DR. D Y.

PATIL COLLEGE OF LAW

(AFFILIATED TO MUMBAI UNIVERSITY AND
APPROVED BY BCI)

LLB SEM V PRACTICAL TRAINING III

MOOT PROPOSITIONS

MOOT PROPOSITION – I

Tiffany International School organized a student trip to Marsil for 10 days. The trip
includedvisitingplaceslikeSpaceCentre,ArtMuseumsetc.MissNainaPatwa,8thgrade
student of Tiffany International School, was excited to attend this trip. She is a smart,
independent, and happy-go-lucky student. Her parents were reluctant to let her go, as
they were worried about her safety and the availability of acceptable food. Miss Naina
and her family practiced Deeinism as their religion and had vegetarian dietary habits.
She had never consumed a vegetable which was grown below the ground. She was also
severely lactose intolerant and was very aware of thefact.

Mr. and Mrs. Patwa decided to discuss their concerns with the teacher who was goingto
accompany the students on the trip. The teacher told them that she didn’t expect Miss
Naina’sdietaryrestrictionswouldbeaproblem,butthatshewouldendeavourtoprovide her
with acceptable food. After this assurance from the teacher, the parents agreed to
allow Miss Naina to attend the trip. They signed a consent form, explicitly giving their
permission for Miss Naina to attend, and filled a form provided by the teacher listingthe
food that she is allergic to. When it was time for Miss Naina to leave for the trip , they
packed certain food items for her so that she could eat in an emergency in which
acceptable food was notavailable.

On the 9th day of the trip, the class was at a site where only a few food choices were
available. The only vegetarian restaurant there, ‘VegBeCan’, used genetically modified
ingredients. For example, they used carrots and potatoes that had been genetically
1
modified to grow above the ground rather than below. The teacher along with the
students decided to go to the same restaurant. The teacher decided to play safe and
ordered a mashed potatoes and stir-fried vegetables dish for all the students. The
students were excited as they never had such a meal in their home country.

Miss Naina and the other students consumed the meal. The next day she fell sick and
could not travel. The other students showed no symptoms of illness. Her illness seemed
to be directly related to the food consumed. However, there was no surety whether it
wasduetothevegetablesorthedairyproductusedinthefood.Asaresultofherillness,
MissNainahadtostaythreemoredaysatahospitalinMarsil.Shewasdepressedabout being ill
and staying in an unfamiliar place without her parents. Tiffany International School
arranged a new guardian for that duration since the teacher had to accompany the
other kids back to Bharists on the tripback.

Mr. and Mrs. Patwa were panicked about their daughter. After recovering, Miss Naina
travelledbacktoBharistsalone.UponthearrivalofMissNainabackhome,shewasweak and
greatly distressed. She barely spoke to her parents or her friends for a month.Shewas
not willing to go out or go to school either. As a result, she missed her Science
Olympiad exam. Her parents took Miss Naina to a psychologist. The doctor highligh ted
thefactthatshehadsufferedsevereanxietyandfeelingsofabandonmentandparanoia while
on the trip, and that as a result she continued to experience extreme anxiety and
PTSD.Mr.andMrs.PatwadecidedtofileacomplaintagainstTiffanyInternationalSchool
andtheteacherforthesufferingcausedtotheirchild.Thecourthasdecidedtohearthe matter on
23rd December2020.

THE ISSUES IN THE CASE ARE:

1. Whether the Teacher should be responsible for Miss Naina’s currentstate?

2. If the Teacher is liable, whether Tiffany International School should be held

accountable for thesame?

Apart from the issues raised Additional issues pertaining to the above problem can be
framed.

2
 MOOT PROPOSITION – II

ShivrashtraisastateintheUnionofIndiva.Thepopulationofthestateonthebasisof
religiousfaithcomprises40%Hindus,25%Muslims,15%Christiansandtheremaining 20%
belong to various smaller groups like Parsis, Tribal and Non-tribals and Non- believers.
The state is predominately a hilly area with four holy rivers flowing through it and the
people are very religious by nature. A large number of population being
illiterate,carriesoutprimitiveoccupations.Religiouspractices,superstitionsandrituals,
take much of their time and money which has greatly affected the development of the
State.

The state is known all over the world for its religious centers. The various religious
institutions in the state are imparting only religious education putting the secular
educationintooblivionwhichhasreduceddrasticallythepeople’semploymentavenues.
Asthestateisapilgrimagecenter,thereligiousleaders,GurusandProphetsofvarious religions
in the state are vying with one another because of huge donations offered by the
pilgrims. Accordingly, mass prayers, retreats, yagnas, penance services etc. are
conductedveryfrequently.Thereligiousleaders,socalledGodmeninordertocontinue their
hold, have created a kind of fear in the mind of their followers by way of
fundamentalist practices and attitudes, which further created divisions in the society
and often within the familiestoo.

The youths of the State, who were boiling with anger and frustration looking at the
economic progress of other states, often revolted against those oppressive and
suppressivereligiouspracticesthatprevailed intheirstates.Thereweremanyprotests by
many groups headed by moderates, intellectuals and nonbelievers on various
occasions in different parts of theState.

Dr. Virendra Panhalkar, the 70 years old social activist, who was shot dead on 20th
August,2013inonecityoftheStateofShivrashtra,hadwagedalongandlonelybattle for an
Anti-Superstition Law. Within a week after the vicious assassination of Dr. Panhalkar,
the Governor of Shivrashtra signed the ‘Black Magic Prohibition’ Ordinance. It came in

3
to force from 26th August, 2013 all over the State ofShivrashtra.

The ordinance is aimed at banning superstitious practices, inhuman rituals and black
magic that have been the used to exploit people in the name of religious beliefs. This
law is against fraudulent and exploitative practices, such practices have no place in an
enlightenedsociety.Intheentiretextthere isnotasinglewordaboutGodorReligion. The
essential purpose of this law is to bring social awakening and awareness in the society
and to create a healthy and safe social environment with a view to protect the
common people in the society against the evil and sinister practices thrivingon
ignorance.ThedraftBillclearlyspecifies12suchpractices.Theseincludes,claimingto
performsurgerywithjustfingersortochangethesex ofthefetusinthewomb,sexual
exploitation under the guise of claims of supernatural powers, branding women as
witches and causing them physical harm, human sacrifices and other Aghoripractices.

Inspite of coming into force of the above legislation the superstitious activities are no
rise. The people of State of Shivrashtra are being exploited by the self-declared God
like Babaram Maharaj, who has amassed huge wealth by exploiting the religious
sentiments of the people. Under the garb of religious practices he started to exploit
illiterate and poor women & children and employed youths. He uses their energies by
providing them training to play with rifles and arms for his own protection and to
prevent Govt. authorities to take any action against him. He poses himself as god or
Supernatural power to attract women and he sexually abused many women’s too. To
ban his activities the govt. of Shivrashtra tried to enter in to his Ashram but could not
succeed.

In the backdrop of above facts and circumstances, Drishti Foundation which is NGO
workingagainsttheexploitationofthereligiousfeelingsofthepeoplebysuchsocalled Godman
Babaram, has filed a PIL before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of Constitution of
Indiva challenging the activities of exploitation being carried out by the
socalledBaba’sintheirMathsandAshramsandhasprayedthereinthatalltheseMaths and
Ashrams which are carrying out the activities of exploiting the religious feeling of the
people should be closed and all the assets acquired by these Baba’s be confiscated

4
 and added to the national wealth ofIndiva.

Looking in to the facts and circumstances the Hon’ble Supreme court of Indiva, has
placed the present PIL for final disposal at the stage of admission and has framed
following issues:-

THE ISSUES IN THE CASE ARE:

1) WhetherthePILismaintainablebeforetheSupremeCourtofIndivaforhearingand
admission?

2) Whether the activities exploiting the religious sentiments of the people amount to
infringement of Fundamental Rights of the people ofIndiva?

3) WhethertheallegedactivitiesarecontrarytothesecularstructureofUnionofIndiva as
enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution ofIndiva?

4) Whether the ban on such Maths / Ashrams would violate the fundamental rights of
the people to follow the religious faith of theirchoice?

5) Whether instead of closing down such Math’s / Ashrams, keeping these Math’s/
Ashrams under the Government supervision would be available alternative?

6) Whetheramendmentinthepresentlawsisnecessarytodealsternlywithsuch
Baba’s?

Apart from the issues raised Additional issues pertaining to the above problem can be
framed.

