MOOT COURT CASE NO.

The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 31.01.2004 as
per the Hindu Religious Rites and Customs. A son Rahul was born and is 11 years old now.
He is also academically exceptional. At the time of marriage, the Respondent was a Business
Man in Germany.

After marriage, the Appellant and the Respondent lived together for 3 months and
thereafter lived separately and the appellant went back to Germany because of the
misunderstandings between them. Only during business trips to India, he visited his son
who lived with the mother in her flat, which was gifted to her by her parents as Stridhan.
With every visit of the husband, the misunderstandings between the spouses became
aggravated and he started questioning the character and morality of the wife. The wife
always tried her level best to save their marriage.

In the recent 10 days trip of Mr. Anil, he stayed with his wife in her place. During the stay,
the harassment and cruelty of the Appellant crossed the extreme extent for which the
respondent was compelled to file a petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty. The
husband filed an original petition under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 for the custody
of 10 years old son and also a petition for Restitution of Conjugal Rights.

The Principal Judge of Family Court passed an Ex- Parte Decree of divorce in favour of the
wife and petition for Restitution of Conjugal Rights filed by the appellant was dismissed for
default. After considering the oral evidence adduced by the parties and examining the
documentary evidence and also interviewing the child, the custody should be given to the
mother and dismissed the original petition of the father filed under the Guardians and
Wards Act. The husband filed an appeal before the High Court against the order of the Trial
Court.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the Appellant Mr. Anil has locus standi to file an appeal in the High Court?
2. Will remarriage of the respondent amounts to termination of guardianship?
3. Whether the decision of the subordinate court of dismissing the petition for
restitution of conjugal rights was justified?
4. Whether the custody of the child to his mother will be detrimental to his physical
and mental welfare? And whether the financial condition of the mother shall be
taken into consideration while giving away the custody of the child?
5. Whether the act of the husband (accusation of unchastity) actually amounted to
cruelty towards his wife?
MOOT COURT CASE NO. 2

The Mahapradesh Law Colleges Managements’ Association Vs The Bar Council of

Mahishmati& Another
Mahapradesh is one of the States of the Union of Mahishmati, governed by Constitution
similar to that of The Constitution of India. The State government decided to conduct CET
for admission in to Law courses from the academic year 2016-17 onwards through
Government Resolution No. 111 dated 01-01-2016 and informed all law
colleges/Universities, which are offering law courses stating that the admission process for
1st year of 3 and 5 year LL.B Courses will be done through the CET known as ‘Mahapradesh
Common Entrance Test-Law’. The State Govt. also informed that the law
colleges/Universities which are having Government Permission, University Affiliation and
the Approval of The Bar Council of Mahishmati (hereinafter referred as BCM) are only be
allotted candidates. The government directed through its circular directed all law colleges to
obtain the necessary approvals from the respondent No.1, i.e., the BCM by remitting the
prescribed inspection fee within the specified time. Being aggrieved by these conditions,
The Mahapradesh Law Colleges Managements Association filed a Writ Petition in the
Hon’ble Supreme Court against BCM and the State of Mahapradesh and sought the relief of
allotment of candidates to all Law Colleges which were duly permitted by the Government
and Universities and further prayed to direct the BCM, and the State Government to refund
the inspection fee collected by the BCM with interest and to declare that ‘no approval is
needed’ from the BCM. The petitioner association contended that its Law Colleges cannot
be compelled to get approval of BCM as there is no such statutory compulsion either under
Mahishmati University Grants Commission Act, The Advocates Act, 1961 or Mahapradesh
Universities Act, 1994 subsequently replaced with Mahapradesh Public Universities Act,
2016. Further the BCM is not entitled to fix and collect the inspection fee without consulting
the stakeholders. The petitioner’s association expressed its serious concerns about the
competency, integrity and honesty of Inspection Teams of BCM. Further it has contended
that the statutory duties/functions of the BCM are to regulate the legal profession only. The
respondent BCM has stated that it has derived the authority from The Advocates Act, 1961
and the Rules framed there under from time to time to regulate and maintain the standards
of legal education. The respondent BCM further submitted that the students who are
admitted and passed out from such colleges without approval from BCM will not be eligible
or permitted to enroll as Advocates. It further stated that the petitioner and the State
Government will have to face severe consequences for such unlawful admissions.
The second respondent State Government categorically submitted its say stating that the
respondent no.1 has no role to play except to confine to its functions as per Sec.7 (1) (h) (i)
of The Advocates Act,1961. Further it has stated that during the pendency of the present
Writ it has withdrawn the circular compelling the Law Colleges to obtain approval from the
BCM. The said case is posted for final arguments of Petitioner and Respondent No.1.
ISSUES BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT:
1. Whether the Rules of Legal Education, 2009 framed by the BCM be declared null and void
to the extent that they are in contradiction with the provisions of The Advocates Act, 1961.
2. Whether the BCM’s denial of enrolment of any candidate as an Advocate, who passed out
from any Law College without its approval of affiliation is constitutionally valid?
3. Whether the BCM and Government of Mahapradesh are liable to refund the inspection
fee collected with interest?

The counsel for the parties may also refer the following for arguments:
A. The Advocates Act, 1961 and Functions and Powers of BCM are very much replica of The
Advocates Act, 1961(India) and Bar Council of India Rules under Part IV.
B. The Advocates Act, 1961 and the Rules framed there under from time to time relating to
Legal Education.
C. The University Grants Commission Act, 1956.
D. The Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994/ Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 and
the Reports of Law Commission of India.
MOOT COURT CASE NO. 3

1. At village Bahadurgarh in Virganj district, there is an abandoned aerodrome where large

quantity of valuable aeroscrap is collected. The Defence Department left two Choukidars
namely, Jishnu and Jitender with a view to prevent pilferage by unauthorized persons.

