B T H ' S C O T - T: 16 Nalsar Justice B.R. Sawney Memorial Moot Court Competition, 2023

16TH NALSAR JUSTICE B.R.
SAWNEY MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
TC 73
16TH NALSAR JUSTICE B.R. SAWNEY

MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,
2023
BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF

TIM-TIM
(IN THE MATTER FOR ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.: ___/2023
TIM-TIM RIGHTS COLLECTIVE AND ANR…..……..……………..……(PETITIONER)
Versus
UNION OF TIM-TIM & ANR. …….…...……...………...……..……….(RESPONDENT)
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION

JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF TIM-TIM
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 1

16TH NALSAR JUSTICE B.R. SAWNEY MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
HON’BLE HONORABLE
& AND
V. VERSUS
ANR. ANOTHER
ART. ARTICLE
ORS. OTHERS
CBFC CENTRAL BOARD OF FILM CERTIFICATION
SCC SUPREME COURT CASES
AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER
SCR SUPREME COURT REPORTS
CR.L.J CRIMINAL LAW JOURNAL
CORP. CORPORATION
VOL. VOLUME
CO. COMPANY
PVT. PRIVATE
LTD. LIMITED
SEC. SECTION
PIL PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
IT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
IB INFORMATION BROADCASTING
SC SUPREME COURT
OTT OVER-THE-TOP
IPC INDIAN PENAL CODE
HC HIGH COURT
ETC. ET CETERA

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
I. STATUTES REFERRED:
1. ALL INDIA SUPPRESSION OF IMMORAL TRAFFIC ACT (SITA), 1956
II. BOOKS REFERRED:

1. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA BY DURGA DAS BASU
III. TABLE OF CASES:

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has the original jurisdiction to hear the petition under Article 32
of the constitution of India.
Article 321 of the Constitution of India which reads as follows:
“32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part-
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of
the rights conferred by this part is guaranteed.
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs
in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari,
whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this
Part.”
1
INDIAN CONST. art 32

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The Republic of Tim-Tim, a democratic welfare state in the southern hemisphere, upholds
human rights and freedoms and has ratified numerous international treaties, some of
which have become customary international law. It adopted an extensive written
constitution in 1950.
2. Chin-Min, a former President of Tim-Tim, emphasized the nation's commitment to

freedom, minimal government control, and the guarantee of human rights during the
constitution's promulgation.
3. Tagde, a celebrated writer on human rights and a jurist recognized by the International
Court of Justice, wrote a three-column article highlighting the violation of children's
rights to life and education. Lauding Chin-Min's work. based on an evening walk in the
capital city of Natchin, Tagde witnessed numerous children begging on the streets,
including infants seemingly drugged and exploited, along with children under the
influence of intoxicants.
4. The Commissioner of Police initiated an investigation based on Tagde's article, revealing

the presence of organised groups facilitating the trafficking of young children forced to
beg. Most infants did not live with their parents but with strangers who exploited them for
alms. Some children were sourced from immigrant camps, and some of their parents were
not Tim-Tim citizens. The investigation also uncovered the trafficking of a majority of
minor girls into prostitution, often resulting in various ailments, including HIV at a young
age. Several arrests were made following raids. While criminal proceedings were initiated
against the perpetrators, child trafficking and street begging persisted without abatement.
5. In response to the situation, the Tim-Tim Rights Collective conducted filed a PIL before
the Supreme Court, seeking the enforcement of children's rights under Articles 21 and
21A of the Constitution.
6. During the preliminary hearing, The Attorney General came and given his views
independently and emphasized the need to assess the State's capacity and ability to fund
the enforcement of fundamental rights, especially under Article 21A. He advocated
issuing guidelines to temporarily legalize prostitution. The Attorney General also

suggested modifying the guidelines on Public Interest Litigations (PILs) to prioritize

issue-based listing of petitions.
7. The Solicitor General disagreed with some of these views, stating that Article 21A's
mandate is limited to primary education, and matters related to prostitution should be
decided by the Parliament. He asserted that the current legal framework adequately
addressed the grievances raised. The Petitioner and Shri Verma argued in rejoinder that
existing PIL guidelines were sufficient, and the government's stance contradicted its own
published policies and international obligations. Now the matter is listed for final hearing
where the Tim-Tim Rights Collective will argue as Petitioner and Ld. Solicicitor general
will represent Respondent(Union of Tim-Tim).

ISSUES RAISED
Issue 1: Whether PILS should be listed under generic-cause- based titles as against fastest-
filers-first? What would be its impact on genuine petitioners espousing larger public interest?
Issue 2: Whether this Court should adopt judicial impact assessment as a thumb rule, before
considering prayer for enlargement of the scope of Part-III?
Issue 3: What is the scope of Part-III, including Art. 21 and 21A of the Constitution vis-à-vis
the rights of children begging on the streets?
Issue 4: Whether Art. 21A can be interpreted to mandate the State to put all children found
begging on the streets into primary schools? Whether rehabilitation of such children can be
read as a constitutional duty of the State?
Issue 5: Whether the legal framework permits judicial intervention to legalize prostitution?
Whether this issue can rest as a 'policy matter' beyond the writ of this Court, or whether the
protection of vulnerable groups of society requires judicial intervention?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
Issue 1: Whether PILS should be listed under generic-cause- based titles as against
fastest-filers-first? What would be its impact on genuine petitioners espousing larger
public interest?
The PILs should be listed under Generic-Cause-based titles in this case as it will be beneficial
and in the best interest of Larger public. Fastest filers first may impact genuine interest of
Public. Listing Public Interest Litigations under generic-cause-based titles rather than fastest-
filers-first is essential to preserve the essence of PILs, encourage comprehensive reviews, and
prevent the abuse of the system. This approach aligns with the core purpose of PILs in India
and ensures that justice is served effectively and equitably.
Issue 2: Whether this Court should adopt judicial impact assessment as a thumb rule,
before considering prayer for enlargement of the scope of Part-III?
Judicial impact assessment should be considered as thumb rule before enlarging the scope of
Part III of the constitution. We understand that, if there is a question of fundamental rights
then as a guardian of the Constitution it is the responsibility of Judiciary to protect the
aforementioned, Fundamental Rights are heart of Constitution and the court cannot neglect its
violation. But it is very necessity to consider its impact
Issue 3: What is the scope of Part-III, including Art. 21 and 21A of the Constitution vis-
à-vis the rights of children begging on the streets?
The scope of Part-III, including Art. 21 and 21A of the Constitution vis-à-vis the rights of
children begging on the streets is limited Child begging is a complex issue that requires
comprehensive and specific legislation to address effectively.
Issue 4: Whether Art. 21A can be interpreted to mandate the State to put all children
found begging on the streets into primary schools? Whether rehabilitation of such
children can be read as a constitutional duty of the State?
The state is already providing free education to children from 6-14 years, state is unable to
provide the free education and rehabilitation to all the children as it is not covered under
Article 21A and it will impact the interest of our own citizens.

