P-5 (Memo)

MOOT COURT AND CLINICAL LEGAL EDUCATION, 2023
Team Code: P-5
Before
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950
RAKESH KUMAR…………………………………………………………………PETITIONER
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR…………………………………………….….….…RESPONDENTS
MEMORIAL for PETITIONER
PAGE | I

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................ II
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................ III
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................. V
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ................................................................................... VI
STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................................. VII
ISSUES RAISED ................................................................................................................ VIII
SUMMARY OF ARGUEMENTS ....................................................................................... IX
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ............................................................................................... XI
A. SECTION 30(2) OF THE INDIAN PRISONS ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.XI
I. VIOLATES ART 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION. .................................................................XI
II. VIOLATES ART 19 OF THE CONSTITUTION. ............................................................... XII
III. VIOLATES ART 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION. .......................................................... XIII
B. CONFINEMENT OF RAKESH KUMAR UNDER SEC 30(2) OF THE INDIAN
PRISON ACT IS INVALID. ............................................................................................ XV
IV. RAKESH KUMAR DOESN’T FALL UNDER THE MEANING OF ‘PRISONER UNDER
SENTENCE OF DEATH’ FOR SEC 30(2). .............................................................................. XV
V. PRISON AUTHORITIES ARE NOT AUTHORISED TO IMPOSE SOLITARY CONFINEMENT. .. XV
C. SEC 30(2) & 46(9) OF THE INDIAN PRISON ACT IS AGAINST ARTICLE 5 OF
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ........................................... XVII
VI. SOLITARY CONFINEMENT CONSTITUTES MENTAL TORTURE. .............................. XVII
VII. DEPRAVATION OR LACK OF ACCESS TO FOOD CONSTITUTE TORTURE. ................ XVII
PRAYER FOR RELIEF .................................................................................................... XIX
PAGE | II

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Chairman Railway Board & Ors v Chandrima Das & Ors (1973) 2 SCC 696. .................. XV
Charles Shobraj v Superintendent Central Jail Tihar 1978 SCC (4) 104 .............................. XII
Francis Coralie Mullin v The Administrator Union Territory of Delhi & Ors AIR 1981 SC
746 ..................................................................................................................................... XIII
Kharak Singh v State of UP 1963 AIR 1295 .................................................................. XII, XIII
Kishore Singh Vs State of Rajasthan 1997 AIR SCW 929 ................................................... XII
Maneka Gandhi v Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597............................................................ XIII
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597............................................................... X
Mukataram Sitaram Shinde v State of Maharashtra 1997 Cri Lj 3458 at 3463 (Bom ............XI
Raghubir Singh & Ors v State of Bihar AIR 1987 SC 149. ................................................. XIII
Shatrughan Chauhan v Union of India (2014) 3 SCC 1 [90 ................................................. XIV
State of Maharashtra v Prabhakar Pandurang Sanzgir 1986 (1) BomCR 272 ......................XI
State of Maharashtra v Saeed Sohail Sheikh (2012) 13 SCC 192......................................... XV
State of Maharashtra v. Sindhi AIR 1975 SC 1665 .............................................................. XIV
T V Vatheeswaran v State of Tamil Nadu 1983 (2) SCC 68 ....................................................XI
Triveniben v State of Gujarat 1989 1 SCC 678 ..................................................................... XV
Statutes
Indian Penal Code 1860, s 73. .............................................................................................. XIV
Indian Prisons Act 1894, s 30(2)............................................................................................ XV
Indian Prisons Act 1894, s 46(9)........................................................................................... XVI
Indian Prisons Act 1894, s 46(9)............................................................................................ XV
ndian Prisons Act 1894, s 30(2) ............................................................................................ XIV
PAGE | III

Constitutional Provisions
Constitution of India, art 14 ........................................................................................ X, XI, XII
Constitution of India, art 19 .............................................................................................. X, XII
Constitution of India, art 21 ...................................................................................................... X
Constitution of India, art 21. ................................................................................................. XIII
International Convention
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment, art 1 ............................................................................................................... XVI
Universal Declaration on Human Rights 1948, art 5 .................................................... XV, XVI
Journal
Chowdhury, Nitai Roy, Indian Prison Laws and Correction of Prisoners, 2002, p. 2.s ...... XVI
Coppola F., “The Brain in Solitude: An (other) Eighth Amendment Challenge to Solitary
Confinement”, Journal of Law and the Biosciences, Vol. 7, Issue 1, Jan-June 2020, lsz017,
<https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsz017> (last seen on 22-5-2022) ......................................... XVI
Moot Proposition
Moot Proposition 5 ................................................................................................................ XII
Moot Proposition Para 3 .............................................................................................. XIII, XIV
Moot Proposition Para 4 ............................................................................................... XIV, XV
Moot Proposition Para 4. .........................................................................................................XI
Moot Proposition Para 5 ..........................................................................................................XI
PAGE | IV