2. The aerodrome area is surrounded by many tribal villages which are inhabited mostly by
Mahi tribes, which is an uneducated and orthodox tribe. The tribes have a very strong belief
in existence of ghosts and the abandoned aerodrome earned notoriety in that area as being
infested with ghosts.

3. One day Dushyant Singh from the firm of Singh Brothers, Newcity, visited village
Bahadurgarh accompanied by his servant Vir Bahadur for the purpose of purchasing the said
aerodrome. He and his servant stayed in the nearby house of Ravi Kishan, who is running a
tea stall in village Bahadurgarh.

4. There are several foot-paths cutting across the aerodrome, leading one village to another.
But on account of their fear of ghosts the people would not ordinarily venture out at night
alone on those paths.

5. When Dushyant Singh and his servant Vir Bahadur were in the village, one Chand Mahi
from Village Rajgarh, which is a nearby village of Bahadurgarh, went to the tea-stall of Ravi
Kishan in village Bahadurgarh at about 8:30 pm and took shelter there for a night because
he was afraid of proceeding back alone to his village Rajgarh at that hour of the night for
fear of ghosts.

6. In the midnight Dushyant Singh and his servant thereafter had a conversation with Chand
Mahi and in their conversation Dushayant Singh showed his anxiousness to see ghosts, and
Chand Mahi suggested that “today is a full moon night, the ghost will be most active on this
specific night”, relying on this statement of Chand Mahi, Dushyant Singh and his servant Vir
Bahadur agreed to travel with him at night and offered to drop him back to his village in the
process, they jointly also persuaded Ravi Krishan to accompany them to see ghosts. All four
of them thereafter initiated their on foot journey with torchlight in their hands to Rajgarh
village through a foot-path across aerodrome.

7. While passing through the aerodrome they noticed a flickering light at distance of about
500 meters from path-way. Strong wind was blowing and the movement of the light in that
breeze created in them an impression that it was not an ordinary light but 'will-o' the wisp.'
They also found some apparitions moving around the flickering light. They thought that
some ghosts were dancing around the light and they all ran towards that place.

8. Vir Bahadur (Servant) reached first with his 'khukhri' in hand and began to attack ghosts
indiscriminately. Ravi Krishan arrived there some time later, however Vir Bahadur did not
notice Ravi Krishan which lead to striking of one of his Khukuri blows to Mr. Ravi Kishan
causing severe injury.
9. In pain Ravi Kishan screamed loudly that Vir Bahadur had injured him. In the mean time
other injured persons also raised a cry of distress and only after hearing so many cries Vir
Bahadur stopped attacking the people. It was subsequently discovered that the apparitions
that Vir Bahadur attacked were actually some female of the Rajgarh village known to Mr.
Chand Mahi, who were there for collecting Mohua flower at night under a 'Mohua' tree with
hurricane lantern, which they wanted to bring at the Kali Mata temple for fulfilling a local
tribal ceremony, which was a common practice and was done on every full moon night by
the ladies of Mahi tribe.

10. In consequence of indiscriminate attack with his 'Khukhri' one Geeta Mahi was killed,
and two other females namely Ganga Mahi and Sunahri Mahi were grievously injured.

11. FIR was registered against Vir Bahadur and he was charged under Sec. 302 I.P.C. for
murder of Geeta Mahi, under Sec. 326 I.P.C. for having caused grievous hurt to persons
injured and under Sec. 324 I.P.C. for having caused hurt to Ravi Krishan.

12. The learned Sessions Judge held the accused guilty on the ground that he did not act
with 'due care and attention’.

13. The accused went on appeal before the Hon’ble Taxila High Court.
a) The appellant stated that when he attacked his victims, he thought he was attacking
ghosts and not human beings. But it was urged by the prosecution that he did not act with
'due care and attention".
b) Ravi Kishan has materially contradicted his own previous statement made under Section
161 Criminal Procedure Code. In his earlier statement under that section he admitted that
Dushyant Singh persuaded him to go out of his house at night to see witches. However,
before the Court of Session, he did not admit that he went with Dushyant Singh to see
witches.
c) The Court further called into question the credibility of evidence given by Dushyant Singh,
the court held that regardless of the fact that the accused is servant of Dushyant and he
might have sympathy for his servant, but Dushyant’s evidence have been consistent
throughout and therefore reliable.
d) The Court also refused to rely on the statement of Chand Mahi, who was being escorted
at the time of incident, because though he had stated before the Police that on account of
fear of ghost he took shelter in the tea stall of Ravi Kishan that night and did not venture out
until Dushyant Singh, his servant and Ravi Kishan agreed to escort him to his village, he
resiled from that statement while giving evidence in Court of Sessions Judge and tried to
make it appear as though he was a brave man who had no fear of ghosts. Therefore his
testimony was not given much importance.
e) It was also argued before the court that based on the testimony of two guards Jishnu and
Jitender it was clear that the appellant had a torch in his hand.
f) After deciding on the testimony High Court decided on the application of general defence.
The court decided that the benefit of general defence is available to person who by reason
of mistake of fact in good faith believes himself to be justified by law in doing an act. And it
was clear from the statement of Dushyant Singh that the accused was a firm believer of
ghost and thought beyond shadow of a doubt that he was attacking ghosts. Therefore the
court held that the accused is entitled to the protection of general defence.
g) The Hon’ble Taxila High Court held the accused not guilty on the ground that the actions
of Vir Bahadur was consequence of bona fide mistake of fact and under a sincere belief that
he was attacking ghosts and not human beings and hence he was acquitted relying on
Section 79 of I.P.C.