Note: - The laws and Constitution of Indiva is the same as to the laws and Constitution
of India

5
 MOOT PROPOSITION – III

Arundhati Kumar was a 22-year-old girl who was pursuing her degree from Geeta
college of engineering, Naultha. A bright career awaited her as not only was she the
topper of her class, but also had interned with some acclaimed MNC’s of the country.
In her fourth year at college, she came close with a friend and batchmate, Shikhar
Singh, who also was a brilliant student. Shikhar was into a luxurious lifestyle, while
Arundhati was a somber girl from a middle-class background. In 2009, their families
were introduced to each other, and on 9 th of November 2010, they got married
according to Hindu rites.
Arundhati moved into her matrimonial home with Shikhar’s parents, sister and
grandmother, and started a life as well as her career along with Shikhar in Panipat
city. She had some differences with her in laws on many occasions, but the matter
wasmostlysettledamicably.Withthepassageoftimetheirpracticewasnotgoingas
expected. Shikhar wanted to maintain his high life style, which saw the family in a
near financial crisis.
Arundhati gave birth to a baby girl on 11th December 2012. Shikhar then took a loan
from Arundhati’s parents of Rs. 5,00,000 which he later refused to return. Due to
whichArundhati’srelationwithhimdeterioratedandonmanyoccasions,fightsturned
physicalalso.Whenindrunkenstate,ShikharusedtoblameArundhatiforbeingfrom a
family of beggars. This remark hurt her a lot and once she even tried to slit her
wrists and end her life but was saved by her sister in law. After the incident, the
physician did prescribe some medicines for Arundhati and also advised her to consult
a psychiatrist .She went to her parent’s home and told Shikhar that she would never
return. But her parents convinced her to return to her inlaws.
On 10th April 2014 Arundhati gave birth to a baby boy which lead the family to a
financial mess. Shikhar was very disturbed because of these financial complications,
and in turn he used to vent his frustration on Arundhati. She in turn became more
agitatedandstartedsufferingfromdepressionaswellasmoodswings.On4thJanuary 2015,
neighbors saw Arundhati running out of the house with her sari on fire. Her mother
in law was running after her shouting that Arundhati was out of her mind to do
something like this. She collapsed on the road, from where she was taken to

6
 hospitalandadmittedwith88%burns,wheredoctorsdeclaredherunfittorecordher
statement immediately. Her condition improved briefly on the morning of January 5,
when the police was called. She gave her dying declaration before Sohan Lal sub
Inspector of police, on the same day at 11.00 hours. In the declaration she accused
hermother-in-lawSardaandShikharofsettingheronfireanddiedat12.30hourson the
same day. The police sent the body for post mortem examination. Police also
conducted a search of the house. Arundhati’s mother in law and husband were
arrested from the house and were sent to judicialcustody.

THE MAIN ISSUES BEFORE THE SESSIONS COURT, PANIPAT ARE :

1. Whether the accused Shikhar and Sarda are liable for dowry death under Section
304-B and for cruelty under Section 498A ofIPC?

2. Whether the accused Shikhar and Sarda are liable for murder under section 302
ofIPC?

3. Whether the accused Shikhar and Sarda are liable for abetment of suicide under
section 306 of IPC?

Apart from the issues raised Additional issues pertaining to the above problem can be
framed.

7
 MOOT PROPOSITION IV

State of Uttar Pradesh VsRahul

The “Ghaziabad College of Education” is an Educational Institution in Uttar Pradesh.

This is a multi-faculty institution with strength of 3000 students at its campus. There
wasgreatenthusiasmintheStudents’OrganizationstocontestelectionsintheCollege
General Body Elections. The main contest was between Indian Communist Party (ICP)
and Indian Socialist Party (ISP). Both the groups worked hard to secure students’
support and their votes. Mukesh Singh was the candidate for the President ship from
the ICP. He was also having the support of a National Political Party. Therefore, that
Party’s prestige was also involved in the success of this candidate. Mukesh Singh spent
a lot on throwing parties and also adopted other means and methods to garnish the
support of the students. The candidate from ISP, Rahul was quite popular amongstthe
studentsforhishonesty,integrityandalwaysbeenworkingforstudents’welfare.After a
month long campaign, the elections were held on 15th September 2016. Casting of
votewentonpeacefully.Theresultwasdeclaredon17thSeptember2016andMukesh Singh
won the elections by a margin of just two votes. Wave of joy went around in the
Indian Communist Party. Indian Socialist Party was disappointed and was sensing that
victoryofMukeshwasonlyduetomoneyflowandunfairpracticesadoptedbyMukesh.

On 19th September 2016, at about 7:00 PM at the College cafeteria Mukesh invited
Rahultohisdinnerparty.Rahulflatlyrefusedtheinvitationbysayingthathewillnever attend a
party hosted by a forged person. Mukesh insisted by explaining to him, “Let us forget
our past animosities and work for the welfare of the students together” but Rahul
again said “No! I do not wish to join your dinner party as I know how you have
wontheelectionsbyfraudulentmeans.Iwillnotgotothepartyofascoundrel.”Atthis Mukesh
got annoyed and felt insulted in the public. He told Rahul “You know that I can adopt
any means for what I want”. Rahul left the cafeteria by saying, “Hell with you!” Rahul
left the cafeteria and went away with his friend Sanjay. At about 8.30 PM Sanjay
drove out in his Jeep from the parking area with Rahul seated in the jeep beside him.
When their jeep was passing through the main gate of the college, Mukesh and his
8
 friend Sameer were standing in wait for them. Now Mukesh was having a p istol in his
hand. MukeshsignaledSanjay tostopthe vehiclebutRahultoldhimnottostopthere. Then,
Mukesh fired in the air. Rahul asked Sanjay to drive fast. Mukesh and Sameer
chasedthejeepontheirbikewithSameerdrivingandMukeshridingthepillion.Mukesh fired
indiscriminately while chasing the jeep. One bullet hit Sanjay in his right upper arm.
Rahul asked Sanjay to stop the vehicle and got down from the jeep. Sameer stopped
the bike where Rahul was standing. Mukesh got off the bike tried to shoot at Rahul.
But he could not as there was no cartridge in the pistol. Then Rahul took outan Iron
rod out of the jeep and aimed a hit at Mukesh. But Mukesh ducked and the rodfell
ontheheadofSameerwhowassittingonhisbikejustnexttoMukesh.Sameerstarted bleeding
profusely and fell unconscious. Both Rahul and Sanjay left the scene immediately.
Mukesh took Sameer to hospital. Sameer died after 12 hours in the hospital.

A case was registered against Rahul under section 302 read with Section 301 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860. Post mortem report disclosed the cause of death was head
injury which was ante mortem in nature. Investigating officer recovered the iron rod
used by Rahul from a pond near where crime took place, upon information given by
Rahul,whileinpolicecustody.Rahulpleadedrighttoprivatedefense,graveandsudden
provocation andaccident.

Argue the Case on behalf of “Prosecution” and “Defense” before the Trial Court

THE ISSUES IN THE CASE ARE:

1. WhetherthecaseunderSection302r/wsection301oftheIndianPenalcode,1860
ismaintainable?

2. Whether Rahul the accused can plead right to private defense, grave and sudden
provocation andaccident?

Apart from the issues raised Additional issues pertaining to the above problem can be
framed.

9
 MOOT PROPOSITION V

Karim worked as a system operator at a computer Centre in Jajhhar Dist., Haryana and
lived in the town. His village was at a distance of 12 kms from his workplace which he
ordinarily visited on Saturdays and Sundays. Sher Shah was a farmer who lived withhis
familyconsistingofhiswife,Sobti,sonGajendarShahandadaughterNaina.SherShah’s
brother, Suri Shah, also lived in the same household. He was used to drinking and
gambling and owed a debt of Rs. 20,000 to Karim. Whenever Karim demanded his
money, Suri Shah showed his helplessness but never denied to pay off his debt. Karim
was in love with Naina and used to meet Naina on the weekends when her father was
not at home on the pretext that he had come to collect the money. Sher Shah did not
like it and told Karim many a times not to visit his home in his absence. He also scolded
his daughter for meeting Karim but Karim did not stop visiting Naina. During the day on
Monday, 8th August 2010, Karim received a phone call from Suri Shah inviting him to
come that evening to collect his debt. Karim went to their house around 8.30 P.M. The
members of Naina’s family had finished their dinner and were preparing to go to sleep.
Onhearingsomewhisperingvoicescomingfromthebackyardoftheirhouse,SherShah with his
brother Suri Shah and son Gajendar Shah went there to investigate. They saw
KarimtalkingwithNaina.SherShahlosthistemperandstartedabusingKarim.Gajendar Shah
brought a lathi from inside and gave a blow to Karim on the leg. Then Suri Shah
grabbedthelathifromGajendarShahandstartedbeatingKarimmercilesslygivingblows on his
head and chest. On hearing the hue and cry, other villagers came to the scene. They
found Suri Shah giving blows to Karim while the other two were shouting abus es on
Karim. Karim was bleeding from the head and became unconscious. He was taken to
the hospital by the villagers where he died three days later without regaining
consciousness. The post-mortem report confirmed that Karim suffered injuries on the
head and fractures of three ribs. There were many concussions on different parts of his
body. There was much loss of blood. While none of the injuries independently was
sufficient to cause death, the cumulative result was sufficient in the ordinary course of
nature to cause death. FIR was registered against Suri Shah, Gajendar Shah and Sher
ShahunderSection307readwithS.34oftheIndianPenalCode.Threedayslaterwhen Karim
died, it was changed to Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. The session court charged and

10
convicted all the three accused persons under Section 302 r/w 34 of the IPC and
sentenced them to life imprisonment for the murder of Karim. The accused persons
pleaded grave and sudden provocation in their defense. They also pleaded that the
prosecution had failed to prove existence of common intention of all the three accused
to kill Karim. In the absence of proof of common intention, they cannot be convicted
under Section 302 r/w 34IPC.