Issue 5: Whether the legal framework permits judicial intervention to legalize

prostitution? Whether this issue can rest as a 'policy matter' beyond the writ of this
Court, or whether the protection of vulnerable groups of society requires judicial
intervention?
The counsel on behalf of respondent humble submits before the Hon’ble SC that the legal
framework does not permit the judiciary either to legalize prostitution and for the protection
of vulnerable society. This is a matter that requires a comprehensive legislative approach with
careful consideration of all potential outcomes.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. WHETHER PILS SHOULD BE LISTED UNDER GENERIC-CAUSE- BASED
TITLES AS AGAINST FASTEST-FILERS-FIRST? WHAT WOULD BE ITS
IMPACT ON GENUINE PETITIONERS ESPOUSING LARGER PUBLIC
INTEREST?
The counsel on behalf of the respondents humbly submits before the Hon’ble SC that the
PILs should be listed under Generic-Cause-based titles in this case as it will be beneficial and
in the best interest of Larger public. Fastest filers first may impact genuine respondents
interest. The Respondents’ suggestions regarding this are as follows:
1.1. Preserving the Purpose of Public Interest Litigations

1.1.1. PILs in Tim-Tim are a potent tool to ensure justice and protect the rights of
marginalized sections of society2. They are fundamentally meant to address systemic
issues, promote social justice, and enforce constitutional rights 3. Listing PILs based
on generic-cause titles aligns with this purpose, as it allows for a more comprehensive
examination of underlying societal problems.
1.1.2. In the case of State of Uttaranchal V. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Others 4, the
Supreme court laid down the guidelines to file a PIL where it was held that The courts
before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redress of genuine
public harm or public injury, which support the Generic-cause based titles of case5.
1.1.3. The case in hand requires to be heard only based on Generic-cause based titles which
will serve the best interest of the larger public as the petition which is filed as a Public
Interest Litigation by the Tim-Tim Rights Collective is comprehensive and address
approximately all the issues faced by the young infants living in Natchin. 6 As written
in the proposition that the Commissioner of Police took cognisance and issued
direction for detailed investigation of the matter, while investigation it was revealed
that the most of the children do not live with their parents, they are living with
2
People's Union for Democratic Rights vs. Union of India, AIR1982SC1473
3
Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 420
4
State of Uttaranchal V. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Others AIR 2010 SC 2550
5
Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India & Ors., 2004 SCC OnLine SC 307
6
Moot Prop ¶ 4

complete strangers who are using them to gain sympathy and money.7
1.1.4. The idea of "public interest litigation" first appeared in India in the case of Mumbai
Kamgar Sabha vs. Abdul Thai8 and was first used in Akhil Bharatiya Sho-shit
Karmachari Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India9, where an unregistered workers'
union was allowed to file a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for the
resolution of common grievances.
1.1.5. In the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India10, the Supreme Court
emphasized the importance of PILs in addressing socio-economic issues. The Court's
intervention helped secure the release of bonded laborers, highlighting the
significance of PILs in achieving social justice. 11 In the case of Bandhua Mukti
Morcha v. Union of India12, the counsel on behalf of Tim-Tim Rights Collectives
plead before the hon’ble court to decide based on larger public interest and as per the
doctrine of Stare decisis which obligates courts to follow historical cases when
making a ruling on a similar case. Stare decisis makes ensuring that instances with
comparable facts and circumstances are handled the same way. Simply expressed, it
requires courts to uphold the legal precedents established by earlier rulings. The
Government is in favour of best public Interest.
1.1.6. It would be relevant to refer to Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. v. Regional Asstt. CST 13,
wherein the Apex Court opined that the doctrine of stare decisis is a very valuable
principle of precedent which cannot be departed from unless there are extraordinary
or special reasons to do so.
1.1.7. Fastest-filers-first listing may incentivize the filing of numerous frivolous PILs with
the sole intent of securing a hearing. Generic-cause-based titles discourage such
abuse, as they require litigants to demonstrate a genuine public interest issue. This
ensures that only legitimate cases are considered, preventing the judicial system from
7
Moot Prop ¶ 5
8
Mumbai Kamgar Sabha vs. Abdul Thai, AIR 1976 SC 1455
9
Akhil Bharatiya Sho-shit Karmachari Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 298
10
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802
11
Unni Krishnan, J.P. and Ors. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., AIR 1993 SC 2178
12
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802
13
Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. v. Regional Asstt. CST, (1976) 4 SCC 124

being overwhelmed by frivolous petitions.
1.1.8. The Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) v. Union of India 14 case is a landmark Public
Interest Litigation (PIL) case in India. It is associated with the Narmada Bachao
Andolan movement, which was an environmental and social justice movement
protesting the construction of the Sardar Sarovar Dam on the Narmada River in the
western Indian states of Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh. Ultimately, the case led to
several significant developments, including guidelines for resettlement and
rehabilitation of displaced families. This case is considered a significant example of a
PIL that played a crucial role in shaping environmental and social policies in India
and highlighting the importance of public interest litigation in addressing complex
socio-environmental issues.15
1.1.9. In the case of P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka 16, the Supreme Court
emphasized the need to filter out frivolous PILs to maintain the credibility of the
judicial process. A generic-cause-based listing can serve as a preliminary filter to
ensure that only meritorious PILs are heard.
1.2. Ensuring Thorough Consideration of Issues

1.2.1. PILs often involve complex social and legal issues that require in-depth examination.
Listing cases based on generic-cause titles allows judges to group related cases
together, facilitating a holistic understanding of the problem. This approach
encourages judges to consider the larger context and potential systemic changes
needed.
1.2.2. In the landmark case of Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan17, the Supreme Court laid
down guidelines to combat sexual harassment at workplaces. A generic-cause-based
listing might have allowed for a more comprehensive approach to addressing gender-
based workplace discrimination. The case in hand also require thorough consideration
of issues instead of considering fastest filers first doctrine.
1.2.3. PILs often set legal precedents that guide future cases. Listing them under generic-
14
Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 3751
15
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 965
16
P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2002 SC 1856
17
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011

cause titles helps maintain consistency in legal interpretation and decision-making.
1.2.4. In the case of Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation18, Supreme Court
addressed the rights of pavement dwellers and established a precedent regarding the
rights of homeless individuals. Uniformity in handling such cases through generic-
cause-based listing ensures predictability in the law. As Supreme court already held
for rights of pavement dwellers in this case, hence it will be more rational to follow
the precedent and doctrine of Stare decisis and hear case according to Generic-Cause-
based titles in the provided circumstances of the case.
1.2.5. PILs should be filed with the interests of the general public in mind as per Generic-
Cause- based title. Across the nation, irresponsible PIL advocates started to play a
significant but unhelpful role in the courtroom.
1.2.6. The case in hand is based on a newspaper article19 it can be traced back into the
history of the Judicial System of Tim-Tim that many times PILs filed based on
newspaper cutting taken up by the court. We have very classic example of First PIL in
Tim-Tim Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar20, the PIL was filed by an advocate
on the basis of the news item 21 published in the Indian Express, highlighting the plight
of thousands of under trial prisoners languishing in various jails in Bihar. In the given
case also we can refer the moot proposition which clearly states that numerous of
children were involved in begging, they was drugged and many of the girls put into
the prostitution that also in very young age 22, Respondents have also reviewed the
situation and many individuals were arrested 23, number of criminal proceedings were
filed but trial remain pending and such activities are still continue in the Capital City
of Natchin24, we plead before the court to issue the directions to session courts to
conduct speedy trial.
1.2.7. The counsels on behalf of respondents hopes that the court will consider our
18
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180
19
Moot Prop ¶ 5
20
Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1360
21
Anil Yadav v. State of Bihar, AIR 1982 SC 1008
22
Moot Prop ¶ 5
23
Moot Prop ¶ 5
24
Moot Prop ¶ 6

contentions raised in this written submission by following the doctrine of precedent

and Stare decisis. In the case of State of UP And ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Sharma and
Anr.25, the Apex Court discussed the concepts of "Precedent" and "Stare Decisis" and
made the following observation: The fundamentals and concepts of "Precedent" and
of Stare decisis, which are a core aspect of the hierarchical character of all Common
Law judicial systems, have been explicitly reiterated by this Court numerous times.
Apart from Article 14126 which stipulates that the law declared by the Supreme
Court shall be binding on all Courts within the territory of India., it is the practise
of the courts to adhere to established precedent and not to change an established fact.
1.3. Promoting Judicial Efficiency