Now the State has, as a result of the aforementioned Taxila High Court’s judgment, filed an
appeal/Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Keeping in mind all the aforementioned points and any other relevant points, prepare the
grounds for filing of appeal/petition and the arguments from both the sides.

**The Laws of Union of India are applicable in the “State of Taxila”.

 MOOT COURT CASE NO. 4

Reema, an eighteen year old girl was a student of 12th class. She belonged to a lower
middle class family. Her father used to work as a clerk in a private firm. She had always been
an ambitious and a very bright student. To support her father she used to give tuitions.
Ramesh, Accused No.1, math’s teacher of Reema in her school secretly developed emotions
for her. Reema had always admired him as her teacher. On Reema’s 18th birthday Ramesh
organised a birthday party for her at his house and gifted her an expensive watch. Unaware
of Ramesh’s feelings Reema accepted the same. On 14th Feb 2013, Ramesh proposed to
Reema for marriage. Reema , however, told him to speak to her parents regarding the same.
On 20th Feb Ramesh approached her parents with the proposal. However, they rejected his
offer and warned him not to contact her anymore as they did not want that there should be
any kind of distraction to their daughter as her XII boards were approaching. They strongly
admonished Reema and threatened that they will discontinue her studies. Thereafter she
started avoiding Ramesh. On one occasion Reema also made it clear to him that she will not
go against the wishes of her parents and asked him not to follow her anymore. Despite the
disinterest shown by Reema, Ramesh continued to follow Reema to her tuition classes and
contacted her personally, on phone and through internet, believing that all her actions were
under pressure from her parents. Reema reported the same to her parents. The parents
rebuked him for his unwarranted acts. He, however, tried to convince them about his
feelings for her and further stated that he wanted to marry her. They beat him and asked
him to leave. Enraged with the feeling of dejection, Ramesh went to Mahesh in whom he
always confided and narrated the whole thing. Mahesh, aged 45, has always supported
Ramesh, who was residing with him, ever since his parents died in a road accident in 2000.
Mahesh, who had always treated Ramesh as his son, could not bear the pain of Ramesh.
Mahesh suggested to Ramesh that he should find Reema alone and take her to the temple
for marrying her without information to her parents. In case Reema would offer any
resistance due to parental pressure, Mahesh will threaten her with a bottle of acid to
pressurise her to come with them to the temple. Ramesh, who was initially reluctant,
agreed to the plan on the condition that no harm will be caused to Reema and bottle of acid
will only be used as a tool to threaten her for compliance to their wishes. On 23rd march,
2013 as per the plan, finding Reema passing on a lonely road, Ramesh and Mahesh, who
were waiting for Reema, got out of the car. Ramesh approached Reema and asked her to
accompany him to the temple so that they can get married. On Reema’s refusal, Mahesh
carrying the bottle of acid, threatened Reema. Ramesh started dragging her into the car.
Reema started shouting loudly. To teach a lesson to Reema, Mahesh opened the bottle and
threw the acid on her face and then both Mahesh and Ramesh fled away in the car
belonging to and driven by Mahesh leaving the girl in immense pain. The girl was taken to
the hospital by some passerby. The doctor immediately conducted the surgeries and opined
that the injuries were grievous. FIR was lodged. Statement of Reema was recorded. A case
was registered against both the accused under Sec 326A r/w Sec 34 IPC, 1860 and Ramesh
was also charged under Sec 354D, IPC, 1860. Mahesh absconded and was declared a
proclaimed offender while Ramesh was arrested by police from his home and the bottle of
acid and car, used in the crime, were seized from his possession. After investigation, he was
put to trial before the Sessions Court, where he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Sessions Court convicted Ramesh under section 326A r/w section 34 of IPC, 1860 and
sentenced him to 10 yrs of rigorous imprisonment. He was also asked to pay compensation
to Reema to the tune of Rs 2,00,000/- to be paid immediately. He was also awarded
rigorous imprisonment for 2 years under Section 354D, IPC, 1860. Both the sentences were
to run concurrently. Accused, aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, appealed before the
High Court seeking acquittal. Whereas, State filed appeal for demanding life imprisonment
and also the enhancement of the amount of compensation taking into account the following
facts:

 Rs 6.5 lakh have already been spent on the 6 major surgeries done till date;

 10-15 surgeries still need to be done;

 Despite various surgeries Reema has permanently lose her left eye vision;

 Permanent scars not only on the skin of her face and hands will remain but

 also deep inside her memory which will adversely affect her future prospects; Her
father was a clerk in a private firm which dismissed him after he went on

 a leave for her treatment. Now he is jobless. There are two other sisters of Reema who
also need to be supported.

High court adjudicated in favour of the accused by acquitting him from the charges
under Secion 326A r/w Section 34 and Sec 354D IPC, 1860 and dismissed the appeal of
the State, being bereft of any substance by holding that under the circumstances of the
case the trial court had wrongly held the accused liable under Section 326A, IPC 1860, by
invoking Section 34 IPC, 1860 as no common intention to commit offence of Acid Attack
under Section 326A could be proved. The High Court held that the offence of stalking
under Section 354D was also not made out against the accused. The High Court,
however, recommended the District Legal Services Authority to decide upon the
quantum of compensation to be awarded by the State Government to the victim as per
Section 357A, Cr PC within one month. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the High Court
acquitting the accused, the State filed an appeal before the Supreme Court on the
ground that High Court has failed to take notice of the fact that common intention was
present as Ramesh and Mahesh have agreed to the use of bottle of acid in their plan of
abduction. Acid was thrown in furtherance of that common intention. The state
appealed for considering the offence as heinous and to award life imprisonment under
Sec 326A r/w Section34 and Section 354D and also to enhance the compensation
awarded by the Sessions Court to be paid by the accused to the victim under Section
326A, IPC, 1860 in addition to the compensation to be paid by the State Government
under Sec 357A Cr PC. The State also sought permission for addition of charge under Sec
366 IPC.
 MOOT PROBLEM NO. 5