The three accused have filed an appeal to the High Court against the order of conviction
and sentence.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the order of conviction and sentence of the sessions court under Section
302 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal code, 1860 should be setaside?

2. ThethreeaccusedarenotguiltyofmurderunderSection302r/wsection34ofthe Indian
Penal code,1860.

3. The prosecution had failed to prove existence of common intention of all the three
accused to kill Karim under Section 34 of the Indian Penal code,1860.

4. The accused acted as a result of grave and suddenprovocation

Apart from the issues raised Additional issues pertaining to the above problem can be
framed.

11
 MOOT PROPOSITION VI

The Cockroch (P) Ltd., a pharmaceutical Delhi based company, made a multivitamin
capsule called the "Maggots-M". The company claimed that the production of such
capsules is purely for the overall health, wellbeing and vitality of men, and therefore,
these capsules are one of the best diet health supplements as these capsules are very
effectiveandauniqueblendofginseng,vitaminsandminerals.Thecompanyannounced in
public that by taking one capsule a day, it provides great energy as well as helps to
fightagainsttiredness.Itenhancesthestresshandlingability.Thecompanyaggressively fixed
the price of each capsule at Rs.50/-. The company declared in public interest that these
capsules are prepared to boost immunity as well as help to enhance the quality of life.
It improves the physical and mental health as well as helps to rejuvenate and
strengthen the body organs. To stay fit and active during the day, bring home the
"Maggots-M" capsules.

The Cockroch (P) Ltd. published advertisements in the reputed newspapers and other
media channels on December 01, 2013, claiming the number of benefits for the
consumption of "Maggots-M" capsules such as a diet health supplement for men; a
unique combination of minerals, vitamins and ginseng; Provides energy and fights
against tiredness; Perfect for overall health and vitality; Enhances quality of life; Helps
to boost immunity; Strengthens and rejuvenates body organs; Enhances mental and
physical health; Helps to stay fit and active throughout the day.

The company mentioned in the advertisement that these capsules have not been
evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration or the FSSAI (i.e., Food Safety and
Standard Authority of India). The Company declared in its advertisement that this
product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. The company
also mentioned that all disputes regarding the consumption of these capsules must be
subject to the jurisdiction Courts in Dwarka, Delhi only.

TheCockroch(P)Ltd.furtherpublishedadvertisementsinthesamereputednewspapers and
other media channels on June 15, 2014, claiming that it would pay Rs. 50,000/- to
anyone who got sick after using these capsules according to the instructions provided

12
with it i.e., one capsule a day and this offer is not retrospectivelyapplicable.

ThestatementgeneratedbytheCockroch(P)Ltd.isasunder:-“Rs.50,000/-rewardwill
bepaidbytheCockroch(P)Ltd.toanypersonwhocontractswiththeincreasingfatigue,
weakness or any disease caused by taking multi-vitamins “Maggots-M” capsules, after
havingusedonecapsuleaday,accordingtotheprinteddirectionssuppliedwiththepack of 10,
30 and 60 capsules whose expiry period will be of 5 years from the date of
manufacturing.ThestatementregardingawardofRs.50,000/-wasprintedoneachpack of 10,
30 and 60capsules.”

During the period of 2014-15, people consumed thousands of "MaggotsM"multi-vitamin

capsules as preventive against body weakness; fatigue or any other disease due to
deficiency of any vitamin in the body and in no ascertained case any adverse effect was
found by those using these capsules. Mr. Kharak Singh, aged 15 years, suffered from
malnutrition; chronic fatigue syndrome and vitamin deficiency that led to muscle
weakness in the entire body system. The doctor recommended him daily intakes of
selected vitamins. He saw the advertisement of the Cockroch (P) Ltd., on July 15, 2014
regarding "Maggots-M" multi-vitamin capsules. He bought 5 packs of capsules bearing
the manufacturing and packing date of January 15, 2014. Each pack contained thedose
of 60 capsules. He started consuming one capsule a day as per the instructions
mentioned in each pack. He consumed the entire capsules as per the instructions
mentionedbythecompanyfornearly10monthsbutafteraweekhefoundthathisbody is
heavily relying on these capsules. He felt lot of bodily changes due to stop consuming
capsules such as frequent stomach upset; severe allergic reactions; difficulty in
breathing; tightness in the chest; swelling of the mouth, face, lips or tongue; feeling of
fatigue and weakness of the entirebody.

Mr. Kharak Singh discovered that on resuming the consumption of these "Maggots-M"
multi-vitamin capsules as per the usage prescription of the Cockroch (P) Ltd. Company,
he got relief from all types of bodily changes. In the meantime, during January – 2016,
the company again aggressively raised price of each capsule by 50% to Rs.75/- as it
found the enormous success and rise in demand for the product. Mr. Kharak Singh after
havingbeenfirmlybelievedthathisbodycannotsmoothlyworkwithoutconsumingthese
capsules and his body developed an addiction for such capsules, he felt himself cheated

13
by the company as he again cannot afford such a high price multi-vitamin capsules. He,
therefore, claimed Rs.50,000/- and other form of damages from the Cockroch (P) Ltd..
The company bluntly ignored the claim of Mr. KharakSingh.

After few days, Mr. Kharak Singh‟s advocate sent notice to the Cockroch (P) Ltd.
regarding his claim of Rs.50,000/- and other damages. On this notice, the company‟s
officers replied with an anonymous letter that if it is used properly, the company had
complete confidence in the capsule's efficacy, but "to protect the company against all
fraudulent claims" they would need him to come to the company‟s office to use the
capsule each day and be checked by the secretary. Mr. Kharak Singh now brought a
claim to the court of law for seeking justice. The advocate representing him argued that
the advertisement and his reliance on it was a contract between him and the company,
and so the company ought to pay. The company denied such type ofcontract.

THE ISSUES IN THE CASE ARE:

1. Whether there was any binding effect of the contract between theparties?

2. Whether the contract in question required a formal notification of acceptance?

3. Whether Mr. Kharak Singh was required to communicate his acceptance of the offer
to Cockroch (P)Ltd.Company?
4. Whether Mr. Kharak Singh provided any consideration in exchange for the reward of
Rs.50,000/- offered by thecompany?

Apart from the issues raised Additional issues pertaining to the above problem can be
framed.

14
 MOOT PROPOSITION VII

LataDevi,awomanbelongingfromBhuwarivillage,Rambostanstartedworkingunderthe
Development Project for Women run by the Government of Rambostan, in the year 1985.
She was employed as a ‘Sakhi’ which means ‘friend’ in Hindi.In the year 1987, as a part of
her job, Lata Devi took up an issue of attempted rape of a woman who hailed from a
neighbouring village. For this act, she gained full support from the members of her village.
In the year 1992, Lata Devi took up another issue based on the government’s campaign
against child marriage. This campaign was subjected to disap proval and ignorance by all
the members of the village, even though they were aware of the fact that child marriage is
illegal.In the meantime, the family of Mukesh Singh had made arrangements to perform
such a marriage, of his infant daughter. Lata Devi, abiding by the work assigned to her,
tried to persuade the family to not perform the marriage but all her attempts resulted in
being futile. The family decided to go ahead with the marriage.On 5th May 1992, the sub-
divisional officer (SDO) along with the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) went and
stopped the said marriage. However, the marriage was performed the next day and no
police action was taken against it. Later, it was established by the villagers that the police
visits were a result of Lata Devi’s actions. This led to boycotting Lata Deviand her family.
LataDevialsolostherjobamidthisboycott.On22ndSeptember1992,toseekvengeance,
fivemeni.e,fourfromtheabove-mentionedSinghfamily-RamSingh,GopalSingh,Mukesh
Singh , and Badal Singh along with one Santosh Sharma had attacked Lata Devi’s husband
and later brutally gang-rapedher.