1.3.1. Judicial system of Tim-Tim is burdened with a backlog of cases, and PILs form a
significant portion of this load. Listing PILs under generic-cause titles allows for
better case management and coordination among judges.
1.3.2. In the case of Common Cause v. Union of India 27, the Supreme Court addressed the
issue of passive euthanasia and living wills. A systematic approach to listing cases
with similar concerns could have expedited the development of a legal framework for
such matters. Here the case in hand should be addressed according to the precedent
set in the case of Common Cause v. Union of India28.
1.3.3. PILs often touch upon diverse subjects, from environmental concerns to healthcare, to
ensure better life for poor and education. Generic-cause-based titles allow judges to
specialize in certain areas, gaining a deeper understanding of the issues involved. This
specialization can lead to more informed and nuanced decisions.
1.3.4. Public perception of the judiciary's fairness and impartiality is crucial. Fastest-filers-
first can be perceived as arbitrary and may erode trust in the system. Generic-cause-
based listing reinforces the idea that justice is delivered based on the merits of the
case, not the speed of filing.
25
State of UP And ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Sharma and Anr. (2016) 15 SCC 289
26
27
Common Cause v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 338
28
Common Cause v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 338

1.3.5. In the case of S.P. Gupta v. Union of India29, the Supreme Court asserted its
authority in the appointment of judges. Upholding the integrity of the judicial process
through a fair listing mechanism is vital to maintain public confidence.
1.3.6. Public interest litigation is a crucial tool for enacting social change. It strives to
improve the lives of all societal groups. Everybody's sword, only used for delivering
justice. Smoking in public places was outlawed by the Supreme Court in Murli S.
Dogra v. Union of India30. The Supreme Court provided instructions for
rehabilitation and compensation for the rape of working women in the historic
decision of Delhi Domestic Working Women's Forum v. Union of India31.
1.3.7. It would be good to quote Cunningham, who stated that “Indian PIL might rather be
a Phoenix: a whole new creative arising out of the ashes of the old order.”
Conclusion:
PIL is still in the experimental stage, it is respectfully submitted. Numerous shortcomings in
how the type of litigation is handled are expected to be evident, these flaws can be fixed by
developing better methods. However Listing Public Interest Litigations under generic-cause-
based titles rather than fastest-filers-first is essential to preserve the essence of PILs,
encourage comprehensive reviews, and prevent the abuse of the system. This approach aligns
with the core purpose of PILs in India and ensures that justice is served effectively and
equitably. In effect, the PIL establishes new legal precedent regarding the state's
responsibility for constitutional and legal violations that harm the interests of the
community's weaker sections.
We may conclude the issue with the quote by Justice Krishna Iyer:
The judicial activism gets its highest bonus when its orders wipe some tears from some
eyes.
29
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149
30
Murli S. Dogra v. Union of India, AIR 2002 SC 40
31
Delhi Domestic Working Women's Forum v. Union of India, 1995 SCC (1) 14

2. WHETHER THIS COURT SHOULD ADOPT JUDICIAL IMPACT

ASSESSMENT AS A THUMB RULE, BEFORE CONSIDERING PRAYER FOR
ENLARGEMENT OF THE SCOPE OF PART-III?
The counsel on behalf of the respondents humbly submits before the Hon’ble SC that judicial
impact assessment should be considered as thumb rule before enlarging the scope of Part III
of the constitution. We understand that, if there is a question of fundamental rights then as a
guardian of the Constitution it is the responsibility of Judiciary to protect the aforementioned,
Fundamental Rights are heart of Constitution and the court cannot neglect its violation. But it
is very necessity to consider its impact because:
2.1. The Importance of Judicial Impact Assessment

2.1.1. A Judicial Impact Assessment (JIA) is an assessment of the impact caused due to
changes in procedural or substantive law, and an assessment of the likely costs to be
incurred due to the change. JIAs are beneficial to legislators, members of the judiciary
and the society. There are three prominent reasons why undertaking a JIA is vital:
first, understanding the likely effect that a law would have on the legal system is
important in order to analyse if a law is fulfilling its objective through the ability of
enforcement; second, amendments to the law are required to keep pace with changes
in society and it, therefore, becomes important to understand whether laws made at an
earlier point in time still serve the purpose for which they were enacted; and third,
changes to law often affect the functioning of the justice delivery system, and
therefore it becomes important to understand these likely effects to weigh the costs
and benefits of any change.
2.1.2. Fundamental rights form the bedrock of the Indian Constitution, ensuring the
protection of individual liberties. The Supreme Court, as the guardian of these rights,
must be diligent in their preservation and expansion when necessary.
2.1.3. Judicial impact assessments serve as a vital tool to evaluate the potential
consequences of expanding the scope of Part III rights. They ensure that the Court's
decisions align with the original intent of the Constitution's framers.
2.1.4. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation 32, The court in this case considered
32
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) 3 SCC 545.

the rights of homeless persons in light of the municipality's duties, emphasizing the
need for a balanced approach that considers the broader societal interests
2.1.5. In A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras33, the Supreme Court highlighted the importance
of Part III as the soul of the Constitution, emphasizing the need for a cautious
approach when interpreting and expanding fundamental rights.
2.1.6. Striking a balance between individual rights and the broader interests of society is a
core responsibility of the Court. Judicial impact assessments enable a meticulous
examination of this equilibrium, preventing an undue tilt towards either side.
2.1.7. They ensure that any expansion of fundamental rights takes into account the potential
impact on public order, national security, and other legitimate interests, thereby
safeguarding the overall well-being of the nation.
2.1.8. In Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal34, the Supreme Court emphasized
that the scope of fundamental rights must be interpreted and expanded in a manner
that does not lead to chaos or anarchy, highlighting the importance of striking a
balance. We understand that, if there is a question of fundamental rights then as a
guardian of the Constitution it is the responsibility of Judiciary to protect the
aforementioned, Fundamental Rights are heart of Constitution and the court can not
neglect its violation. But it is very necessity to consider its impact
2.1.9. The Constitution is not a static document but a living one that must adapt to the
changing needs and values of society. Judicial impact assessments facilitate this
dynamic interpretation by considering evolving circumstances. They allow the Court
to apply the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience in light of
contemporary realities while preserving the core values enshrined in Part III.
2.1.10. In Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh35, the Supreme Court recognized the need
for evolving interpretations of fundamental rights to keep pace with changing societal
norms and technological advancements. Here in this case as demanded by petitioner
to enlarge the scope of Part III, it is necessary to keep in mind that this will be a
33
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27.
34
Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal¸ AIR 1967 SC 25.
35
Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 1295.