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATIONS EXPANSION
& And
¶ Paragraph
AIR All India Records
Anr. Another
Art. Article
Cri LJ Criminal Law Journal
Hon’ble Honorable
Ors. Others
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Reports
SEC Section
UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights
v. Versus
PAGE | V

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, the petitioner in the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India concerning in the matter of Rakesh Kumar v. Union of India & Anr. humbly submits to
the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.
The present memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions, and arguments in the
present case.
PAGE | VI

STATEMENT OF FACTS
¶1. Rakesh Kumar was tried for the offence of robbery in the Bank of Rajasthan and the
murder of the guard of the said bank. It was established in the court of sessions that on 11th
February, 2021; Rakesh Kumar, along with his three friends, went to commit robbery. During
which, he ended up shooting the manager and the guard which led to the death of the guard at
the spot. Later all these were arrested and the Court of Sessions convicted all of them for
robbery and murder, and sentenced Rakesh Kumar with death.
¶2. This sentence was sent to High Court for confirmation on 10th July, 2021. Meanwhile,
Rakesh Kumar was admitted to the Jaipur Prison, along with other prisoners. His death
sentence was confirmed by the High Court on 1st August 2022 and also his appeal against the
conviction was dismissed. On the communication of this order to the prison authorities
Rakesh Kumar was subjected to solitary confinement in the jail, and on inquiry he was
informed that as per section 30 of Indian Prison Act, 1894 and prison manual he was
subjected to solitary confinement. Rakesh filed an appeal in the Supreme Court which was
admitted against the death sentence.
¶3. He was kept in a 15 square feet cell with no facilities for day and night and even has to
fulfil his need to answer the call of nature there only. A warden will come twice a day to give
him food and water and a blanket is given to him which had been used by previous convicts
and it seemed that the blanket is not washed for ages.
¶4. This confinement agitated Rakesh Kumar. Irritated by his agitation, officer in-charge of
prison held Rakesh Kumar guilty of prison offence thus his diet was reduced to one time a
day and in case of further violation he was subjected to lashes. Consequently, Rakesh Kumar
went on a hunger strike, and agitated by this Prison In-charge subjected him to iron fetters as
he declared his sitting on hunger strike a further offence.
Rakesh Kumar told this sad state to his lawyer. The lawyer Munjal Dhar filed a petition on
behalf of Rakesh Kumar in the Supreme Court against the present state of prison in India and
also the sole discretion of officer in charge of prison. And, challenged the validity of section
30 of Indian Prison Act, 1894.
PAGE | VII

ISSUES RAISED
A. WHETHER SECTION 30(2) OF THE INDIAN PRISONS ACT IS CONSTITUTIONAL?
B. WHETHER CONFINEMENT OF RAKESH KUMAR UNDER SECTION 30 OF THE INDIAN
PRISONS ACT VALID?
C. WHETHER SECTION 30(2) & 46(9) OF THE INDIAN PRISONS ACT IS IN ACCORDANCE
WITH ARTICLE 5 OF UNIVERSAL DECLARATION ON HUMAN RIGHTS?
PAGE | VIII

SUMMARY OF ARGUEMENTS
A. SECTION 30(2) OF THE INDIAN PRISONS ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Articles 14, 19, 21 of the Constitution of India are referred to as the ‘Golden Triangle’ of the
Indian Constitution. This means that they are of prime importance and breathe vitality in the
concept of rule of law. The principle of ‘Golden Triangle’ was established through the case of
Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India in which the Hon’ble SC held that a law depriving a
person of ‘personal liberty’ has not only to stand the test of Article 21 but also Article 14 and
Article 19. In consequence, it is humbly submitted that sec 30(2) of the Indian Prisons Act
violates Art 14 of the constitution [I]; Art 19 of the Constitution [II]; and Art 21 of the
constitution [III].
PRISON ACT IS INVALID.
According to Section 30(2) of the Act, inmates facing the death penalty must be held in a cell
separate from all other prisoners and put under the supervision of a guard day and night. It is
humbly submitted that the confinement of Rakesh Kumar under sec 30(2) of the Indian
Prison Act is invalid. In this argument it is further contended that firstly, Rakesh Kumar
doesn’t fall under the ambit of ‘prisoner under sentence of death’ for sec 30(2) [I]; secondly,
Prison authorities are not authorized to impose solitary confinement [II].
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
Article 5 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights states no one shall be subjected to
torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In the case of
PAGE | IX