Thepolicehadtriedallpossiblewaystoavoidfilinganycomplaintagainsttheaccusedwhich
resulted in a delayed investigation. Even after facing so much criticism, Lata Devi, withher
incessant determination to get justice, managed to lodge a complaint. The medical
examination was delayed for fifty-two hours. However, the examiner did not mention any
commissionofrapeinthereportbutrathermentionedtheageofthevictim.Intheabsence of
sufficient evidence and with the help of the local MLA Sher Singh , all the accused
managedtogetanacquittalintheTrialCourt.Butthisacquittalresultedinahugebacklash from
many women activists and organizations which supported Lata Devi. These organizations
came together and raised their voice to attain justice, which resulted in the
filingofaPublicInterestLitigation(PIL).ThePILwasfiledbyawomen’srightsgroupknown

15
as ‘Aastha’. It laid its focus on the enforcement of the fundamental rights of women at the
Workplace under the provisions of Article 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India, it
also raised the issue of the need for protection of women from sexual harassment at
Workplace.

THE ISSUES IN THE CASE Are:

1. Whether sexual harassment at the Workplace amounts to a violation of Rights of

Gender Inequality and Right to Life andLiberty?

2. Whether the court could apply international laws in the absence of applicable
measures under theexisting?

3. Whether the employer has any responsibility when sexual harassment is done
to/by itsemployees?

ApartfromtheissuesraisedAdditionalissuespertainingtotheaboveproblemcanbe framed.

16
 MOOT PROPOSITION VIII

Both Houses of the Parliament passed the Constitutional Amendment Bill to provide
10 % reservation in government jobs and educational institutions in favour of
economically weaker sections on 09th January 2019 and enacted as Constitution (One
Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019 to enable the State to make reservations
based on the economic criterion alone. The Act received the assent of the Hon’ble
President on 12th January 2019 and was published in the Gazette on the same day.
Through this Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019; a new
clause (6) was inserted in Article 15 and 16 of the Constitution. Clause (6) as inserted
in the Article 15 reads as follows:
“(6) Nothing in this article or sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of article 19 or clause (2) of
article 29 shall prevent the State from making, -
(a) any special provision for the advancement of any economically weaker sections of
citizens, other than the classes mentioned in clauses (4) and (5); and
(b) any special provision for the advancement of any economically weaker sections of
citizens, other than the classes mentioned in clauses (4) and (5) in so far as such
special provisions relate to their admission to educational institutions, including private
educational institutions, whether aided or unaided by the State, other than the minority
educational institutions referred to in clause (1) of article 30, which in the case of
reservation would be in addition to the existing reservations and subject to a maximum
of ten per cent of the total seats in each category.”
Explanation:-For the purpose of this Article and Article 16,“economically weaker
sections” shall be such as may be notified by the State from time to time on the basis
of family income and other indicators of economicdisadvantage.’
Similarly, Clause (6) was inserted into the Article 16 and it reads as follows “(6) Nothing in
this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of
appointments or posts in favor of any economically weaker sections of citizens other than
the classes mentioned in clause (4), in addition to the existing reservation and subject to a
maximum of ten per cent of the posts in each category.”
Mr. Ravi challenged the constitutional validity of the 103rd Constitutional (Amendment)
Act, 2019 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Indian
17
Constitution claiming that, it violates the basic structure of the Constitution.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the issue raised by Mr. Ravi is maintainable.

2. Whether 103rd Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 2013 violates any of the basic
structures of the Constitution of India.

3. Whether the additional 10% reservations for Economically Weaker Sections in

educational institutions and public employment is unconstitutional, as it breaches
and exceeds the 50% limit for reservations as laid down in Indra Sawhney vs Union
of India (AIR 1993 SC 477) in 1993?

18
 MOOT PROPOSITION IX

Dr. Ridhi Sharma, a 35 years old Geneticist worked in New Life Hospital, one of the
prestigious hospitals in India. She was very passionate about her patients and held an
exceptionally progressive record. She worked around the clock at the hospital to make
sure the well being of her patients and believed in making difference. One Mrs. Kalpna
Pathak, 42 years old, resident of Amritsar was patient of New Life Hospital, Delhi, from
past12yearsasshewassufferingfromarare,life-threateningsyndromecalledROHHAD
syndrome. Her family spent a lot of money on her treatment but this disease was
incurableandfinallyleftherinDelhiforherfurthertreatment.Astravelswereexpensive,
herfamilyonlyvisitedherwhentheycould.Though,theyappointedGayatri,a18years old
caretaker forher.

Living in hospital for 12 years almost broke Mrs. Pathak from inside. She used to be a
warm and lively person who never compromised her freedom and liberty for anything.
But,hertimeinhospitalmadeherlifemonotonousandmiserable.Asaresult,shestarted
avoiding medications even after strict warnings by doctor and several times even
overdosed tonics consisting of alcoholic contents. Dr. Ridhi came to know about this
condition of Mrs. Pathak from Gayatri. She also agreed that Mrs. Pathak needed regular
medication. But Dr. Ridhi became quite sympathetic when she realized that Mrs. Pathak
hadn'tleftthehospitaloncein12years.Andbecamedeterminedtodiscoveranypossible way to
helpher.

Following through her research, she discovered that the precise cause of ROHHAD
(Rhodes illness) is reportedly unknown. Experts, however, suspect it could be a genetic
disorder.ShefoundoutaboutaProjectnamed"DiscoverRelief”,whichaimedtodiscover
readilyaccessibleguidelinesforpatientswithrarediseasesandfortheanesthesiologists caring
for them. Dr. Ridhi, in the data presented under this project found out that Elixir Labs,
the same company, which manufactured Mrs. Pathak’s medicines of ROHHAD disease,
in a research have claimed that the drug they were marketing for Huntington's disease
has also cured a considerable percentage of Rhodes disease patients as well. However,
the chance of the treatment being fatal is expected to be 30 percent at her age.

She decided to bring this up to Mrs. Pathak as an option and tell her about the odds, to
19
which Mrs. Pathak replied “I'm really thankful for the care and time my doctors have
given me, but it's just not enough just to be alive. I want to live” and consented to it.
Dr.Ridhiwroteadetailedapplicationmentioningthemedicalhistoryandcurrentscenario of
Mrs. Pathak’s health condition on 25 th March 2019 to Elixir Labs in order to ask for the
drug but her application got rejected by the Managing Director of Elixir Labs, Mr.
NaveenMathur,statingthatthedrughasn'tbeencompletelyapprovedbyFoodandDrug
Administration, it is yet beingexperimented.

Dr. Ridhi and Mr. Mathur were never fond of each other due to their contrasting work
ethics. Mr. Mathur was an established businessman who only bothered about ways to
multiply his profits. Dr. Ridhi decided to get to the bottom of the issue and found out
that the Elixir labs actually never really wished to introduce the cure of Rhodes disease
inmedicalworldasitwouldreducetheircompany’sprofits.ThisfumedDr.Ridhiandshe decided
to get access to the drug either way and hence stole the sample drug sent by the lab to
their hospital for the patients of Huntington'sdisease.

AftergettingthedrugsheaskedMrs.Pathakwhethertogiveherthedoseandshegave her
verbal consent to Dr. Ridhi in front of Gayatri. Within a week Mrs. Pathak showed a
miraculous recovery and on 1stmay 2019 she was declared fully cured of the disease
and Dr. Ridhi discharged her the next day without even keeping her underobservation.

Mrs. Pathak, after few days of discharge on 5 th May 2019 contacted Dr. Ridhi to thank
her for giving her a new life where she was not just meaninglessly existing. But on 7 th
May 2019 the news of Mrs. Pathak’s death came as a shock in the hospital which
immediatelyraisedallegingquestions.ThepostmortemreportsofMrs.Pathakconfirmed
diedofCardiopulmonaryarrest,itwasregisteredasacaseof“suddenunexplaineddeath
(SUD)”. The husband of Mrs. Pathak sued the Hospital under Section 304A for causing
death by medical negligence which led to an investigation within the hospital to find the
cause of her death revealing the acts of Dr.Ridhi.