burden on our own people.
2.2. Ensuring Legal Certainty and Predictability

2.2.1. A robust legal system thrives on clarity and predictability. Judicial impact
assessments provide a systematic approach to defining the boundaries of fundamental
rights, reducing ambiguity in legal matters. They enable the Court to establish clear
guidelines for what constitutes a reasonable restriction on rights, providing legal
certainty to citizens and authorities alike.
2.2.2. In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India36, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance
of legal certainty in upholding the rule of law and ensuring that constitutional
provisions are interpreted consistently and predictably.
2.2.3. The rule of law is a fundamental principle enshrined in the Indian Constitution. By
adopting judicial impact assessments, the Court promotes the rule of law by ensuring
that its decisions are grounded in legal principles and precedents. This prevents
arbitrary or capricious interpretations of fundamental rights, fostering a just and
equitable society.
2.2.4. In I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu37, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the supremacy
of the rule of law and the Constitution, stating that no authority, including the Court
itself, can act in a manner inconsistent with constitutional provisions. We hope that
judiciary will consider our limitation in the matter.
2.2.5. Legal certainty, as provided by judicial impact assessments, aids in striking the
delicate balance between individual rights and the interests of the state and society. It
allows for a systematic examination of whether the proposed expansion of
fundamental rights maintains the equilibrium envisaged by the Constitution.
2.2.6. In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India38, the Supreme Court, while interpreting the
freedom of speech and expression, emphasized the need for legal certainty to prevent
misuse of laws that could curtail this fundamental right.
36
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918.
37
I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2007 SC 861.
38
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, AIR 2015 SC 1523.

2.2.7. Without clear boundaries, the interpretation of fundamental rights can vary, leading to
legal confusion and inconsistent application of these rights across the country. Judicial
impact assessments help prevent such confusion. They ensure that all courts,
including lower courts, have a clear understanding of the expanded scope of rights,
contributing to uniformity in legal decisions.
2.2.8. In M. Nagaraj v. Union of India39, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of
clarity and uniformity in the interpretation of constitutional provisions, particularly in
matters of affirmative action.
2.2.9. Judicial impact assessments can also draw insights from the practices of other
democratic nations, contributing to a global perspective on fundamental rights and
their evolution. By examining how similar issues are handled in other jurisdictions,
the Court can make more informed decisions about the enlargement of Part III rights.
2.3. Enhancing Accountability and Transparency"

2.3.1. Accountability is a fundamental principle of democracy and the rule of law. Judicial
impact assessments make the Court accountable for its decisions concerning the
enlargement of Part III rights. They provide a structured process for evaluating the
consequences of such decisions and allow for retrospective analysis if a decision's
impact is not in line with expectations.
2.3.2. In S.P. Gupta v. President of India40, commonly known as the "First Judges' Case,"
the Supreme Court emphasized the need for judicial accountability and transparency
to maintain public confidence in the judiciary. Transparency in judicial decision-
making is essential to maintain public trust and confidence in the justice system.
Judicial impact assessments contribute to transparency by allowing stakeholders,
including the public, to understand the reasoning behind the Court's decisions. They
provide insight into how the Court weighs various factors and interests when
expanding the scope of fundamental rights.
2.3.3. In Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms 41, the Supreme Court
39
M. Nagaraj v. Union of India¸ M. Nagaraj v. Union of India.
40
S.P. Gupta v. President of India, AIR 1982 SC 149.
41
Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms, 2002 (3) SCR 294

emphasized the importance of transparency in political processes and electoral

reforms, setting a precedent for the need for transparency in all aspects of governance,
including judicial decisions. Judicial impact assessments can involve public
participation, allowing citizens to contribute to the decision-making process. This
enhances democratic values and ensures that decisions align with societal
expectations. Public participation promotes the idea that judicial decisions should not
be seen as isolated from the public but as reflecting the will and values of the people.
2.3.4. While not directly related to judicial impact assessments, the Supreme Court, in
Swaraj Abhiyan v. Union of India42, emphasized the importance of public
participation in governance, including matters related to social and economic
rights.Transparent and accountable decision-making processes enhance public trust in
the judiciary. When the Court adopts judicial impact assessments, it demonstrates a
commitment to fairness, objectivity, and the rule of law.
2.3.5. This trust is crucial for maintaining the Court's legitimacy and effectiveness. In
Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India43, the Supreme Court recognized
the importance of protecting individual privacy rights, emphasizing the judiciary's
role in upholding the fundamental rights of citizens and earning their trust.
2.3.6. India is a signatory to various international human rights treaties and conventions.
Judicial impact assessments can help ensure that the expansion of Part III rights aligns
with international obligations and human rights standards.
2.3.7. This not only upholds India's commitment to global human rights but also enhances
its standing in the international community. While not a specific case law, India's
participation in international forums and agreements underscores the importance of
aligning domestic legal developments with international human rights standards.
Conclusion
The adoption of judicial impact assessments as a standard practice by the Supreme Court of
India before considering the enlargement of the scope of Part III is imperative for preserving
42
Swaraj Abhiyan v. Union of India, AIR 2016 SC 2953.
43
K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, AIR 2017 SC 4161.

fundamental rights, ensuring legal certainty and predictability, and enhancing accountability
and transparency in the legal process. These comprehensive arguments, supported by relevant
case law, provide a robust foundation for advocating this approach in the Indian legal context,
aligning the country's legal system with democratic principles and international standards.

3. WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF PART-III, INCLUDING ART. 21 AND 21A OF THE

CONSTITUTION VIS-À-VIS THE RIGHTS OF CHILDREN BEGGING ON THE
STREETS?
The Counsel on behalf of the respondents humbly submits before the Hon’ble SC that the
scope of Part-III, including Art. 21 and 21A of the Constitution vis-à-vis the rights of
children begging on the streets is limited.
3.1. Limited Scope of Article 21

3.1.1. Article 21 primarily guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, while Article
21A relates to the right to education. These provisions may not directly encompass the
issue of child begging. While there may not be a specific case directly addressing
child begging within the scope of Article 21 or 21A, it is essential to note that these
provisions have been interpreted broadly by the Indian judiciary to include various
aspects of human dignity and welfare. Courts have consistently emphasized that these
provisions are not limited to their literal interpretation. For example, the case of
Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi 44emphasized the
expansive interpretation of Article 21 to protect human dignity and prevent torture.
3.1.2. Child begging is a complex issue that requires comprehensive and specific legislation
to address effectively. Relying solely on constitutional provisions may not provide the
detailed legal framework needed to tackle this issue. The case of Asha Ranjan v.
State of Bihar45, emphasized the importance of legislation in dealing with complex
societal problems.
3.1.3. Matters related to the regulation of activities such as begging and prostitution should
be decided by the legislature, as they involve policy decisions and resource allocation.
The judiciary should respect the principle of separation of powers and not legislate on
such matters.
3.1.4. The principle of separation of powers is inherent in the Indian Constitution. While
there may not be specific case law on child begging, the doctrine of separation of
powers has been consistently upheld by the Indian judiciary. For instance, in the case
44
Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, 1981 AIR 746.
45
Asha Ranjan V. State of Bihar and Ors., (2017) (2) SCALE 709.