Indiva is a small developing country where the freedom of speech and expression is
guaranteed as a fundamental right under the Constitution of Indiva. Bangistan is the
neighbouring country of Indiva. However, in last few months there have been various
instances where freedom of speech and expression has come under the scanner in Indiva.
Mr. Pappu Yadav filed a criminal case under section 124A of IPC (Indiva Penal Code) against
Kamla Mehta, an actor-politician who is a member of the Indiva National Party, the largest
opposition party for her comment on social media “Minister Mohan Singh said that „going
to Bangistan is like going to hell‟. It is nothing like that. People there are just like us and
there is no difference. They treated us very well”. On the receipt of the complaint, summons
was issued against Kamla Mehta. Kamla Mehta being aggrieved by these summonses
challenged the constitutionality of Sections 124A of the IPC stating it to be violative of
Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of Indiva before the Supreme Court of Indiva. Lamnesty
International, an NGO, conducted a campaign named “Broken Families of Vienna” (Vienna
being a State of Indiva) where they talked about the human rights violations by Indiva Army
on the people of Vienna and invited the victims of these violations to speak. During the
debate the Indiva Peoples Party (IPP, which is the ruling party) was heavily criticized for its
inaction. Moreover at the end of the program the debate got heated and there were heard
some anti-Indiva slogans. Democratic Students Union (DSU) held protests on the hanging of
Faizal Khan convicted of terror attack on the parliament of Indiva on the campus of Murli
Sankar University for which the permission was refused by the University. Anti-Indiva
Slogans and slogans to overthrow the government were raised in the event. A complaint
was filed against Raju Kumar the President of DSU for the charges of Sedition. The
disciplinary committee of the university investigated the matter to find that the slogans
were raised by a group of outsiders wearing masks. All Indiva Student Organization (AISO) a
student body associated with Indiva Peoples Party (IPP), was responsible for filing the
complaint against Lamnesty International and Raju Kumar under section 124A of the IPC.
National Crime Records Bureau in its report stated that in 2014 as many as 47 cases of
sedition were filed leading to the arrest of 58 people and there has been an alarming
increase in the cases in 2015. In 2016 as many as 21 cases have been filed. Kamla Mehta,
Lamnesty Interntaional and Raju Kumar filed a PIL challenging the validity of Section 124A as
being violative of Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21. As all the above issues concerns
interpretation of Article 19(1) (a), 19(2) and 21 of Indiva Constitution it was placed before a
Special Bench of the Supreme Court of Indiva to decide.
Issues:

1. Whether Section 124A of IPC infringes the fundamental right of freedom of speech and
expression enshrined under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution?

2. Whether the people enjoy unfettered right to freedom of speech and expression?

3. Whether someone who advocates the use of violence to overthrow the government is
entitled to protection under Art. 19(1)(a)? Does a harsh criticism of the government amount
to an act that undermines the security of the state or a disruption of public order to make a
case under Section 124A? 4. Whether Sections 124A of IPC infringes the fundamental right
to life and liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution?

Note: The laws of Indiva are in parity with Indian Laws.