Chairman, Railway Board & Ors. v. Chandrima Das & Ors, if necessary, the principles of
UDHR have to be read in domestic jurisprudence. It is humbly submitted that sec 30(2), & 46
(9) are against Art 5 of UDHR as firstly, solitary confinement constitutes mental torture [i];
and secondly; depravation or lack of access to food constitute torture [ii].
PAGE | X

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
A. SECTION 30(2) OF THE INDIAN PRISONS ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Articles 14,1 19,2 213 of the Constitution of India are referred to as the ‘Golden Triangle’ of
the Indian Constitution. This means that they are of prime importance and breathe vitality in
the concept of rule of law. The principle of ‘Golden Triangle’ was established through the
case of Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India4 in which the Hon’ble SC held that a law depriving
a person of ‘personal liberty’ has not only to stand the test of Article 21 but also Article 14
and Article 19. In consequence, it is humbly submitted that sec 30(2) of the Indian Prisons
Act violates Art 14 of the constitution [I]; Art 19 of the Constitution [II]; and Art 21 of the
constitution [III].
I. Violates Art 14 of the Constitution.
Art. 14 of the constitution states that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the
law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.5 Constitution of India
does not expressly provide the provisions related to the prisoners’ rights but prison walls do
not keep out fundamental rights and these are available to the prisoners as well as freemen.6
In State of Maharashtra v Prabhakar Pandurang Sanzgir7, the Supreme Court stated that the
mere fact that someone is detained cannot deprive one of his fundamental rights and that such
conditions are not to be extended to the extent of the deprivation of fundamental rights of the
1
Constitution of India, art 14.
2
3
4
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597.
5
6
T V Vatheeswaran v State of Tamil Nadu 1983 (2) SCC 68.
7
State of Maharashtra v Prabhakar Pandurang Sanzgir 1986 (1) BomCR 272.
PAGE | XI

detained individual. The Court further ruled that every prisoner retains all such rights that are
enjoyed by free citizens except the one that is lost necessarily as an incident of confinement.
8
In Mukataram Sitaram Shinde v State of Maharashtra the Supreme Court held that
Punishment not to be imposed without prior opportunity of hearing. The District and Session
Judge shall ensure that as and when the Prison Authority forward any papers pertaining to
punishment for this confirmation. The concerned prisoner is kept present before him and
given an opportunity of making representation under Art 21 against the proposed punishment
of which confirmation is sought.
In the instant case, it is submitted that Rakesh Kumar was subjected to solitary confinement9,
lashes10, penal diet etc only on the discretion of prison officer, without any hearing and is
therefore violative of Art. 14.11
II. Violates Art 19 of the Constitution.
The extension of Article 1412 of the Constitution implies the extension of Article 1913 to the
prisoners as well, which protects the Right to Liberty and enshrines the preservation of
freedom of people from the heavy hand of State.14
The word 'personal' liberty in Article 21 is used as a compendious term to include within
itself all varieties of right which go to make the personal liberties of men other than those
within several classes of Article 19(1).15
In Charles Shobraj v. Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar,16 Supreme Court stated that when
confronted with cruel conditions of confinement, the court has an expanded role. True, the
8
Mukataram Sitaram Shinde v State of Maharashtra 1997 Cri Lj 3458 at 3463 (Bom).
9
Moot Proposition Para 4.
10
11
12
13
14
Kishore Singh Vs State of Rajasthan 1997 AIR SCW 929.
15
Kharak Singh v State of UP 1963 AIR 1295.
PAGE | XII

right to life is more than mere animal existence, or vegetable subsistence. True, the worth of
the human person and dignity and divinity of every individual inform articles 19 and 21 even
in a prison setting. True constitutional provisions and municipal laws must be interpreted in
the light of the normative laws of nations, wherever possible and a prisoner does not forfeit
his part III rights. The prisoners should get the protection of the fundamental rights
guaranteed to the citizens under the Indian Constitution against any arbitrary and
discriminatory treatment by the prison authorities.17
Therefore, on the basis of arguments presented above it is contented that Rakesh Yadav’s
subjection to fetters18 is violative of its right under Art 1919 of the constitution.
III. Violates Art 21 of the Constitution.
The treatment to a human being which offends human dignity, imposes avoidable torture is
violative of Art 21.20
The word ‘life’ under Article 21,21 means something more than mere animal existence. The
inhibition against its deprivation extends to all those limbs and faculties by which life is
enjoyed.22 And it does not confine itself to mere physical existence but also includes right to
live with human dignity.23
In Francis Coralie Mullin v The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi & Ors24., while
expanding the aforementioned concept, the Supreme Court held that the word life includes
everything that it goes along with it, namely the bare necessaries of the life such as adequate
nutrition and food, clothing and shelter over ones’ head, facilities for reading, writing
16
Charles Shobraj v Superintendent Central Jail Tihar 1978 SCC (4) 104.
17
Ibid.
18
Moot Proposition 5.
19
20
Raghubir Singh & Ors v State of Bihar AIR 1987 SC 149.
21
22
Kharak Singh v State of UP 1963 AIR 1295.
23
Maneka Gandhi v Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597.
24
Francis Coralie Mullin v The Administrator Union Territory of Delhi & Ors AIR 1981 SC 746.
PAGE | XIII