of State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar 46, the Supreme Court emphasized the
distinct roles of the judiciary and the legislature.
3.1.5. The Juvenile Justice Act has been instrumental in addressing issues related to children
in need of care and protection. While not a case law, the existence of such legislation
demonstrates that India has recognized the need for specialized legal frameworks to
address the rights of children.
3.1.6. The government's actions and policies aim to protect fundamental rights while
ensuring due process. The government argues that its actions are consistent with the
principles of justice and fairness.
3.1.7. In this landmark case, Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India47, the Supreme Court
emphasized that the state must follow the principles of natural justice and due process
while taking actions that affect an individual's fundamental rights. This case
underscores the importance of balancing fundamental rights with due process
considerations.
3.1.8. The government's position is that it seeks to balance the rights of children with the
broader interests of society, including public order and morality. It is striving to find a
balanced solution that respects individual rights while safeguarding the common
good.
3.1.9. In this case of Ratlam Municipality v. Shri Vardhichand,48 the Supreme Court
highlighted the importance of balancing individual rights with the larger societal
interests, particularly in matters related to public order and morality.
3.1.10. The government argues that policymaking inherently involves a degree of flexibility
and adaptability to changing circumstances. It is actively reviewing and updating
policies to address the issue of child begging and prostitution effectively.
3.1.11. The government has appointed expert committees and commissions to study the issue
comprehensively and make policy recommendations. This approach ensures that
policy decisions are based on expert opinions and data.
46
State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, 1952 AIR 75.
47
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621.
48
Ratlam Municipality v. Shri Vardhichand, 1980 AIR 1622, 1981 SCR (1) 97

3.1.12. In the case of Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan49, the Supreme Court laid down
guidelines to combat sexual harassment at workplaces. The court recognized the
importance of expert committees in formulating policies to address specific issues.
3.1.13. The arguments against addressing child begging under specific constitutional
provisions primarily revolve around the idea that child begging is a complex issue that
may require detailed legislation and the principle of separation of powers. However, it
is essential to recognize that the Indian judiciary has interpreted constitutional
provisions broadly to protect fundamental rights and human dignity, even in the
absence of explicit case law on child begging. The outcome of any case related to this
issue would ultimately depend on the court's interpretation and application of
constitutional principles in the specific context.
3.2. Limited Scope of Article 21A

3.2.1. Article 21A of the Constitution guarantees the right to education, but it is specifically
limited to primary education. The government has been diligently working to provide
free and compulsory primary education to children, and this mandate does not extend
to addressing all aspects of child welfare, including issues related to begging and
prostitution.
3.2.2. Tim-Tim already has laws and regulations in place to address child trafficking, forced
begging, and prostitution. These laws are designed to protect children from
exploitation and punish those involved in illegal activities. The government's position
is that these existing legal provisions are sufficient to address the grievances raised.
3.2.3. The government recognizes its duty to protect children's rights under the Constitution.
However, the enforcement of fundamental rights, especially in the context of Article
21A, requires substantial resources, including funding for education infrastructure and
social services. It's important to assess the state's capacity and ability to allocate these
resources effectively.
3.2.4. The Attorney General's suggestion to modify the guidelines on Public Interest
49
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241).

Litigations (PILs) to prioritize issue-based listing of petitions is a practical approach.

It would ensure that the judiciary focuses on issues that are of utmost importance and
have a broader public interest, rather than intervening in policy matters that are better
addressed by the legislature.
3.2.5. The government acknowledges the concerns raised by the Tim-Tim Rights Collective
and Shri Madhav Lal Verma. However, the government's stance is based on a careful
consideration of existing policies and international obligations. It believes that the
existing legal framework and policies adequately address the issues at hand.
3.2.6. It's essential to base policy decisions on comprehensive data and evidence. While the
issue of child begging and prostitution is a matter of concern, the government
advocates for a thorough analysis of the situation, including the potential
consequences of legalizing and regulating prostitution, before making any significant
policy changes.
3.2.7. The judiciary should defer to the expertise of the legislature in making complex
policy decisions.
3.2.8. In the case of State of Karnataka v. Union of India 50, the Supreme Court recognized
the principle of non-interference in policy matters that are within the exclusive
domain of the legislature. The court upheld the legislature's authority in determining
issues of public policy.
3.2.9. The courts should respect the competence of the legislature in dealing with complex
socioeconomic issues. In the case of Balco Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of
51
India , the Supreme Court recognized the competence of the executive and
legislative branches in formulating policies related to disinvestment and economic
reforms, emphasizing that the judiciary should not interfere in such matters unless
there is a clear violation of constitutional provisions.
3.2.10. In the case of S.R. Bommai v. Union of India52, the Supreme Court reiterated the
importance of the separation of powers and held that the judiciary should not
50
State of Karnataka v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 68, (1977) 4 SCC 608.
51
Balco Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of India, 2001 IIIAD Delhi 717, 90 (2001).
52
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, 1994 AIR 1918, 1944 SCC (3), 1, JT 1994 (2)215, 1994 SCALE (2)37.

encroach upon the domain of the legislature unless there is a constitutional violation.
3.2.11. These points emphasize the government's commitment to protecting fundamental

rights, balancing individual rights with societal interests, and ensuring that policies
are based on due process, expert input, and international standards. They support the
government's position that its actions are consistent with the principles of justice and
fairness as outlined in Part 3 of the Constitution of Tim-Tim.

4. WHETHER ART. 21A CAN BE INTERPRETED TO MANDATE THE STATE

TO PUT ALL CHILDREN FOUND BEGGING ON THE STREETS INTO
PRIMARY SCHOOLS? WHETHER REHABILITATION OF SUCH CHILDREN
CAN BE READ AS A CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY OF THE STATE?
The counsel on behalf of the respondents humbly submits before the Hon’ble SC that state is
already providing free education to children from 6-14 years, state is unable to provide the
free education and rehabilitation to all the children as it is not covered under Article 21A and
it will impact the interest of our own citizens.
4.1. Constitutional Limits of Article 21A

