MOOT PROBLEM

Cloud9 Cloud9, one of the world's most beautiful and picturesque islands, became
independent on 15th August 1997. The country had witnessed a violent struggle for
independence for over a century, from different powers that had colonized different
parts of the island. Cloud9 had a population of 1.1 billion people, majority of whom
belonged to a religious sect called Undus. Undus were staunch believers of the occult,
worshipped natural forces and had a strict policy against forcible/induced conversion.
Cloud9 was largely influenced by the ideals of the Constitution of India, and therefore
enacted the Constitution of Cloud9, 2000 which was mutatis mutandis with the
Constitution of India. Parliament of Cloud9 also enacted the Cloud9 Criminal Major
(Application of Indian Laws) Act, 2001 by virtue of which it adopted the Indian Penal
Code, 1860, the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 were
made applicable to Cloud9 mutatis mutandis. History of Cloud9 The term 'secularism'
was included as part of the Preamble of the Constitution of Cloud9 in the 2000s,
signifying the unwillingness of the Central Government to have a State-religion. Upon
this, several states soon passed laws prohibiting religious conversions, to curtail
religious conversions. Currently there are eight states which have such statutes in
effect. Efforts were also made to enact anti-conversion laws at the national level, but
it could not garner sufficient support in the Parliament of Cloud9. Cloud9 Vidhi Virudh
Dharma Samparivartan Pratishedh Adhyadhesh, 2022 Promulgation However in 2022,
the President of Cloud9, Glenn Sturgis promulgated the Cloud9 Vidhi Virudh Dharma
Samparivartan Pratishedh Adhyadhesh, 2022 under Article 123 of the Constitution of
Cloud9, making unlawful religious conversion a non-bailable and cognizable offence.
Preamble "To provide for prohibition of unlawful conversion from one religion to
another by misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement or by any
fraudulent means or by marriage and for the matters connected therewith or
incidental thereto.” Legislative Scheme Section DD of the Ordinance prohibits one
person from converting the religion of another person by marriage. In another words,
religious conversion by marriage is made unlawful. Violation of this provision is
punishable with imprisonment for a term which is not less than one year but which
may extend up to 5 years and a fine of minimum rupees fifteen thousand. MOOT
PROPOSITION #1styearmoot 6 If the person converted happens to be a woman, the
punishment is double the normal term and fine. The offence has been made
cognizable and non-bailable. Section PP enables any person related to the converted
person by blood or marriage to lodge an FIR against the conversion. Section YY
empowers Courts to void any marriage it is done for the sole purpose of unlawful
conversion or if unlawful conversion is done for the sole purpose of marriage. Reverse
Onus Ordinarily, in criminal cases the burden to establish the guilt of an Accused rests
on the state. This dovetails with the essential principle of every Accused having a
presumption of innocence in her favour. Over time, though, many statutory inroads
have been made into this principle. Beginning with requiring an Accused to establish
certain facts (evidential burdens), today there are several instances of Accused
persons requiring to establish innocence itself. A reverse onus of proof provision was
included in the Cloud9 Vidhi Virudh Dharma Samparivartan Pratishedh Adhyadhesh,
2022. Section GG reads: The burden of proof as to whether a religious conversion was
not effected through misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement,
or by any fraudulent means or by marriage, lies on the person who has caused the
conversion and, where such conversion has been facilitated by any person, on such
person. Cloud9's Evidence Act, 1987 statutorily legitimizes for the establishment of an
evidentiary reversal of the burden of proof in situations where the evidence is solely
within the knowledge of the accused. Scholars have noted that though these reverse
onus clauses provide for swifter legal proceedings in the majority of circumstances, it
also comes with the risk of being hasty and injudicious. The vociferous opposition
initially faced by these clauses across the common-law world has certainly shifted to a
resigned acceptance in light of the perceived needs of law enforcement. However, we
are now in a time when legislatures resort to such egregious provisions at the drop of
a hat, exhibiting a numbness to the severe curtailment of liberties they entail.
Password and Testimonial Compulsion The almost simultaneous impetus to these laws
in various states did not augur well for the religious minorities, who were already
suffering the onslaught of right-wing ascendancy in the political sphere. To raise their
voice against the visible unfair treatment to the religious minorities, several thousands
of people came on road who maintained that the Ordinance though appears to be
facially neutral but could not just be seen in isolation with the social and political
context of the Cloud9. The protestors raised concerns around the scheme of the
Cloud9 Vidhi Virudh Dharma Samparivartan Pratishedh Adhyadhesh, 2022, for
instance, it requires every religious conversion to be scrutinized and certified by the
State and it criminalises the act of religious conversion, punishing the converted and
the converter alike if not found within the legislative parameters. #1styearmoot 7
During the protest, Shumaan was a person caught in the crosshairs of law enforcement
agencies, and his mobile phone was allegedly important to advance the investigation
into offences. In September 2022, the police went before the trial court asking for
court orders to direct the Shumaan to unlock his mobile phone and grant access to
email accounts, as the Shumaan had refused to cooperate. The court duly passed this
direction and it appears the Shumaan complied. Then, the police moved another
application before the trial court, this time asking for directions that the Shumaan be
subjected to a polygraph test to confirm the mobile / email passwords, as it appeared
that the Shumaan had been lying about the same during investigation. The court
allowed this application as well and directed the polygraph tests be conducted —
orders which, according to the Shumaan, were passed without ever giving him an
opportunity to be heard and without considering if he had indeed consented to
undergoing such tests.The High Court in appeal inter alia opined that providing
passcodes or biometrics wouldn't amount to testimonial compulsion, contrasting
giving of a password with giving of bodily samples. The Matter Aggrieved with the
decision of the High Court, Shumaan moved the Supreme Court under Article 32
asserting that any direction to reveal a password to unlock a smartphone would
amount to a testimonial compulsion and therefore, barred by Article 20(3). He further
claimed that “despite the protection given to informational privacy by the Puttaswamy
case, the High Court held that a direction to reveal the password wouldn't affect the
right to privacy. Regardless, the approach adopted by the High Court of Parel restricted
the constitutional protection afforded to the citizens instead of enhancing it. With the
increase in the use of password-protected devices, this is only the first of the many
such cases to come.” On the other hand, the Criminal Justice and Police Accountability,
a criminal law awareness group run by the students of Cloud9 Marwadi University filed
a Public Interest Litigation before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality
of Section GG of the Cloud9 Vidhi Virudh Dharma Samparivartan Pratishedh
Adhyadhesh, 2022. Considering the gravity of the issues pending adjudication, a
Constitution Bench of Supreme Court of Cloud9 comprising of Justices Jake Harper,
Charlie Harper, Alan Harper, Greg Melnik and Eldritch McElroy agreed to admit, club,
and decide the issue, in the manner contained in the following paragraph. Participants
to prepare litigation strategies and legal submissions for the relevant stakeholders in
the matter on the following issues: a.Argue on the constitutionality of the reverse onus
clause crafted in Section GG of the Cloud9 Vidhi Virudh Dharma Samparivartan
Pratishedh Adhyadhesh, 2022; b. Argue on the validity of directions passed to reveal
passwords of personal electronic possessions in light of Article 20(3).
DISCLAIMER: The Moot Court Problem is not intended to and does not attempt to
resemble any incident, organisation or any person living or dead. All situations in the
Moot Court Problem are fictitious and any resemblance to any incident, organisation
or person, if any, is not intended, but merely coincidental.