser degree of force to protect himself.
Issue- Whether Ravi’s use of physical force was a proportionate reaction to
the threat perceived.

Responsibility of Educators: The case raises questions about the

responsibility of educators towards their students' well-being and the
potential consequences of neglecting such duties. Participants should explore
the ethical and legal obligations of educators in fostering a safe and
supportive learning environment.

Supreme Court Proceedings:

The case has already undergone trial proceedings in the lower courts, where
Ravi was found guilty of attempted murder and sentenced to a significant
term of imprisonment. The defence has now appealed the conviction before
the Supreme Court of Avalora, seeking a review of the lower court's
decision. The Supreme Court will consider the legal issues surrounding
self-defence, provocation, and the duty of educators, ultimately determining
the appropriate course of action in this case. Participants in the moot court
will assume the roles of prosecutors and defence attorneys and present their
arguments before a panel of judges, examining the legal principles,
precedents, and societal considerations involved in this complex and
emotionally charged case.
Case Proposition for See You in Court - Round 2

The Case of Unfairly Declared State of Emergency: Vinod Khanna vs.

Prime Minister

Case Background:

In the year 2028, India has experienced a state of emergency for five years
fearing the outbreak of World War 3 between Russia and Ukraine due to the
growing tensions between the countries starting on 14th April 2023. The
Prime Minister, in response to the global conflict, declared a state of
emergency, citing national security concerns. The emergency lasted until
14th February 2028. Now, in the aftermath of the state of emergency, Vinod
Khanna, a prominent Supreme Court lawyer, has filed a case against the
Prime Minister, alleging that the state of emergency was unfairly declared.
The case has reached the Supreme Court of India, where the participants of
the moot court will argue the legal issues involved.

The State of Emergency:

In the midst of escalating tensions between Russia and Ukraine, the Prime
Minister of India driven by concerns of national security and stability,
declared a state of emergency. Under the state of emergency, various civil
liberties were suspended, and the government possessed increased
executive powers to control and maintain order in the country. During the
state of emergency, there were reports of suppression of dissent, limitations
on freedom of speech and expression, arbitrary arrests, and restrictions on
the media. Citizens were subjected to increased surveillance and curtailment
of their fundamental rights.

Legal Issues to Consider:

1. Legality of the State of Emergency: The primary issue in this case is

whether the Prime Minister had the legal authority to declare a state of
emergency in the country. Participants will explore the constitutional
provisions, relevant laws, and precedents to determine the extent of the
Prime Minister's power and whether the conditions for declaring a state of
emergency were met.

Issue- Whether the Prime Minister imposing the state of emergency was
correct under Constitution of India, Part VIII, Article 352.

2. Fair Basis for the Emergency: Participants will need to evaluate the
grounds on which the state of emergency was declared. They will analyse
whether the conflict between Russia and Ukraine provided a reasonable basis
for imposing emergency measures in India and whether the Prime Minister's
actions were proportionate to the perceived threat.

Issue- Whether the conflict between Russia and Ukraine was a fair basis on
which the state of emergency could be declared? (Constitution of India,
Part XVIII, Article 352)

3. Violation of Fundamental Rights: The moot court participants must

examine whether the measures taken during the state of emergency, such
as the suspension of civil liberties and curtailment of fundamental rights,
were in violation of the Constitution or other applicable laws. They will need
to address the extent to which individual rights can be restricted during
emergencies and the justification for any infringements.

Issue- Whether or not the measures taken during the state of emergency
were in violation of the constitution and curtailment of fundamental rights.
(Constitution of India, Part XVIII , Article 353-360; Constitution of
India, Part III, Article 14, Article 19, Article 20)

Supreme Court Proceedings:

After the state of emergency had been eradicated, Vinod Khanna, a

respected Supreme Court lawyer (Petitioner), took up the case against the
Prime Minister, alleging that the emergency was unjustly imposed. The
Supreme Court of India has agreed to hear the case and review the legality
of the state of emergency and the actions of the Prime Minister during that
time.

Participants in the moot court will assume the roles of prosecutors and
defence attorneys, presenting their arguments before a panel of judges.
They will thoroughly examine constitutional provisions, relevant laws,
international human rights standards, and precedents to present a
comprehensive analysis of the legal issues surrounding the declaration and
conduct of the state of emergency.

The moot court will require participants to explore the delicate balance
between national security and individual rights, ensuring a fair and rigorous
evaluation of the case against the Prime Minister and the circumstances
leading to the state of emergency.

*NB- The students may use real life facts on the Russian - Ukraine
war.