4.1.1. One of the primary arguments against interpreting Article 21A 53 to mandate education
for begging children is based on the constitutional limits of this provision. Article
21A54 specifically mandates free and compulsory education for children aged six to
fourteen years, focusing on primary education. Extending this mandate to older
children or children engaged in begging may stretch the constitutional boundaries of
Article 21A55.
4.1.2. In State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas 56, the Supreme Court emphasized that the
interpretation of constitutional provisions should be in accordance with their plain and
natural meaning. Article 21A57, on its face, pertains to children aged six to fourteen,
and extending it to older children may require a constitutional amendment.
4.1.3. Interpreting Article 21A58 to mandate education for begging children may encroach
upon the legislative domain. The responsibility of making policy decisions and
allocating resources, including decisions related to the education of children engaged
in begging, is primarily vested in the legislature. The judiciary should exercise
restraint and not overstep its boundaries by modifying constitutional provisions.
4.1.4. Another argument against recognizing rehabilitation as a constitutional duty is based

on the principle of separation of powers. Decisions related to policy matters, resource
allocation, and rehabilitation programs are typically within the domain of the
53
INDIAN CONST. art 21A
54
55
56
State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas, 1976 SCR (1) 906.
57
58

legislature and executive. The judiciary should exercise restraint and not encroach
upon the policy-making and administrative functions of the state.
4.1.5. In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala59, the Supreme Court emphasized the
importance of the separation of powers and the judiciary's limited role in amending
the Constitution. Modifying the scope of Article 21A to include education for begging
children may be a legislative prerogative. Courts are often reluctant to intervene in
matters requiring technical and policy expertise, as seen in various cases, including D.
S. Nakara & Others v. Union of India60.
4.1.6. Implementing a mandate to provide education for all children found begging on the
streets may pose practical and financial challenges for the state. It would require
substantial resources for infrastructure, teaching staff, and support systems. The state
may argue that such a significant policy decision should be left to the legislature,
which can assess the state's capacity and allocate resources accordingly.
4.1.7. The interpretation of Article 21A in relation to children found begging on the streets
is a complex issue that involves a delicate balance between fundamental rights,
separation of powers, and practical constraints. While arguments can be made both in
favour of interpreting Article 21A broadly to mandate education for these children
and against it based on the constitutional limits and the separation of powers,
ultimately, the interpretation of the Constitution is a matter for the judiciary to decide.
The outcome may depend on how the judiciary weighs the competing principles and
interests at stake, taking into consideration the specific facts and circumstances of the
case.61
4.2. Rehabilitation as a Constitutional Duty

4.2.1. Constitutional Text and Limitations: One of the primary arguments against reading
rehabilitation as a constitutional duty is based on the text and limitations of the
Constitution. While Article 21 guarantees the right to life and dignity, it does not
explicitly mandate rehabilitation in cases of begging children. Reading such a duty
into the Constitution may stretch the textual boundaries and result in judicial
59
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461.
60
D. S. Nakara & Others v. Union of India, 1983 AIR 130.
61

overreach.62
4.2.2. Practical and Financial Constraints: Implementing a constitutional duty of

rehabilitation for all children found begging may pose practical and financial
challenges for the state. It would require substantial resources for shelter, education,
and support services. The state may argue that such significant policy decisions
should be left to the legislature, which can assess the state's capacity and allocate
resources accordingly.
4.2.3. Resource Constraints and Prioritization: The state may argue that it faces resource
constraints and must prioritize its limited resources for the implementation of Article
21A. Focusing on children already attending schools and expanding primary
education may be more feasible than addressing the unique needs of children found
begging, which may require specialized programs and additional resources.
4.2.4. Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh63: In this landmark case, the Supreme
Court acknowledged the financial constraints on the state in implementing the right to
education and emphasized the need for resource allocation to ensure the effective
implementation of Article 21A.
4.2.5. Age-Appropriate Education: Article 21A specifies education for children aged six to
fourteen years. Children found begging may include those who are older or younger.
Extending the mandate of Article 21A to all age groups may not align with the
specific age range mentioned in the Constitution.
4.2.6. State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Shyam Sunder 64: This case discussed the scope of Article
21A and the obligation of the state to provide age-appropriate education. It
highlighted that Article 21A pertains to children aged six to fourteen years.
4.2.7. Limited Role of the Judiciary: The judiciary's primary role is to interpret and uphold
the Constitution and the law, not to make policy decisions. Recognizing rehabilitation
as a constitutional duty may blur the lines between the judiciary's role and that of the
executive and legislature, potentially leading to judicial overreach.
62
INDIAN CONST. art 21.
63
Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1993 AIR 217.
64
State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Shyam Sunder, AIR 1964 SC 1260.

4.2.8. State of Rajasthan v. Union of India 65: This case underscored the importance of the
separation of powers and judicial restraint. It affirmed that policy decisions and
resource allocation are primarily within the purview of the executive and legislative
branches.
4.2.9. Legislative Competence: Rehabilitation programs often require complex policy

decisions and resource allocation. These matters fall within the legislative competence
of the elected representatives who are accountable to the public. The judiciary should
respect the separation of powers and defer to the legislature on such policy matters.
4.2.10. The interpretation of Article 21A and the recognition of rehabilitation as a

constitutional duty involve complex legal, practical, and policy considerations. While
these additional arguments provide further perspectives on the issue, the ultimate
resolution will depend on how the judiciary weighs the competing principles and
interests, guided by constitutional principles and established legal precedents.
4.2.11. L Chandra Kumar v. Union of India66: This case discussed the limits of judicial
review and the importance of respecting legislative competence. It emphasized that
the judiciary should defer to the legislature in matters requiring complex policy
decisions.
4.2.12. These case laws illustrate how the judiciary has interpreted and applied constitutional
principles, including the right to education and the duty to protect vulnerable
populations, while also respecting the separation of powers and the legislative
authority to make policy decisions. The specific circumstances and context of each
case influence the court's decisions and provide valuable insights into the legal
landscape surrounding these issues.
4.2.13. The question of whether the rehabilitation of children found begging on the streets
can be read as a constitutional duty is a complex issue with competing principles,
including fundamental rights, separation of powers, and practical considerations. The
interpretation of the Constitution is ultimately a matter for the judiciary to decide, and
the outcome may depend on how the judiciary balances these principles in the specific
65
State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, 1977 AIR 1361.
66
Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1125.

context of the case. While arguments can be made both in favour of recognizing
rehabilitation as a constitutional duty and against it, the resolution of this issue will
have significant implications for the welfare and rights of these vulnerable children.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the debate surrounding the extension of constitutional duties to provide

education and rehabilitation to children found begging on the streets is multifaceted.
While the counsel on behalf of the respondents argues that such an extension is
necessary to safeguard the interests of our own citizens, several constitutional limits
and practical challenges must be considered.
Article 21A, which mandates free and compulsory education for children aged six to
fourteen, poses a constitutional boundary, and any expansion of its scope may require
a constitutional amendment. The separation of powers principle highlights the
judiciary's limited role in policy matters, and the financial and resource constraints of
the state must be acknowledged. Various legal precedents, such as Unnikrishnan v.
State of Andhra Pradesh and State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, underscore the
importance of judicial restraint and legislative competence in such matters.
Hence, the interpretation of Article 21A and the recognition of rehabilitation as a

constitutional duty involve a delicate balance between fundamental rights, separation
of powers, and practical constraints. The outcome will hinge on how the judiciary
weighs these competing principles, guided by constitutional principles and established
legal precedents. Regardless of the decision, it will have profound implications for the
welfare and rights of these vulnerable children, emphasizing the importance of a
careful and considered legal approach.