The hospital held a meeting of Hospital Administration on 15 th May 2019 against the
actionofDr.Ridhiconsistingof7jurymemberswhichincluded6SeniorDoctorsandMr. Mathur
and asked her to explain her actions. Dr. Ridhi pleaded not guilty on the pretext of
acting in good faith after receiving the consent of the patient which was corroborated
by Gayatri. After the hearing, 5 members including Mr. Mathur voted against Dr. Ridhi

20
overseeing the hospital’s best interests, consequently she lost her reputed job at New
Life Hospital, Delhi. Moreover, the license of Dr. Ridhi was suspended by the Medical
Council of India for 7 years on 25thMay 2019 believing that she did commit medical
negligenceduetowhichapatientlostherlife.Beforethetrialincourt,thiscasegathered a lot of
negative media attention which resulted in gross tarnishing of Dr. Ridhi’s reputation
insociety.TheTrialCourton26thDecember2019convictedDr.Ridhiunder section 304A IPC
read with Section 90 and Section 337 of IPC and approved the suspension of her
licence. Now Dr. Ridhi Sharma has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court to seek
justice against her conviction in Trial Court. The hearing of which is scheduled on
6thMarch2021.

ISSUES RAISED:

1. Whether or not the stance of the appeal is maintainable in court of law?

2.Whether or not the act of Dr. Ridhi Sharma amounts to negligence on her part?
3. Whether or not the Trial Court has erred in finding Dr. Ridhi Sharma guilty of Medic al

Negligence under Section 304A ofIPC?

Apart from the issues raised Additional issues pertaining to the above problem can be
framed.

21
 MOOT PROPOSITION X

ZAYER INDIA V. KIPLA AND ANR.

The Lebola epidemic has claimed 12000 victims world over , since the outbreak in
December 2013. Although there are bout 30,000 patients suffering from this viral
hemorrhagicfever,victimsofthisdeadlyvirusarelargelyinwestAfricaandthecountries in the
south – Asian peninsula. In India alone there are about 2500lebolapatients.

In March 2014, Zayer Inc., a multi-national company, patented its recently developed
drug formulation and the only known cure for the haemorrhagic fever caused by the
Lebola virus, in the United States of America. The drug, sold by the commercial name
Lebin X, was classified as an Orphan Drug in the USA, owing to which 50% of the R&D
costs of Zayer were reimbursed by the Government. Zayer went on to obtain a patent
on its drug in over 45 countries. In October 2014, Zayer was granted a patent in India
too,pursuanttoitsapplicationin Aprilthatyear.ThispatentwasworkedbyZayerIndia Ltd., a
wholly owned subsidiary of Zayer Inc, and Lebin X was sold at Rs. 36,000 for 60 tablets
per month. Kipla Pvt. Ltd, one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in India,
hadalsoundertakenR&Dtoproduceadrugmolecule,aftertheLebolaoutbreakin2013. In
November 2014, Kipla sought to enter into a license agreement with Zayer India to
manufacture and sell its drug formulation, stating the growing public need and the
unaffordability of Lebin X in India. It sought to sell the drug at a price of Rs. 600 per
month, for the same dosage of 60 tablets. Negotiations however never took off, and
ultimately, the license was refused by Zayer India. In February 2015, Kipla introduced
Lebocin, its generic variant for treatment of Lebola, at a price of Rs. 600 per month, in
theIndianmarket.Italsosoughttopatentitsformulationonthefootingthatitpossessed
therapeuticefficacyoverexistingdrugsinthemarket.ZayerIndiahoweverwasswift to
movetheHighCourtofDelhi,inanoriginalsuitagainstKipla,seekingprotectionagainst
infringement of its patent in the drug formulation of LebinX, and an interim injunction
against manufacture and sale of Lebocin byKipla.
Aggrieved by such action, Kipla moved the Competition Commission of India (“CCI”),
arguing that Zayer India’s refusal to license the drug to it, and the subsequent effort to
injunct Kipla from manufacturing and selling the drug, amounted to a gross abuse of its

22
dominant position, especially in light of the growing number of deaths caused by the
Lebola virus. However, the CCI found that there was no prima facie case made out
against Zayer India. In appeal proceedings before the Competition Appellate Tribunal
(“COMPAT”), Kipla argued that the CCI ought to have, as a regulatory body, recognised
the disparate public health impact caused to Indian patients, by Zayer India’s abuse of
dominant position. The COMPAT set aside the order of the CCI, finding that there were
heavy social costs to permitting Zayer India to violate its obligations toward s public
health, keeping in mind the fundamental right to health recognised under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India. It noted particularly that the public would be solely and
absolutely dependent on Zayer India for access to life-saving drugs, should Kipla be
injuncted,evenasawillinglicensee.SuchconductbyZayerIndiawasfoundtosquarely fall
within the prohibition of Section 4 of the CompetitionAct.
Mr. Thomas Ali, a member of the Board of Directors of Zayer India and shareholder,
moved the High Court of Delhi under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, againstthe
order of the COMPAT, raising several grounds of challenge. Chief among them was that
the order of the COMPAT was a nullity for lack of jurisdiction to enforce fundamental
rights.Othersubstantivegroundsofchallengewerealsoraised,including,interalia, the
violation of the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g). The High Court however
dismissed the petition, finding that the cost to public health was irreparable as aga inst
the monetary losses incurred byZayer.
ZayerIndiathensoughtspecialleavetoappealagainstthisjudgmentoftheHighCourt, before
the Supreme Court of India. When the SLP came up for admission, the Court issued
notice to Kipla, and also directed that notice of the proceedings be given to the
Attorney General for India, to represent the views of the UnionGovernment.
The special leave petition has been listed for final disposal on 4th October, 2015.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the instant Special Leave Petition is maintainable fornot?

2. Whether the decision of the Hon’ble High Court should be upheld or not?

Apart from the issues raised Additional issues pertaining to the above problem can be
framed.

23
 Moot Proposition –XI

Facts - Dr Ram Swain V Union of Indica

The Republic of Indica is an independent, ‘Union of States’, following the values of

Human Dignity and Equality. It guarantees Fundamental Rights to its citizens and the
Constitutional, legal and the policy framework of the Republic of Indica is in ‘parimateria’
to the Republic of India. The ideology of the Constitution is that of “equality among all”,
and “equality among equals”. It exhibits to the world the principle of “Unity in Diversity”.
It is a multi-religious, multi-lingual, multi-cultural and secular country. The major religion
of Indica is Religion 1 followed by Religion 2. The minorities belong to religion 3, religion
4 , religion 5 and religion 6. Indica has been a male dominated society, with very
meagre representation of women, the example of which can be seen in 2005, where in
the Upper House the percentage of women was 11% and 11.8% in the Lower House. In
this scenario a 33% reservation for women in the Parliament was proposed. This was
received with opposition more so because there was no single majority party in the Lower
House from 1996 to 2005. Prior to 1996, Wrongrace Party, the majority party at that
time had shown no interest for the same. In 1992 a Constitutional Amendment was
introduced with the provisions of 33% reservation of seats for women in Municipalities
and Panchayats in all states of India. This too was faced with opposition from the
minority community. However, it received support from the intellectual class .Mrs.
Garima Dhall, Mrs Yamini Paul and Mrs. Mannat Raichandani being some of them. In
2005 the Rashtriya Party came to power with an absolute majority. In 2006 with a
sudden move the 33% reservation was passed. This led to the increase of women
representation in both houses to a situation in which no Bill could be passed without their
support. A proviso to Art. 19(2) was inserted by a constitutional amendment to empower
the women and give them the opportunity to express themselves freely. This move of RP
was opposed by the majority as well as minority communities as it was empowering the
elite class women exclusively. This law resulted in the tremendous increase of women
representation in both Houses by 2015. This law became a tool of propagating the
hidden agenda of delivering venomous and hate speech against the minority community.
Along with this, the demand for appointment of women in all important constitutional and
Public Offices. The increase in the population of women and the interference of women in
24
the affairs of men was anti-religious and violating the concept of equality under the
Constitution. A PIL was field by Dr.R.MSawain in the High the Court of Dehri on the
ground that the 33% reservation law was arbitrary. Mrs Fatima Ghansari, a member of
the Lower House, brought a motion for the repealing of the 33% reservation law, which
was a tool in the hands of the ruling party to achieve their hidden religious agenda to
make Indica, a religion 1 state under the guise of the amendment to Art. 19(2).
MrsGhansari also brought to the notice of the House, the sting operation, “Zebra Post”,
will reveals the collusion of the ruling party with large media houses, also running a
religion 1 agenda. Her motion was repealed in the winter as well as the summer sessions.
In consequence to her raising the motion, on 1st May MrsGhansari received a threatening
call on her landline with dire consequences if she insisted on keeping her stand on
repealing the 2006 law. A FIR was lodged the same night by Mrs. Ghansari in the police
station of her locality regarding the same. This made MrsGhansari, file a petition in the
Hon’ble Supreme Court for declaring the reservation law as unconstitutional as it was
being used to profess anti-secular agenda. In the same petition she prayed to the
Supreme Court, to be provided with adequate security as she feared for her life. She
contended that she played the role of a ‘whistle blower’, by bringing out the hidden
agenda of the ruling party. In an unprecedented event in February, 2018, the three
ladies, the instrumental forces behind the passing of the law, were arrested by the
Intelligence Agency of Indica, on the grounds of spying for and providing vital State
Secrets to the enemy country of Indica with such credible evidences. The members of
the Wrongrace Party alleged that, Foreign Powers were behind the enactment of the 33%
reservation law. A joint motion was introduced by them in the Lower House which was
rejected by the Speaker. Not, having any other way, the party filed a PIL in the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, alleging the role of enemy state, behind the passing of this law. They
prayed before the Court to declare this law as unconstitutional as it was serving the ends
of the enemy state. The Supreme Court clubbed both the petitions filed before itself and
the petition filed in the High Court of Dehri under Art. 139A of the Constitution.
Issues Involved

