TEAM -5

ULL18605 – MOOT COURT

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH KEDAR

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISPUTE RELATING TO CONSTITUTIONALITY OF JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT
( CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN), 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN THE MATTER OF

People for the Education and protection of Children (PEPC)

….Petitioner
V.
State of Kedar
….Respondent

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH KEDAR

UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227OF CONSTITUTION OF KEDAR

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

NAME :
REG NO:
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1) Kedar, a country with laws similar to India, enacted legislation in 2012 aimed at
addressing increasing youth crime rates, particularly focusing on the protection of
vulnerable youth.

2) Four individuals, namely Amar, Ayan, Anthony, and Surjeet, formed a gang known as
the "Baccha Gang" in the Emiya district of South Kedar. They engaged in petty
crimes to support their drug habit, starting from their early teens.Sam, a 12-year-old
boy from a middle-class family experiencing parental divorce, became friends with
the "Baccha Gang" in early 2012. Initially seeking a sense of belonging, Sam
distanced himself from the gang upon realizing their involvement in criminal
activities.

3) On January 5, 2013, the gang met Sam at a local tea stall and went to the woods on
the outskirts of Emiya. The following morning, Sam was reported missing, and his
body was found two days later, displaying severe head trauma.Amar, Ayan, Anthony,
and Surjeet were arrested for Sam's murder. At the time of the crime, Amar was 18,
Ayan and Anthony were 17, and Surjeet was 16.

4) Amar was tried as an adult and sentenced to life imprisonment, while Ayan, Anthony,
and Surjeet were tried before the Juvenile Justice Board to determine if they should be
tried as adults. The Board deemed them capable of standing trial as adults, and they
were sentenced to 8 years of rigorous imprisonment each.A public interest litigation
was filed by People for the Education and Protection of Children (PEPC) alleging the
unconstitutionality of certain provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act and biased
decision-making by the Board, prompting the High Court of South Kedar to hear the
matter.

THE LAWS OF KEDAR ARE PARI MATERIA WITH THOSE OF INDIA

 ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the petition in the present case is maintainable before the Hon’ble High
Court of South Kedar ?

2. Whether the juvenility will depend upon the nature of offence committed as in the
existing scenario as most of the juveniles are engaged in horrendous and heinous
crimes like murder, robbery and drug etc?

3. Whether the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act,
2012 classifying among Juveniles are within the ambit of Constitutional and
International Provisions?