5. WHETHER THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK PERMITS JUDICIAL

INTERVENTION TO LEGALIZE PROSTITUTION? WHETHER THIS ISSUE
CAN REST AS A 'POLICY MATTER' BEYOND THE WRIT OF THIS COURT,
OR WHETHER THE PROTECTION OF VULNERABLE GROUPS OF SOCIETY
REQUIRES JUDICIAL INTERVENTION?
The counsel on behalf of respondent humble submits before the Hon’ble SC that the legal
framework does not permit the judiciary either to legalize prostitution or for the protection of
vulnerable society.
5.1. Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution is a gift to pimps, traffickers and
the sex industry.
5.1.1. Violation of Public Morality and Order: State of U.P. v. Kaushalya67, In this case the
High Court had struck down Section 20 of SITA on the grounds that it infringed
fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Although the High Court did not
look into the fundamental issues of prostitution or the various interests) involved in it,
Justice W. Broome declared that if a profession or trade is an “inherently immoral
activity like prostitution,” then “it is open to the state to impose a total ban; and no
one can claim any fundamental right to carry on such an activity.”
5.1.2. Legal systems often have provisions to uphold public morality and order. Legalizing
prostitution could be deemed as undermining these principles, as it could lead to a
commodification of human bodies for monetary gain. Courts have historically upheld
laws that align with prevailing societal values, and legalizing prostitution may not
align with such values.
5.1.3. Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India68, It is also well settled that policy
decisions of the Government cannot be interfered with or struck down merely on
certain factual disputes in the matter. It is not open to the court to strike down such a
decision until and unless a serious and grave error is found on the part of the Central
Government or the State Government.” Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh v. State of
A.P.69
5.1.4. Legalizing prostitution involves complex social, ethical, and moral considerations. It
67
State of U.P. v. Kaushalya, AIR 1964 SC 416.
68
Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India, (1970) 3 SCR 53.
69
Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh v. State of A.P., (2006) 4 SCC 162.

requires a nuanced understanding of the potential consequences, both positive and

negative. Courts may not have the expertise or the democratic legitimacy to weigh
these factors adequately. It is better suited for elected lawmakers to deliberate on
these issues.
5.1.5. The validity of the decision of the Government to grant license under the Telegraph
Act, 1885 to non-government companies for establishing, maintaining and working of
telecommunication system of the country pursuant to government policy of
privatization of telecommunications was challenged in Delhi Science Forum v.
Union of India70. It had been contended that telecommunications was a sensitive
service which should always be within the exclusive domain and control of the
Central Government and under no situation should be parted with by way of grant of
lance to non-government companies and private bodies. While rejecting this
contention, it observed that The national policies in respect of economy, finance,
communications, trade, telecommunications and others have to be decided by
Parliament and the representatives of the people on the floor of Parliament can
challenge and question any such policy adopted by the ruling Government
5.1.6. Legalizing prostitution could have unintended consequences, such as increased human
trafficking or exploitation of vulnerable individuals. Courts may not have the tools or
resources to predict and mitigate such consequences effectively. This is a matter that
requires a comprehensive legislative approach with careful consideration of all
potential outcomes.
5.1.7. The commercial sex industry is frequently associated with human trafficking and
organized crime. Legalizing prostitution could inadvertently provide cover for illegal
activities, making it challenging to distinguish between consensual sex work and
coerced involvement. Courts have a responsibility to uphold laws that combat human
trafficking and criminal enterprises.
5.1.8. Legal systems often strive to uphold principles of gender equality and non-
discrimination. However, legalizing prostitution may disproportionately impact
women and contribute to the perpetuation of gender-based inequalities. Courts should
consider the potential consequences of their decisions on gender dynamics within
70
Delhi Science Forum v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 1356.

society.
5.1.9. In the case of Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra71 This landmark case in
Indian jurisprudence dealt with the issue of obscenity and the boundaries of freedom
of speech and expression. The Supreme Court of India, in this case, laid down a test
for determining obscenity based on the Hicklin test, which considered whether the
material had the tendency to deprave and corrupt minds that were open to such
immoral influences. The case emphasized that obscenity should be judged from the
standpoint of the average person, applying contemporary community standards. This
judgment continues to influence how obscenity is determined in Indian law.
5.1.10. Legal systems often take into account the prevailing community standards when
interpreting laws. Legalizing prostitution might not align with the values and beliefs
of the larger community, potentially leading to societal unrest. Courts should consider
the potential impact on community cohesion when deliberating on such matters.
5.1.11. In the case of Samaresh Bose v. Amal Mitra72, the Calcutta High Court upheld the
importance of maintaining public morality and the need to regulate obscene material
in the interest of society.
5.1.12. Legalizing prostitution could have ripple effects on other areas of the law, including
family law, labor law, and immigration law. Courts should consider the potential need
for legal amendments in various sectors to accommodate the changes brought about
by legalization.
5.1.13. Fundamental rights often encompass the protection of human dignity. Legalizing
prostitution might infringe upon this principle by permitting an industry that has the
potential to exploit vulnerable individuals, particularly those coerced into the trade.
Courts have an obligation to protect individuals from exploitation and to ensure their
well-being.
5.1.14. Arguably, the issue of legalizing prostitution falls within the purview of the legislative
branch, as it involves significant social and moral considerations. In a democratic
welfare state like Tim-Tim with a written constitution, the separation of powers is a
71
Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra 1965 SCR (1) 65.
72
Bose v. Amal Mitra 1986 AIR 967 1985 SCR.

fundamental principle. The judiciary should not overstep its bounds and encroach on
the legislative domain. This matter should be left to elected representatives who can
make informed decisions after considering public opinion.
5.1.15. Legalizing prostitution73 is a matter of public policy that should be determined

through the democratic process. Elected officials are accountable to the people and
should make decisions based on the collective will of the citizens. Judicial
intervention in this matter could be seen as an affront to democratic values and the
sovereignty of the people. Eugene V. Rostow: The Democratic Character of the
Judicial Review74
5.2. No Need Of Judicial Intervention For protection of Vulnerable groups

5.2.1. State of Madras v. V.G. Row 75In this case, the Supreme Court emphasized the
principle that courts should generally avoid interfering with the legislative policy
unless it violates a constitutional provision. The case upheld the legislative power of
the state and the judiciary's limited role in reviewing the legality of legislative actions.
5.2.2. Judicial intervention in matters of public policy, especially those involving vulnerable
groups, can be seen as judicial overreach and may disrupt the balance of power
among the branches of government.
5.2.3. Protecting vulnerable groups is a complex issue with social, economic, and ethical
dimensions. Elected officials, who are accountable to the public, are better positioned
to make informed decisions based on collective will and public opinion
5.2.4. The right to life is a fundamental human right 76 enshrined in international conventions
and the constitutions of most nations, including Tim Tim. The intoxicated children
begging on the streets are not only deprived of their right to life but also subjected to
severe risks to their health and well-being. The government has a moral and
constitutional duty to protect and ensure the right to life for all its citizens. So the
Government will do in the favor of vulnerable groups.
73
Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. v. RBI, (1992) 2 SCC 343.
74
Eugene V. Rostow: The Democratic Character of the Judicial Review, (1952) 66 Harv LR 193.
75
76
Premium Granites v. State of T.N., (1994) 2 SCC 691, 714.