1. Whether the present case is maintainable before the HonourableCourt ?

2. Whether the law providing for 33 % reservation to women in the Parliament and
the amendment of Art 19 (2) are arbitrary and violative of the concept of equality?
25
3. Whether the constitutional amendment to Art 19 (2) violates the basic structure of
the constitution ?
4. Whether a law can be struck down on grounds that it serves the motive of any
foreign power or has become a tool of communal politics ?
5. Whether legislating the law providing 33% reservation to women in parliament and
the amendment to Art 19 (2) is of some ulterior religious motives ?
6. Whether the protection of the Whistle Blower Protection Act 2014 extends to Mrs
Fatima Ghansari?
7. Whether the arrest of the three ladies is legally valid ?

26
 Moot Proposition XII

Facts-Cheethah and Chetak Private limited V Income tax authority

Zeon is a private IT & ITES company incorporated in the Cayman Islands, carrying on its
software business primarily through Singapore. Zeon has been unable to obtain a Tax
Residency Certificate from Singapore in order to claim Singapore Tax Residency for
Indian tax purposes. They have a presence in India through a liaison office. Zeon are
credited with designing a software called Neo, which was revolutionary in the human
resource industry and could predict how well a new recruit would work in an organization
that was going to hire him/her and adapt to the organization’s culture and values.
Cheetah & Chetak Private Limited, an Indian manufacturing private limited company
having its registered office in Mumbai, decided to buy this software. Consequently, an
agreement was entered into between them and Zeon for the purchase of software for a
price of INR 35,00,000 on a year on year basis. No TDS was deducted by the
manufacturing company at the time of making payments. The Agreement stated that the
Licensee is granted a ‘non-exclusive, non-transferable license’, and that ‘all copies of the
Software shall be the exclusive property of Zeon’, according to 2(a) and 2(d) of the
Agreement. Further, 2(f)(i) and 2(f)(ii) of the Agreement stipulated that the software
cannot be ‘loaned, rented, sold, sublicensed or transferred to any third party’, or ‘used by
any parent, subsidiary or affiliated entity of Licensee’ without prior written consent of
Zeon. Additionally, the Agreement placed restrictions on the Licensee to not ‘copy,
decompile, disassemble or reverse-engineer the Software’ without Zeon's written
consent, stipulated by 2(h). The manufacturing company filed income tax return without
delays, and for AY 03-04 and 04-05, assessment order was passed under S. 143(3) of
the Income Tax Act, 1961 . For AY 2005-06, the assessment was completed under S.
143(1) and for AYs 2006-07, 07-08, 08-09, it was completed under S. 143(3) of the ITA.
The assessing officer had accepted the returns and the transaction with Zeon in the
above AYs. On July 4, 2014, the assessing officer sent a notice to Cheetah & Chetak
Private Limited under S. 148 and disallowed the deduction claimed for payments made
for these AYs and sort to recover INR 50 lacs from the assessee. The reason cited was
that payments made by the manufacturer constituted ‘royalty’ under S. 9 of the Act, and
tax should have been withheld at rate of 25% for all these years while making payment
to Zeon for the software. Manufacturing company was charged under ITA as an ‘assesse-
27
in-default’. Assessee decided to file a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay for all the
AYs for which they had received a 148 notice, contending that the re-opening was bad in
law.

Issues involved:
1. Whether the writ filed by the petitioner is maintainable?
2. Whether the consideration paid under the license agreement amounts to royalty?
3. Whether the reopening and the reassessment are bad in law?
4. Whether the petitioner is an assessee in default?

28
 Moot Proposition – XIII

Facts -Union of India V Women Freedom Union

There is a moral notion in Indian society regarding ideal marriages. The past speaks
that women were mistreated in various spheres of life across religions, regions and
communities. Except for a few revolutionary activities, the situation hanged about
more or less the same in the ancient, medieval, and early modern times. Crime
against women like female foeticide, discrimination against women, rape, etc. is
common. Regardless of existing stringent laws and safeguards to women, the Status
of women has not elevated. The unfortunate part of gender inequality in our society is
that the women too, through, continued socio-cultural conditioning, have accepted
their subordinate position to men and they are also part and parcel of same
patriarchal system.Women Freedom Union (WFU), Non-Governmental Organization,
raised its concern about discrimination against the women in so far as Sec. 497 of
Indian Penal Code confers upon the husband only the right to prosecute the adultery
and not women, filed the Writ Petition before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
challenging constitutional validity of Sec. 497 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 198
of the Code of Criminal Procedure being in violation of Article 14, 15 and 21 of
Constitution of India.On 23.02.2018, Hon'ble Supreme Court passed its judgment
dismissing the Writ Petition held that although right to be heard is a fundamental right
but, law can’t be held unconstitutional on such ground owing to express provision
under law.Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, WFU
filed review Petition on the ground that said judgment experiences errors apparent on
the face of the record as liberty envisaged under the Indian Constitution will be in
peril.The said review petition was allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Court
held that Sec. 497 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 198 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure are unconstitutional. The Court further decriminalized the adultery
observing that “Treating adultery an offence, we are disposed to think, would
tantamount to the State entering into a real private realm. Under the existing
provision, the husband is treated as an aggrieved person and the wife is ignored as a
victim. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a
review petition, the Union of India has preferred Curative Petition. The some of the
29
 grounds raised by the Union of India are as follows:
1. That Sec. 497 is valid on the ground of affirmative action.
2. All discriminations in favor of women are saved by Article 15 (3), and hence were
exempted from punishment. That Sec. 497 does not account for instances where
the husband has sexual relations outside his marriage would not render it
unconstitutional. The sanctity of family life and the right to marriage are
fundamental rights comprehended in the right to life under Article 21. An outsider
who violates and injures these rights must be deterred and punished in accordance
with criminal law. It was finally suggested that if this Court finds any part of this
Sec. violative of the Constitutional provisions, the Court should read down that
part, in so far as it is violative of the Constitution but retain the provision. The
main purpose of enacting Sec. 497, I.P.C. is to curb crime by way of deterrence,
but declaring Sec. 497 as unconstitutional by Apex Court of the country, will not
only promote deceitful and immoral activity between man and woman but will also
create chaos in society.

Issues Involved
1. Whether the curative petition is maintainable ?
2. Whether sec 497 IPC protects the sanctity of marriage ?
3. Whether the exemption granted to married women under sec 497 IPC violates
fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution?
4. Whether Sec 497 IPC read with sec 198(2) CrPC is unconstitutional ?

