TEAM CODE- LA-EQUITY

1ST B. PARMAESHWAR DAYAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2016

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDICA

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

SATYA AND SHASHI

(PETITIONER)
VERSUS

UNION OF INDICA
(RESPONDENT)

To,
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND OTHER COMPANION
JUDGES OF SUPREME COURT OF INDICA

~ON THE SUBMISSION BEFORE THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT~

~MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ~
 st
1 B. PARMAESHWAR DAYAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS:
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………….……………………………..3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES …………………………………………….………………………4
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.....…………………………………………...………………..7
STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………………………….………….8
STATEMENT OF ISSUES……………………………………………………………………....10
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS………………………………………………………………….11
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED……………………………………………………….……………13
ISSUE 1:- THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE
CONSTITUION OF INDICA IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT ………………………………………..13

1.1 Petitioner doesn’t have a locus standi in the instant case…………..…….………… 13

1.2 No violation of fundamental rights…………………………………………………...13
1.3 Existence of an alternative remedy …………………………………………………..14

ISSUE 2. THAT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT, 2015 VIOLATES
ART 14, 21 AND RULE OF LAW...………...…………………………………………...……..14
2.1 The authority has applied the principle of unarbitrariness ……………………….……….15
2.2 The authorities have applied principle of reasonableness and the impugned act is well within
the contours of the procedure established by law ………………..………………………….…..15
2.3 The authorities have applied principle of reasonableness to the object or purpose of the
legislation ……………………………………………………………………………….……16
2.4 That the implementation of the juvenile justice act, 2015 violates article 21 ………….……..17
2.4.1 Right of fair trial has not been vioalted ………………………………………..………..17
2.4.2 Right of opportunity to be heard has not been violated ………………………..…..……..19

ISSUE 3: THAT SECTION 15 OF JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN)

ACT, 2015 UNCONSTITUTIONAL....................................................................................................................19

3.1 That the mental faculty of every child can be considered equal or

not........................................................................................................................................................................22

ISSUE 4: THAT THE ACT IS IN CONSONANCE WITH THE INTERNATIONAL PRINCIPLES IN

RESPECT OF JUVENILES ………………………………………………….………………….24

1|Page
 st
1 B. PARMAESHWAR DAYAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

4.1 That the international conventions are not in contravention with the constitution of
Indica............................................................................................................................................................25
4.2 Art.51 as a guide to interpretation…………………………………………….…......26

PRAYER………………………………………………………………….…………………...32

2|Page
st
1 B. PARMAESHWAR DAYAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS:
ABBREVIATIONS EXPANSIONS
AIR All India Reporter
& And
Anr. Another
Art. Article
CrPC Code of Criminal Procedure
Ed. Edition
HC High Court
IPC Indian Penal Code
JJA Juvenile Justice Act
JJB Juvenile Justice Board
NCRB National Crime Records Bureau
Ors. Others
¶ Paragraph
PCM Prohibition of Child Marriage Act
POCSO Protection of Children from Sexual Offence
Act, 2012
Raj. Rajasthan
§ Section
Sec. Section
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCJ Supreme Court Journal
SCR Supreme Court Reporter
UOI Union of India
U.P. Uttar Pradesh
V. Versus

3|Page
 st
1 B. PARMAESHWAR DAYAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2016
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES:
TABLE OF CASES
SR.NO CASES PG.NO
1. A.D.M., Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla 26
2. Andhra Industrial Works v.. Chief Controller of Imports and Ors AIR 1974 13
SC 1539
3. Asstt. Collector of Central Excise v. Jainson Hosiery 14
4. Avinash Chand Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2004) 2 SCC 726 14
5. Bhat v. Union of India, (1990) 3 SCC 65 26
6. Daryao v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 1457 14
7. Fertilizer CorpnKamgar Union v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 568, 584 16
8. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975 Supp. SCC 1 15
9. Jolly George Verghese & Anr vs The Bank Of Cochin, 1980 26
10. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225 15
11. Krishnan v. State of Madras, AIR 1951 SC 301 17
12. Magan bhai Ishwar bhai Patel v. Union of India AIR 1969 SC 783 26
13. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 14,17
14. Mirza Ali Akbar Kashani vs United Arab Republic And Anr, 1966 SCR (1) 26
319
15. Moti Lal v. Uttar Pradesh, AIR 195 ALL 257(EB) 26
16. Namit Sharma v. Union of India, (2013) 1 SCC 745 14

17. People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 568 26
18. Praveen Singh v. State Of Punjab, (2000) 8 SCC 633 15
19. Ramjilal v. Income Tax Officer, AIR 1951 SC 97. 14
20. RomeshThapar v Union of India, AIR 1950 SC 124 13
21. Secretary, Govt. of India v. AlkaSubhashGadia, 1990 SCR, Supl. (3) 583 14
22. Soma Chakravorthy v. C.B.I., (2007) 5 SCC 403, 411 15
23. Subramanian Swamy v. Raju, (2014) 8 SCC 390 24
24. Tinkushia Electric Supply Co. v. State Of Ass. , AIR 1990 SC 123 15
25. Union of India v. Azadi BachaoAndolan, AIR 2004 SC 1107 31
26. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011 30

Sl. No COURT DECISIONS AROUND THE WORLD Pg. No

1. Mortensen v. Peters (1906) 8 Fraser, 93 25
2. Niboyet v. Niboyet 25
3. Jolly George verghese and anr. V. The Bank of Cochin, 1980 26
4. Entertainment Network(I) Ltd. V. Super Cassette Industries 26

4|Page