 MOOT PROBLEM 6

Indica is a democratic country and has a detailed Constitution along with various laws.
Anisha, the daughter of Mrs. Sanjana Mehta and Mr. Rakesh Mehta is a well-established
businesswoman in Palam, New Delhi. Dr. Neeraj, the son of Mrs. Anjali Kumar and Dr. Arjun
Kumar is a PhD holder and a professor at R. M University, New Delhi. Anisha got married to
Neeraj as per Hindu Rites on 10th December 2007 and she shifted with Neeraj to stay along
with her in-laws at Saket, New Delhi. In 2008, from the said wedlock the couple was blessed
with a son named Karan. Although they belonged to a middle-class background, the family
afforded all the comforts to Karan. Karan was immensely loved and pampered by his
grandparents. Dr. Arjun, the grandfather was a retired man, therefore enjoyed spending
most of the time with his grandson. Dr. Arjun used to take Karan to school all by himself and
also used to bring him back, took him for vacations and imbibed in him all the valuable
morals and ethics. The family led a happy life but unfortunately, when Karan was six years
old, his father Neeraj passed away in the year 2014. Immediately after the death of the
husband, Anisha shifted to her paternal home along with her son, Karan. There Karan was
offered all the luxury as Mr. and Mrs. Mehta were quite well off. As time passed, she got
married to Mr. Rohan, a businessman at Gurgaon, Haryana on 29th November, 2016. Mr.
Rohan already had two sons from his previous marriage, therefore Anisha decided not take
Karan along with her. She left her child with Karan was pampered with love and gifts at his
maternal grandparents’ house. However, Mr. and Mrs. Mehta had to travel for work about
300 kms away from their residence, as such they used to stay in a flat near their workplace
and returned home to their grandchild only on weekends. Two caretakers were appointed
for Karan, who were responsible for his well-being. Karan was admitted in the best school of
New Delhi, which was 55 kms away from their home. The driver was responsible for taking
him and bringing him back from school in their personal car. The child was also given
expensive gadgets to play and pass his time with. Overall, the maternal grandparents’ kept
him in the lap of luxury and showered him with love whenever When Mr. and Mrs. Kumar
came to know about Anisha’s remarriage and the fact that she had not taken the child along
with her, they asked Anisha and her parents for the custody of the child to which they
refused. Aggrieved of this Mr. Kumar filed an application under section 7 of the Guardians
and Wards Act, 1890, for their appointment as guardians and custodian of the child in the
Family Court on 25th February, 2017. Mr. Kumar also filed a separate application before the
Family Court for injunction against Anisha restraining her from giving the child in adoption
to anyone including her parents. The Family court vide its order dated 26.2.2017 granted an
ex-parte order of injunction against Anisha as prayed for and issued notice to file objection
by 26.3.2017 for show cause. Mr. Mehta appeared before Family Court and filed objection
stating that the child was given to him in adoption by his daughter Anisha, verbally on
22.2.2017 and by a deed of adoption, which was executed and registered on 27.2.2017. Mr.
Mehta prayed for vacation of the order of injunction by stating that Anisha had already
given the child to him so there arises no the question of restraining. Mr. Mehta further
prayed for his appointment as guardian of the child on the Anisha also filed her objection
separately by stating that she was the natural guardian so the application for appointment
of guardian was not maintainable. In the meanwhile, Mr. Kumar had brought a separate suit
before the District Judge for cancellation of the deed of adoption executed in favour of Mr
Mehta. The Family court after hearing the matter, rejected the prayer of Mr. Mehta on the
ground that the matter of adoption was pending before the District Court. The Family Court
also rejected the prayer of Mr. Kumar on the ground that the Family Court allowed the
prayer of Anisha on the sole ground that she was the mother (natural guardian) of the child.
Aggrieved by the decision of the Family Court, Mr. Mehta and Dr. Arjun Kumar filed their
appeals in the Hon’ble High Court questioning the validity of the orders passed. Mr. Mehta
appealed on the ground that even if the matter of adoption was pending before the Civil
Court, the fact of adoption of the child could not be denied. He further stated in the appeal
that unless the adoption is cancelled by a decree of Civil Court, the Family Court ought not
to have denied his right of guardianship. Mr. Kumar assailed the validity of the decision of
the Family Court on the ground that the Trial Court failed to look into the crucial issue of
paramount intertest of the After hearing both the parties, the High Court also rejected the
appeals stating that Thereupon, Mr. Mehta filed a SLP before Supreme Court against the
order of rejection of appeal by High Court. Mr. Mehta in the Supreme Court claimed that
once a guardian and custodian is appointed by the natural guardian, no person had the right
to question or cancel it therefore he should be declared as the guardian and Dr. Arjun also
filed a SLP in the Supreme Court against the order of the High Court praying for the
Guardianship and Custody of the Child.

NOTE: All the laws of Indica are Pari Material to that of India. there is no error of law made
by the Family Court in its orders. 15 September, 2020 admitted both the SLP’s and has called
for a clubbed hearing.

NOTE: All the laws of Indica are Pari Material to that of India.
 MOOT PROBLEM 7

1. The State of Rajputra, situated in the south western part of Brahmasthan is a highly
populated state with diverse mix of culture, tradition, religion and geographically covered
with hills rivers lakes and thick forests. There is a temple called 'The Satpura
Kaliyugvardhan', a temple of great antiquity situated in the north eastern part of Rajputra
on the banks of river Satpura. The temple is also considered as 'religious denomination' of
its own.

2. 'The Satpura Kaliyugvardhan' temple is renowned for lakhs and lakhs of pilgrims reaching
throughout the year to worship Lord Kalyugvardhan after undergoing 51 days strict religious
vows and penance which includes a daily visit to any temple in their locality, wearing chain
made of beeds of Rudraksh, sticking completely to vegetarian diet, and following celibacy,
teetotalism, controlling anger, and should not cut hair and nails and not using any profanity.
They must try their maximum to help others, and see everything around them as Lord
Kaliyugvardhan. They are expected to take bath twice a day and only wear plain black or
brown coloured traditional clothing.

3. 'The Satpura Kaliyugvardhan' is usually considered a staunch celibate god. There are 18-
sacred steps that lead to the sanctum sanctorum. The temple has been maintaining a strict
rule of prohibiting women folks of specific age group from entering into the temple. As per
Hindu traditions and customs of Rajputra women aged between 10 and 50, that is those
who are in menstruating age, are barred from entering the 'The Satpura Kaliyugvardhan'
temple. The Hindu Community of Rajputra believes that if women of menstruating age visits
'The Satpura Kaliyugvardhan' temple then it will destroy the sanctity of the diety.

4. On the way to the 'The Satpura Kaliyugvardhan' temple there is a police station where
women devotees are restricted from proceeding, and in case women manage to slip by, 'The
Satpura Kaliyugvardhan temple's security staff do not allow them to enter into the temple.

5. 'The Brahmasthan Women's Rights Association' approached the Supreme Court of

Brahmasthan seeking a direction to allow entry of women into 'The Satpura Kaliyugvardhan'
temple without age restrictions. It has also been claiming that the present restriction on
women's entry is a discrimination on the basis of sex and is a clear cut violation of their
fundamental rights enshrined under The Brahmasthan Constitution and thus right to
worship Diety of once choice is being violated here by the Board. The Brahmasthan
Women's Rights Association also contented in front of Supreme Court of Brahmasthan that
the discrimination which is prevailing in matters of entry into 'The Satpura Kaliyugvardhan'
temple was neither a ritual nor a ceremony associated with Hindu religion as nowhere else
in Brahmasthan other than 'The Satpura Kaliyugvardhan' one can see such restriction which
is totally anti-Hindu.