30
 Moot Proposition –XIV

Facts - Democratic Reformer Association V Union of Indiva

Union of Indiva is a Democratic Country. Democratic Reformers Association is a group

of certain Professional working in this country which has large network throughout the
country. In this Association many Doctors, Lawyers, Artists, Engineers, writers are
working together for social cause and social problems. They have formed different
social media groups through which they share thoughts and different initiatives taken
by their group. The Association always requests other members to add people in the
group. Members meet with each other and post discussion on Social media group
about the decisions taken by the government which includes giving reservation and
curtailing the reservations for certain communities, and many members expressed
their critical views about the government. Some people brought these arguments to
the notice of Ruling party members and thus it reached up to some of the ministers.
An urgent cabinet meeting was called and aresolution was passed for banning these
kinds of activities in the country, in exercise of the power conferred by the Information
Technology Act, which talks about Monitoring and Decryption of Information. Some
members of this group were arrested by the police stating that they are disseminating
false information about the government and its policies with the aim of instigating
people against the government. Therewere violent protest against the resolution
passed by the Opposition party. Members found to have propagated such information
under section 124A of IndivaPenal code and their Anticipatory Bail Application were
rejected.TheGovernmentalso authorized its securities and intelligence Agencies for the
purpose of interception; monitoring and decryption of any information generated,
transmitted, received or stored in any computer resources. The Democratic Reformers
Association argued that it is the ultimate assault on fundamental rights and the right to
privacy. In this background, Democratic Reformers Association has filed a petition by
challenging the validity of the order passed by the Home Ministry of Indiva, section
124-A of Indiva Penal code, and against the order of rejection of bail application before
the before Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiva.
31
ISSUES

1. Whether the present writ is maintainable?

2. Whether the resolution passed by the cabinet banning online discussion about
government policies is violative of Article 19 (1) (a)?
3. Whether the order passed by the home ministry for the purpose of the interception
monitoring and decryption of any information generated,transmitted, received or
stored in any computer resources is violative of the fundamental right to Privacy?
4. Whether section 124 A of Indiva Penal Code is ultra vires the Constitution?
5. Whether the High court erred in rejecting the anticipatory bail of the activist
charged under S 124 A of IPC?

32
 Moot Proposition – XV

FACTS-High on life V State of Banisthrapur

BanistanJalsa Party has come to power in the Republic of Banistan with a promise
topromote reforms, development and progress in all aspects of life of its citizens.
According to the Survey done by “We Care for you” the number of patients dying and
suffering from mouth/lung cancer, liver cirrhosis owing to uncontrolled consumption of
tobacco has increased. The Survey also states that Alcohol is the root of 40% hospital
Admissions 80% of crimes, 60% of road accidents and 80% of divorce and domestic
violence cases in the state. In pursuance of the Directive Principle of State Policy i.e.
Article 47 of the Constitution, Government has introduced a prohibition on liquor sale.
The Government simultaneously stipulated a total prohibition on all tobacco products.
This was done with a view to remedy the fabric of the society that has been
besmirched by the consumption of alcohol and tobacco.Mr. Akkal a follower of the
Broom Party and the owner of a famous restaurant and bar‘High on Life’ aggrieved by
the actions of the Government, has approached the Hon’ble High Court of Bigbay in
Writ Jurisdiction challenging the Constitutional validity of the said notification and
amendment.

Issues involved
1. Whether the present petition is maintainable before the High Court of Big bay?
2. Whether the prohibition imposed by the state government is in accordance with
constitutional provisions?
3. Whether right to trade in obnoxious commodities is a fundamental right under
part III of the constitution?

33
 Moot Proposition-XVI

Facts –Tan organization V Union of Jinga

The country of Jhinga is a Democratic Republic. It has a written Constitution that

guarantees its citizens inalienable fundamental rights. The Fundamental rights include the
right to equality, right to freedom and so on. The country boasts of a very rich culture
and heritage. People from various ethnicities, speaking various languages and following
various cultural and religious practices cohabit in this country.. Many renowned historians
and thinkers have recognized the territory in an around the nation of Jhinga as one that
has witnessed great civilizations since many centuries. The country has a huge population
of 1.2 billion people; spread over 3.28 million square kilometers of land mass with every
imaginable kind of weather pattern. 20 official languages with around 2000 dialects
written in 15 different scripts along with all major religions practiced liberally. Tanism is
one of the religions in the country. The great teachers of Tanism have instilled great
teachings and practices which have been prevalent for many centuries. Among the
various practices followed, some followers of Tanism take up ‘Chinthara’. It is a practice
of abstinence taken up by Tan individuals to end their lives through total abstinence of
food and other material luxuries if one is satisfied that one has done justice to one’s
worldly duties. It is thought that the outcome of this practice is certain attainment of
“Nirvana”. A lady by the name of, aged 72, from the state of Rajasthan, took up this
practice in the year 2013. This instance created much furore and controversy. Much was
written and spoken in support of and against this practice. Later in the year 2015, an
individual by the name Nikhil Soni filed a Public Interest Litigation in the High Court of
Judicature of Rajasthan challenging the Constitutional validity of the practice of
“Chinthara”. The Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan held the practice as un Constitutional
and derogatory of Art. 21 with further directions to the State machinery to prosecute
such practitioners under Sections 309 and 306 of the Jhingan Penal Code. One Tan
religious organization approached the Hon’ble Apex Court of Jhinga challenging the
decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan.

34
Issues involved
1. Whether the petitioner has the Locus Standi to move this Honorable Apex Court?
2. Does the practice of “Chinthara” violate Right to Life and Personal Liberty and any
other Fundamental Right enshrined in the Constitution of Jhinga?
3. Any other Issues can be raised pertaining to the current problem of Chinthara?

35
 Moot Proposition –XVII

Facts -Rakesh Singh and another V Gill

Miss Seema was a promising law tennis player and won various competitionsin the year
1990.Mr. Prakash Gill,President of the Haryana Lawn Tennis Associations [HLTA]and IGP
of the Haryana Police visited her house on August 11,1990 to meether father Mr. Singh
and told him that he should send her abroad for trainingas she was a promising player
and he would arrange special coaching for her.Mr.Gill also asked Mr. Singh to send
Seema to his office on August 12 todiscuss some details with her regarding the same.
Next day Seema with her friend, Vidya, went to meet Mr. Gill at his officeafter their
regular practice session. Which was in a schedule area of the tenniscourt. On seeing both
of them Gill asked Vidya to go and call the tennis coach. But Vidya returned mid-way and
saw to her horror that Gill was molestingSeema inside his office. This incident shocked
both Vidya and Seema and they somehow managed to get out of there and reached their
home safely.Three days later Seema mustered the courage to tell her father about the
wholeepisode with Gill. On hearing the whole episode Mr. Singh along with Seema and
Vidya’s mother went and filed a Complaint against Mr. Gill. The Complaint was signed by
Seema herself stating that she was molested by Gill. After the complaint was filed
Seema’s family was harassed by the police and various other authorities. Her brother was
arrested on various theft cases overnight. Seema was expelled from her school on the
flimsy grounds of nonpayment of fees without any warning. Her father lost her job on
alleged charges of corruption. After three years of bearing all the atrocities of the system
and unable to sustain any more attacks on her family’s name Seema finally committed
suicide on January 4 th 1993 by consuming poison. Gill who was an IGP of Haryana Police
in the year 1990 was promoted to the post of DGP and awarded various medals and
bestowed with various others laurels over the years. But it was only in the year 1999 that
an FIR was registered against Gill under section -354 of IPC on the basis of the written
complaint given by Seema in the year 1990. The investigation began, but still Gill was in
Service and with all the medals and honour intact. The case was still pending in Punjab
36
and Haryana High Court when it transferred the investigation of the case to the CBI. The
case was finally transferred to CBI Special Magistrate by Punjab and Haryana High Court
with the discretion to hold day-to-day hearings and to complete the trial within a month.
Finally the court found Gill guilty of outraging the modesty of women and convicted him
to 6 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1000. Gill was allowed bail and he
was also allowed appeal in the higher court .Aggrieved by the decision given by the court,
Seema’s father and her friends’sParents have filed a petition to re-open the case with the
new charges of “abetment of suicide” being levelled against Gill in the Supreme Court of
India.
ISSUES
1. Whether Mr. Gill can be charged with the offence of “abetment of suicide”?
2. Whether the delay in filing FIR leads to delay in administrative justice which will prove
dereliction of duty on the part of Government authorities?
3. Whether the present system of law is the reason behind such delays in filing FIR?
4. Whether Supreme Court has the Jurisdiction to open a fresh petition when there is
always a right to appeal?