5.2.5. Protecting vulnerable groups requires a delicate balance between various rights and
interests. Elected representatives are better equipped to weigh competing interests and
find solutions that consider the broader societal context.
5.2.6. In the case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala 77 The Supreme Court held that
while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, this power is not absolute
and cannot be used to destroy or alter the basic structure of the Constitution. The
Court maintained that certain fundamental features of the Constitution, including the
separation of powers between the legislature, executive, and judiciary, are beyond the
amending power of Parliament. The Kesavananda Bharati case reinforces the idea that
the judiciary should exercise restraint and not overstep its bounds by modifying the
Constitution's fundamental features or expanding the scope of specific constitutional
provisions, such as Article 21A78, which is a prerogative of the legislature.
5.2.7. Constitutional Limitations on Art. 21A Interpretation: The state asserts that the
interpretation of Art. 21A79 should be restrained within its constitutional boundaries.
While the state acknowledges the importance of education as a fundamental right, it
argues that expanding Art. 21A'80s scope to include areas beyond primary education,
such as regulating prostitution, would unduly stretch the state's financial and
administrative capacities. The Constitution itself sets the boundaries of Art. 21A 81,
and any modification to these boundaries should be a prerogative of the legislature
rather than the judiciary.
5.2.8. The right to education is equally significant. Education is not only a fundamental right
but also a tool for empowerment and socio-economic development. By focusing on
ensuring that every child has access to quality education, the government can break
the cycle of poverty and exploitation that leads to child begging. Education can equip
these children with the skills and knowledge necessary for a better future.
5.2.9. D. S. Nakara & Others v. Union of India 82, While this case primarily deals with the
77
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461.
78
INDIAN CONST. art 21A.
79
80
81
82
D. S. Nakara & Others v. Union of India ,1983 AIR 130.

fixation of pension amounts, it reaffirmed the principle that policy decisions on socio-
economic matters are the domain of the legislature. It highlighted the judiciary's
restraint in matters related to policymaking and fiscal issues.
5.2.10. The government, as the custodian of its citizens' rights, has the primary responsibility
to protect and uplift the most vulnerable sections of society. It would allocate
resources and implement policies that focus on rescuing these children from the
streets, providing them with proper care, rehabilitation, and access to education. By
doing so, the government can effectively address the root causes of child begging and
ensure a brighter future for these children.
5.2.11. The state emphasizes the importance of addressing urgent issues related to child
welfare, such as child trafficking and child labor, within the existing legal framework.
The state has undertaken investigations and filed appropriate criminal proceedings to
combat these issues. The state contends that these efforts should be prioritized to
ensure the well-being of children who are citizens before considering broader legal
changes.
5.2.12. Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors83, In this case, the Supreme
Court reiterated the concept of the "basic structure" doctrine and held that
Parliament's amending power cannot be used to destroy or alter the essential features
of the Constitution, ensuring a balance of power between the judiciary, legislature,
and executive.
5.2.13. Courts have a responsibility to prevent harm to individuals and society at large.
Legalizing prostitution could expose individuals to physical, psychological, and
emotional harm, particularly when considering the vulnerabilities associated with sex
work. Courts should prioritize safeguarding individuals from harm when making
decisions.
5.2.14. Protecting vulnerable groups84 may require frequent adjustments in policies and
resource allocations. Elected officials can adapt more swiftly to changing
circumstances than the judiciary.
83
Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1980 SC 1789.
84
Harakchand Ratanchand Banthia v. Union of India & Ors., [1970] 1 SCR 479.

Conclusion
The government and policy makers have the capacity to design and implement
comprehensive policy frameworks that can address the root causes of child begging and
formulate responsible regulations, if needed, for prostitution. These frameworks can involve
multiple stakeholders, including social welfare agencies, law enforcement, healthcare
providers, and educators.
Elected officials and government agencies are accountable to the public. Citizens can hold
them accountable through democratic processes, ensuring transparency and responsiveness in
addressing these issues.
In conclusion, while judicial intervention 85 is an essential component of a functioning

democracy, there are instances where the government and policy makers are better equipped
to address complex societal issues like child begging and the legalization of prostitution. A
coordinated, comprehensive, and resourceful approach by the government can provide more
immediate and effective solutions, allowing for the protection of vulnerable groups and
addressing the underlying causes of these problems. In such cases, relying on the
government's capacity to enact sound policies and reforms may be the most pragmatic course
of action.
85
Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal & Ors., A.I.R 1967 S.C. 25.

PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:
1. The PILS should be listed under generic-cause-based titles rather than fastest-filers-
first for the larger interest of public
2. The judicial impact assessment as a thumb rule should be adopted by the court.
3. The scope of Part-III, including Art. 21 and 21A of the Constitution vis-à-vis the
rights of children begging on the streets is limited.
4. The Art. 21A can’t be interpreted to mandate the state to put all children found
begging on the streets into primary schools also for of such children can’t be read as a
constitutional duty of the State.
5. The legal framework doesn’t permit judicial intervention either to legalize prostitution
or the protection of vulnerable groups of society and this issue rest as a 'policy matter'
beyond the writ of this Court.
AND/OR
Pass any other order, direction or relief that this hon’ble court may deem fit in the
interests of justice, equity and good conscience.
And for this act kindness, the Petitioner shall as in duty bound, ever pray.
Sd/-
Counsel on behalf of the Respondent

B T H ' S C O T - T: 16 Nalsar Justice B.R. Sawney Memorial Moot Court Competition, 2023

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

B T H ' S C O T - T: 16 Nalsar Justice B.R. Sawney Memorial Moot Court Competition, 2023

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

16TH NALSAR JUSTICE B.R.

SAWNEY MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023

16TH NALSAR JUSTICE B.R. SAWNEY

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF

(IN THE MATTER FOR ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT)

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.: ___/2023

TIM-TIM RIGHTS COLLECTIVE AND ANR…..……..……………..……(PETITIONER)

UNION OF TIM-TIM & ANR. …….…...……...………...……..……….(RESPONDENT)

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 1

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 1

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 2

II. BOOKS REFERRED:

III. TABLE OF CASES:

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 3

Article 321 of the Constitution of India which reads as follows:

“32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part-

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 4

2. Chin-Min, a former President of Tim-Tim, emphasized the nation's commitment to

4. The Commissioner of Police initiated an investigation based on Tagde's article, revealing

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 5

suggested modifying the guidelines on Public Interest Litigations (PILs) to prioritize

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 6

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 7

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 8

Issue 5: Whether the legal framework permits judicial intervention to legalize

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 9

1.1. Preserving the Purpose of Public Interest Litigations

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 1

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 2

being overwhelmed by frivolous petitions.

1.2. Ensuring Thorough Consideration of Issues

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 3

cause titles helps maintain consistency in legal interpretation and decision-making.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 4

contentions raised in this written submission by following the doctrine of precedent

1.3. Promoting Judicial Efficiency

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 5

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 6

2. WHETHER THIS COURT SHOULD ADOPT JUDICIAL IMPACT

2.1. The Importance of Judicial Impact Assessment

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 7

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 8

burden on our own people.

2.2. Ensuring Legal Certainty and Predictability

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 9

2.3. Enhancing Accountability and Transparency"

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 10

emphasized the importance of transparency in political processes and electoral

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 11

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 12

3. WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF PART-III, INCLUDING ART. 21 AND 21A OF THE

3.1. Limited Scope of Article 21

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 13

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 14

3.2. Limited Scope of Article 21A

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 15

Litigations (PILs) to prioritize issue-based listing of petitions is a practical approach.

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 16

3.2.11. These points emphasize the government's commitment to protecting fundamental

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 17

4. WHETHER ART. 21A CAN BE INTERPRETED TO MANDATE THE STATE