6. 'The Satpura Kaliyugvardhan' Temple's Management Board, which maintains the temple,
had replied that the ban was in accordance with centuries-old tradition. The Board also
contented that Lord Kaliyugvardhan being a staunch celibate God (one who has vowed to
remain celibate) and that it is not possible for women to put up with the days of celibacy
like men. Moreover, only those who had observed penance and followed the customs are
eligible to enter The Satpura Kaliyugvardhan' temple.

7. 'The Satpura Kaliyugvardhan' temple Management Board thus contended that the
restriction is in accordance with a usage from time immemorial and not discriminatory
under The Brahmasthan Constitution. The Board also contended that according to 'The
Satpura Kaliyugvardhan poojari'(pandit /priests/)these customs and usages had to be
followed for the welfare of the temple. The Board has pointed out in front of the Supreme
court that there are few rituals where The Satpura Kaliyugvardhan 'Temple poojari would
perform a "purification ceremony" at the 18-sacred steps that lead to the sanctum
sanctorum, whenever the rules are violated. The last ceremony took place in January 2010,
after a 34-year-old woman almost climbed 18 steps which led to the 'sanctum sanctorum'.
The Board also contended the right to restrict the entry of women folks, which are
protected under the The Brahmasthan Constitution.

8. 'The Brahmasthan Women's Rights Association' pleaded before the court to uphold the
right to equality that is being guaranteed by the Constitution of Brahmasthan by allowing
the entry of women of all age groups into 'The Satpura Kaliyugvardhan' temple. 'The
Brahmasthan Women's Rights Association' also claimed that there are certain news feeds to
prove that there were few instances where woman having entered the sanctum sanctorum
of 'The Satpura Kaliyugvardhan' temple with the permission of 'The Satpura Kaliyugvardhan
Temple's Management Board' The polity and structures of Republic of Brahmasthan are
parimateria to the Republic of India and the Constitution of Brahmasthan 1950, is
parimateria with the Constitution of India, 1950. Similarly the Rules and Regulations and
Legislations with respect to Maintenance and administration of temples, of State of Rajputra
are also in parimateria with State of Kerala.
 MOOT PROBLEM 8

PQR & Ors Petitioners Vs. State of Mahadpur Respondents

The State of Mahadpur, by an amendment dated 4th November, 2016, brought about an
amendment to the Mahadpur Preservation of Animals Act, 1976 [hereinafter referred to as
the MPA, 1976]. It was published in the Mahadpur Gazette on 4th November, 2016. The said
amendment has received President’s assent on November 4th, 2016. The newly added
Sections, namely, Sections 5A to 5D, in effect, imposed a total ban, inter alia, on the
transportation, slaughter, import and possession of any flesh of cows, bulls and bullocks
slaughtered outside the State of Mahadpur. Also, by sections 9A and 9B, the burden of
proving that the slaughter, transport, export outside the State, sale, purchase or possession
of Flesh of cow, bull or bullock, was not in contravention of the MPA, 1976 is upon the
accused. There was a major furore amongst certain class of the Public as well as the
slaughter House Owners, that the said total Ban, being first of its kind, is highly arbitrary and
Unconstitutional. Being aggrieved by the said ban, a Public Interest Litigation came to be
filled by a public spirited citizen, PQR, in the Hon’ble High Court, challenging the vires of the
MPA Act, 1971. The Slaughter Houses Association also filed a Writ Petition on 13th
December, 2016 challenging the vires of the MPA Act, 1971. The said Petitions raised several
challenges, inter alia.

a. Sections 5A to 5D violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Right of Privacy includes

right of choice. The provisions as amended have taken away the fundamental right of
Citizens right of choice and right to be left alone.

b. Section 9-B is also violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India since, the reverse
burden of proof is cast upon the accused to show that he is innocent, violating the general
presumption of the accused being innocent until proven guilty.

c. The amended provisions have also been challenged on the ground of being violate of
article 19(1) (g), inter alia, freedom of trade. d. There is also a challenge on the amendments
being violate of the Fundamental Right to Practice and Propagate Religion under Article 25
as well as violation of Cultural Right under Article 29.

The State of Mahadpur, defended the vires of the said Amendment, inter alia, on the
following grounds namely:

a. Right of privacy is not an absolute fundamental Right. Every Fundamental Right is subject
to reasonable restrictions.
b. Fundamental Rights cannot be read in isolation but along with the Directive Principles and
Fundamental Duties. The Petitioners cannot seek violation of Fundamental rights when a
Legislation seeks to achieve a “Compelling Public Interest”.

c. Reasonable restrictions in implementation of Directive Principles of State Policy should be

upheld as being in Public Interest and individual interest must yield to the same.

d. The Apex Court has brought within its ambit the Right of Life for Animals as well.

The Hon’ble High Court has upheld the validity of the amendments and the Petitioners are
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition under Article 136. The
Mahadpur Preservation of Animals Act, 1976 and the amendments are Pari material to the
Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976. Participants can incorporate and urge
additional ancillary points.
 MOOT PROBLEM 9

1. Rahul and Riya both are residents of Ambridge, a town in State of Metropolis, Indica
and are Hindus, They got married in February, 2011 at Ambridge, Indica under the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Immediately after their marriage both of them shifted to
Jamalpur, another city of Metropolis State, Indica, where Rahul is working since
2009.

2. Rahul and Riya took a flat on rent in Jamalpur after shifting to the new city. Mr.
Ramakant Shukla is their landlord who stays on the 2 nd floor and gives the 1 st floor on
rent to Rahul and Riya.