37
 Moot Proposition – XVIII

Facts -Two Aressian states and others V Union of Aressia

Aressia, is a South Asian country with a written constitution and a strong centralising
tendency. Aressia is a land of many rivers which include trans-boundary Rivers. Its
economy was mainly based agriculture and fishing. But in the past few decades there
has been shortage of water, which lead to the failure of agriculture and commission of
suicides by many farmers. In the year 2009, an Ngo named ACLU filed a writ petition
in Hon’ble SC of Aressia citing the plight of the farmers, women folk and acute water
shortages in the area. It pointed out many reasons for the shortage of water including
industrial activity, agriculture an urban development. A study report was submitted
showing the decline in the number of rivers in Aressia from the 1960’s to the 1980’s
and then to 2000, from 782 to 324 out of which 50% of the latter were highly
polluted.To address this issue, the ACLU suggested the linking of rivers across the
country which the SC of Aressia considered and then directed the Central Government
to constitute a high level expert committee to conduct a study on the project’s
viability. It also directed the Centre to constitute a committed to conduct Environment
Impact Assessment and thus disposed the writ petition. In December 2009, the Centre
appointed both the committees. The EIA committee comprised of representatives from
various sections including environmental experts, concerned parties and both state and
central government representatives. In May 2010. The High Level Expert Committee
submitted a detailed report suggesting the linking of certain rivers to mitigate the
water shortage problem. The EIA committee identified various social and
environmental harms that could be caused by the project and suggested certain
precautionary measures. The Linking of Rivers Act, 2010 was enacted in August 2010
under which, S.3 of the Act gave the Central Government the power to any measures
deemed necessary for ensuring accessibility of water and linking of rivers all over the
country. Further S.3 (3) of the Act provided for the constitution of an Authority for the
38
exercise of such powers and performance of such functions necessary for linking rivers
across the country. The Authority for Linking of Rivers (ALR) was constituted on the
basis of this provision.The project was criticised by various State governments who
cited their concerns, both environmental and otherwise. It was also criticised by
various NGOs as being a political move to water to industries of some states and they
also noted the risk of corruption. The Centre decided to shelve the project for the time
being due to all the opposition to the project.In April 2011, there was a change in the
Centre with the Democratic Progressive Alliance (DPA) coming into power. The new
Prime Minister promised the Implementation of the project to provide water for
drinking, sanitation, agricultural and industrial purposes. Due to the large financial
burden, it was to be implemented in three phases. The ALR included six states,
Somanda, Normanda, Adhali, Neruda, Vindhya and Parmala in the first phase. To date,
all the rivers in these states belong exclusively to those them; but after inter-linking
they will be interstate. This included the River Bhargavi which was a trans-boundary
river flowing from Neruda to the neighbouring country of Boressia.The States of Adhali
and Parmala have objected the move of the ALR and approached the Hon’ble SC of
Aressia challenging the validity of the Act, arguing that S.3 is Ultra Vires to the
Aressian Constitution and is an encroachment by the Centre on the States power.The
state of Vindhya possesses the largest wetland in Aressia which has been included on
the Ramsar List of Wetlands of International Importance. A state EIA committee
identified that the ILR project would harm the wetland and on the basis of its report,
the Central Government directed the ALR to exclude the state from the ILR project.12
rivers from Vindhya were to be linked with rivers in Normanda which was facing a
water Shortage. Farmers in both the states, formed the ‘Save the Farmers Forum’ and
approached the Hon’ble SC of Aressia under Art 32 of the Constitution of Aressia to
have a writ of mandamus issued. It was argued that non-implementation of the project
would lead to violation of fundamental rights of the people of both states.In April 2013,
the Boressian Minister of Forest and Agriculture on visit to the Union of Aressia,
requested the exclusion of the River Bhargavi from the first phase of the project. But it
was rejected, considering the prospective benefits of its inclusion.The Forum for
Environmental Right (FER), an international NGO with its head office in Boressia and a
branch office in Boranda, the capital of Neruda approached the Hon’ble HC of Neruda
challenging the inclusion of Bhargavi as being violative of the fundamental rights of the
39
people of Boressia and destruction of the environment there. The writ petition was
dismissed by the HC of Neruda on the acceptance of a preliminary objection raised by
the respondents. An appeal has been preferred to the Hon’ble SC of Aressia.In March
2014, a news channel telecast an interview where some members of the EIA
committee appointed by the Central Government disclosed that certain states could
face various environmental disasters as a consequence of the ILR project. Four
members, two representing NGOs and two representing the Central Government
confessed to political pressure for a favourable EIA report. This heavily publicised news
caused wide spread protests against the ILR project.The Centre for Environmental
Rights and Advocacy (CERA), an NGO approached the National Green Tribunal of
Aressia, challenging the legality of the Linking of Rivers Act, 2010 on that grounds that
it violated the environmental rights of the citizens of Aressia and also the provisions of
the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. It was dismissed and an appeal was preferred to
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Aressia.

Issues
1. Whether the petition filed by the FER is maintainable in the High Court of
Neruda?
2. Whether S.3 of the Linking of Rivers Act, 2010 is Ultra Vires the Constitution
of Aressia?
3. Whether, the exclusion of and non-implementation of Linking of Rivers
Project for the State of Vindhya is violative of fundamental rights of people of
the States of Vindhya and Normanda?
4. Whether the Linking of Rivers Act, 2010 violates the environmental rights of
the people of Aressia and the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act,
1980

40
 Moot Proposition – XIX

Facts -Mohan v Fatima

Mohan, born as fourth child in family consisting of his father Raju alias Rahmatullah
Khan, his mother Renuka alias Ria Khan and three siblings, used to live with his
maternal grandparents who was Hindu. At the instance of observing different practices
in family it was explained to him that his parents were also Hindu by birth, though
belonging to a lower caste. For the reasons of such discriminatory practices against the
people belonging to lower caste he decided to convert to Islam.

Determined to bring about change in such discrimination he applied for seat in Guntur
Medical College, but the converts to other religions from Hinduism were treated as
backward classes thereby he didn‟t get admission. On the advice, he got himself
converted to Hinduism by going through Suddhi ceremony, claiming to be a member of
Madiga caste he got admission as falling under Schedule Caste.

In the fifth year of his study, he fall in love to a Muslim girl Fatima, though aware about
their status in the society. The girl reasoned that she can convince her father for their
marriage as they are both Muslims, but then Mohan disclosed about his conversion to
Hinduism which made her feared that the marriage would not be accepted by her father
as being strong follower of Islam. When she went home, got aware about the
preparations of her marriage to which Mohan insisted they should get married soon and
under the emotional threat and pressure she agreed for such marriage.

He made Fatima to undergo Suddhi ceremony, solemnized the marriage in a temple,

thereafter also married under Muslim form wherein Qazi performed their marriage.
When the girl felt guilty about the marriage, she confessed it to her father who
convinced her to get out of this relationship as Mohan is not a trustworthy person. He
41
made her to believe and migrated her to another medical college. When she stopped all
her contacts with Mohan, he filed for Restitution of Conjugal Rights under the HMA,
1955 in Family Court of Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. (SECTION 7 OF FAMILY COURTS ACT,
1984)

Issues involved

1. Whether the conversion of Mohan is Valid ?

2. Whether the conversion of Fatima is invalid ?
3. Whether Restitution of Conjugal right be granted to Mohan?

42
 Moot Proposition – XX

Facts – Heena V Union of India And others

On 11thApril 2001, Ahmad and Heena got married as per Shariat at Allahabad. Heena
was a devoted wife who performed all her duties intermittently. They had two children,
Irfan a 13 year old son studying in 7th standard, and Naaz11 year old daughter, in
4THstandard, both at Allahabad. In April 2015, Heena left her matrimonial home, as
Ahmad started demanding cash and car from her father, Iqbal who was a government
employee. She went to her paternal home, in Uttarakhand, along with her two children
in the company of her father Iqbal and maternal uncle Rizwan. However, Ahmad
continued to visit Heena for giving her maintenance, and for enquiring about her well-
being. In June 2015 due to some differences Heena refused to accompany Ahmad to
the matrimonial home. Ahmad also asked Iqbal to send Heena back to her matrimonial
home. However after a few days Iqbal informed Ahmad that Heena was not inclined to
live with him. But gave the two children to Ahmad on 7thJuly 2015. Ahmad approached
the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court at Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, by filing a
suit for restitution of conjugal rights. Heena, filed a Transfer Petition undersection 25 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with Order XXXVI-B of the Supreme Court
Rules, 1966,for the transfer of Matrimonial Case, filed by the husband pending at
Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kashipur, Uttarakhand.
Ahmad withdrew the suit for restitution of conjugal rights filed by him at the Family
court in Allahabad and preferred to divorce Heena by pronouncing Triple Talaq thus
severing the matrimonial ties, by serving upon her a talaq-nama‟ dated 10.10. 2015.
Aggrieved by the divorce Heena has sought a declaration, from the Supreme Court that
the talaq e- biddat (Triple Talaq)pronounced by her husband on 10.10.2015 be
declared as void ab initio. She has also contented that such a divorce which abruptly,
43
unilaterally and irrevocably terminates the ties of matrimony, purportedly under
Section 2 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, be declared
unconstitutional.

Issues Involved

1. Whether the writ is maintainable ?

2. Whether the talaq pronounced by ahmad is void abinitio?
3. Whether Section 2 of the Muslim Personal Law ( Shariat ) Appliction Act 1937 un
constitutional ?

44