3. Mr. Ramakant Shukla makes an agreement for 11 months (i.e. from 01 st March, 2011
to 28 th February, 2012) with Rahul and Riya regarding renting the flat and handing over
the premises to both of them on 10,000/- per month.

4. Rahul and Riya started living in the aforementioned premises from 01 st March, 2011.
Things were going good until Rahul lost his job in last week of May, 2011. However, Riya
was completely unaware of this incident.

5. Riya started working in a KidZee in Jamalpur as she used to get bored at home after
Rahul left for job. Riya was paid Rs. 5000/- per month. Rahul used to earn Rs. 20000/-
per month.

6. Due to the loss of job of Rahul, the rent of the property remained due for 6 months
consecutively. However, Riya did not know the reason for such delay as to the payment
of the rent and kept on asking Rahul, while Rahul was trying to avoid confronting Riya.
At last, in November, 2011 Mr. Ramakant Shukla sent a notice to the Couple expressing
his desire to not continue the agreement with the couple. The said notice also disclosed
that Mr. Ramakant Shukla wanted the couple to leave the premises within 1 month.

8. Receiving this notice Riya confronted Rahul that followed a heated argument.
Following the argument Riya was informed about the unemployed status of Rahul.

9. Following this Riya left that house on 01 st December, 2011 and went to her home at
Ambridge. Rahul made several attempts to call her and talk to her, however, everything
seemed to go in vain. Riya did not pay any heed and stayed back in her parental home.

10. It was on 22 nd April, 2015 Riya came back to the shared flat at Jamalpur that the
couple had rented.
11. Mr. Ramakant shukla made repeated requests to Rahul during the absence of Riya to
pay the rent. However, everytime Rahul has paid month for some months and then
became defaulter again and again for several months. Therefore, the payment of rent
was irregular in nature.

12. After coming back Riya asked Rahul to leave the said flat and also talked to Mr.
Ramakant Shukla that from now onwards Riya would stay in the flat and would pay the
rent. Riya also informed Rahul that she wanted to divorce him as he hide the fact of his
unemployment to her thereby causing mental trauma.

13. Mr. Ramakant Shukla did not want to face any unwanted problem therefore, he
asked Riya to vacate that flat no matter she agreed to pay the rent. Mr. Ramakant shukla
has issued a notice for eviction to the couple in May, 2015.

14. When the couple did not vacate the premises Mr. Ramakant Shukla filed a suit for
eviction against Mr. Rahul and Ms. Riya before the Controller in June, 2015. Ms. Riya in
the abovementioned suit contended that

a. she was having a matrimonial dispute with her husband regarding which she had to
take a decision,

b. She had a job in Jamalpur therefore she wished to stay back in the town and did not
want to go back to her parental home and be a burden upon her parents,

c. She needed a safe place to stay in the city Therefore, vacating the premises would not
be possible for her. She made a prayer before the Controller to order for the
continuation of the tenancy. Mr. Ramakant Shukla contended that he requires the suit
property for his personal use, & The couple became defaulter in paying the rent amount.
Therefore, he prayed before the Controller to order for eviction of the couple.

15. Simultaneously, Rahul filed a suit for Restitution of Conjugal rights under section 9 of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the District Court stating

a. The reason because of which Riya has withdrawn herself from the conjugal
relationship with him is unreasonable,

b. That he wanted to continue this marriage with Riya.

16. The Controller in the suit for eviction decided in favour of Mr. Ramakant Shukla and
ordered Ms. Riya to vacate the suit property.

17. The suit for restitution of conjugal right between Mr. Rahul and Ms. Riya was still
pending before the competent court.

18. After the decision of the Controller Mr. Rahul left the suit property. However, Ms.
Riya did not vacate the suit property and decided to file an appeal before the Tribunal.
19. An appeal was filed by Ms. Riya against the decision of the Controller to the Tribunal.
However, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Controller and asked Ms. Riya to
vacate the suit property.

20. Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal Ms. Riya filed an appeal before the High
Court of Metropolis, Indica contending that the order of the trial court regarding
eviction of Ms. Riya from the suit property amounted to grave injustice. Therefore, the
Appellate court should consider the situation and order accordingly.

21. During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court of Metropolis, Indica the
issue of matrimonial dispute between Ms. Riya and her Husband Mr. Rahul came up.
This also led to the disclosure of pendency of suit for restitution of conjugal rights before
the District Court.

22. Considering the issue of matrimonial dispute between Mr. Rahul and Ms. Riya an
important issue, the High Court of Metropolis issued a notice under Article 227 of the
Constitution of Indica to the District Court and took up the suit for adjudication.

23. The High Court of Metropolis has clubbed the Appeal and the suit for restitution of
conjugal rights and fixed ____________ March, 2021 for hearing.

24. The High Court of Metropolis, Indica has framed the following issues to be heard

a. Whether the present suit is maintainable both in law and in fact?

b. Whether there is landlord and tenant relationship between Ms. Riya and Mr.
Ramakant Shukla under the Transfer of Property Act?

c. Whether concealment of the fact of unemployment of Mr. Rahul is just and

reasonable ground for withdrawal from the conjugal relationship by Ms. Riya?

d. Whether the High Court of Metropolis, Indica has the power to take up any case from
a Subordinate Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of Indica. The Constitution,
laws and rules of Indica are in pari materia with the Constitution, laws and rules of India.
 MOOT PROBLEM 10

In the village of Mylapore in Tamil Nadu there is an eminent businessman turned politician
Rahul Raghuvanshi. He has been elected to Tamil Nadu assembly successfully 3 consecutive
times. Rahul a management graduate from Annamalai University was an active student in
Youth Politics. He was The President of Janata Morcha Youth wing and thereafter he joined
Janata Morcha, he held several posts within the party and at a young age of 31 became
MLA. Rahul is a 2nd generation politician and son of renowned industrialist Bhargav
Raghuvanshi, Shri Raghav Raghuvanshi has been a 2 times MLA and 3 times MP from
Mylapore constituency, he also held the portfolio of Minister for Urban Development when
Janata Morcha was in power in 1987.Rahul Raghuvanshi being an Industrialist owned
several factories which had huge manpower and Trade unions with political affiliation. Rahul
after procuring a degree in management from Annamalai University chose to pursue his
family business, in the course of his business he had to grapple with many problems relating
to workforce such as absenteeism, low productivity, and acrimonious disputes as the trade
unions had differences within themselves. A strike broke out in Mr. Raghuvanshi’s factory
on account of denial of bonus and incentives. There was labour unrest, sloganeering and
chaos. The Trade Union Leader Babu Shankar was affiliated to Samaj Saghatan the party
which was in the opposition and arch rival of Janata Morcha the Party in power. Rahul
Raghuvanshi was in a fix and catch 22 situation as the labourers besieged the bunglow of
Rahul Raghuvanshi at the behest of Babu Shankar on account of political rivalry there was
wide media coverage of the issue. On the 2nd February, 2012 situation was extremely
turbulent hence the local police imposed Section 144 of Cr.PC and also detained a few
labourers U/S 151 of Cr.PC. The detention of many labourers exceeded the prescribed time
ordained by Cr.PC. As Rahul Raghuvanshi used his clout and influence to suppress the
agitation, the family member of a worker filed a Habeas Corpus petition on 6th February,
2012 Under Article 226 and 227 of Chennai High Court challenging the detention of several
workers and also claimed compensation. The Chennai 2 Bench consisting of Chief justice
allowed the petition and gave relief to the prayers of the petitioners and also awarded
compensation. The Trade Union leader Babu Shankar urged the leader of opposition in
Tamil Nadu assembly to broach a debate on Rahul Raghuvanshi’s undue influence and
causing loss to poor labourers. This led to furor in the Assembly demanding resignation of
Rahul Raghuvanshi was the post of standing committee for Education and Environment.
Rahul Raghuvanshi did not relent. This lead to social unrest and there were protest marches
across the city, agitation which led to Gheraos and Bandhs. The Home minister tried to
control the situation with Rapid Action Force and Local constabulary. In the course of this
chaos Rahul Raghuvanshi made a public speech at Tradulai Swamy stadium on 14th May
2012 in the course of his speech he called the agitators of Samaj Sanghtans as ‘wild
creatures’ and urged the Janata Morcha workers to give a ‘fitting reply’ to the protesters.
This caused a furor and there was law and order problem which resulted in casualties and
damage to property. Rahul Raghuvanshi was held responsible for whatever transpired and
he was compelled to resign from the committees he was part of and the portfolio he held.
There was round the clock coverage of the incidents of violence by the media. The
opposition demanded an inquiry of the incidents and insisted on setting up a commission. A
Commission was constituted in August, 2012 by the Ruling Party i.e Janata Morcha under
the auspices of retired judge, Justice Vishwanath to enquire and investigate into this matter.
The commission submitted its report before the House on 17th August, 2013 of the
incidents of February, 2012.There was elections hence the commission report was debated
fiercely then kept in abeyance. Samaj Sanghatan captured Power and Muthuswamy Nair
became the Chief Minister in 21 December 2013 and the commission report was again
debated with disruptions in the House. The speech delivered by Rahul Raghuvanshi was
regarded as a hate speech causing enmity between two communities hence he was booked
under sec 153 A of IPC for which Punishment in 3 years, after a lot of pandemonium the
Commission report was implemented on 31st December, 2013. The home minister
demanded arrest of Rahul Raghuvanshi and Rahul Raghuvanshi was arrested and produced
before magistrate on 11th January 2014. The magistrate took cognizance of the 3 complaint
and convicted Rahul Raghu Vanshi for 3 years imprisonment. The order was challenged in
court of sessions/district court, in May, 2015 the order was upheld and eventually it was
challenged in Chennai High Court. The High Court admitted the appeal and overruled
conviction on 16th November, 2015 of Rahul Raghuvanshi and found that lower courts
made gross error in passing such orders. State challenged the High Court order of acquittal
in the Supreme Court of India.

Issues:

1) Is he said appeal maintainable in the Supreme Court?

2) Is the High court justified in setting aside the session court’s order?

3) Does the case have anything pertaining to limitation act or has time barred as per the
relevant legal provisions?

4) Is sanction required for prosecution of Rahul Raghuvanshi as he is member of state

assembly?

5) Is the government bound by the findings of Justice Viswanathan commission as regards

its implementation or not?
GUIDELINES FOR MEMORIALS

1. The memorials must be printed in Times New Roman 12 font size with 1.5 line
spacing. The headings must be in 14 font size and the footnotes must be in Time
New Roman 10 font size.

2. The Arguments Advanced should not exceed 20 pages.

3. The memorials should have a margin measuring one inch on all sides of each page.

4. The numbering should be on the bottom-center of each page.

5. The memorials have to be submitted on A4 size paper, printed on only one side, and
must be in the following order:

 Index
 List of references and cases
 List of statutes
 List of books referred
 Journal referred
 Databases referred
 Statement of jurisdiction
 Statement of issues
 Argument advanced
 Prayer

Note:- The journal shall be made as per the abovementioned sequence given. This is to be
noted that if the student fails to submit the journal as per the above said rules and
sequences, his/her journal shall not be accepted.