(education), ability and opportunity of expressing oneself in diverse forms, moving freely,
mixing and commingling with fellow human beings.
In the present case, it is submitted that Rakesh Kumar was deprived of food as a
punishment25 and is therefore deprived of his right to life and personal liberty. Hence, it is
violative of Art. 21.
On the basis of arguments presented above, it is submitted since Sec 30(2) is violative of
Principle of Golden Triangle, it is unconstitutional.
25
PAGE | XIV

PRISON ACT IS INVALID.
According to Section 30(2)26 of the Act, inmates facing the death penalty must be held in a
cell separate from all other prisoners and put under the supervision of a guard day and night.
It is humbly submitted that the confinement of Rakesh Kumar under sec 30(2) of the Indian
Prison Act is invalid. In this argument it is further contended that firstly, Rakesh Kumar
doesn’t fall under the ambit of ‘prisoner under sentence of death’ for sec 30(2) [I]; secondly,
Prison authorities are not authorized to impose solitary confinement [II].
I. Rakesh Kumar doesn’t fall under the meaning of ‘prisoner under sentence of death’
for sec 30(2).
The expression “prisoner under sentence of death” in section 30(2) can only mean the
prisoner whose sentence of death has become final, conclusive, and indefeasible, which can’t
be annulled or voided by any judicial or constitutional procedure.27
In State of Maharashtra v. Sindhi,28 Supreme Court held that the trial of an accused person
under sentence of death does not conclude with the termination of the proceedings in the
Court of Session because of the reason that the sentence of death passed by the Sessions
Court is subject to confirmation by the High Court, and Supreme Court.
Therefore, it is submitted that Rakesh Kumar doesn’t fall under the ambit of prisoners under
sentence of death in reference of section 30(2)29 as his sentence is not final, and is open to
judicial scrutiny in relation to the special leave petition filed by him under Art 136.30
II. Prison authorities are not authorised to impose solitary confinement.
26
Indian Prisons Act 1894, s 30(2).
27
Shatrughan Chauhan v Union of India (2014) 3 SCC 1 [90].
28
State of Maharashtra v. Sindhi AIR 1975 SC 1665.
29
30
PAGE | XV

Solitary confinement is a form of imprisonment in which the inmate lives in a single cell with
little or no meaningful contact with other people.31 In State of Maharashtra v Saeed Sohail
Sheikh, supreme court held that solitary confinement is a punishment that may only be
imposed by a court. A watered-down punishment by way of separate confinement or cellular
confinement can be sanctioned for perpetrating a prison offence. The prison administration
alone cannot place a prisoner in solitary confinement.32
In the present case, Rakesh Kumar was held in a solitary confinement without any contact
with other inmates, where no such order was given by the court.33
Hence, it is submitted that prisoner authorities have no right to impose solitary confinement
as keeping a prisoner in solitary confinement amounts to inflicting “additional and separate”
punishment not authorized by law.34
31
Indian Penal Code 1860, s 73.
32
State of Maharashtra v Saeed Sohail Sheikh (2012) 13 SCC 192.
33
34
Triveniben v State of Gujarat 1989 1 SCC 678.
PAGE | XVI

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
Article 5 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights states no one shall be subjected to
torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In the case of
Chairman, Railway Board & Ors. v. Chandrima Das & Ors, if necessary, the principles of
UDHR have to be read in domestic jurisprudence.35 It is humbly submitted that sec 30(2)36, &
46 (9)37 are against Art 5 of UDHR38 as firstly, solitary confinement constitutes mental
torture [I]; and secondly; depravation or lack of access to food constitute torture [II].
III. Solitary confinement constitutes mental torture.
According to scientific study, solitary confinement fundamentally affects a person's brain,
generating severe and long-lasting psychological health concerns and growing aberrant and
violent behaviours.39
On the basis of arguments presented above, it is submitted that the solitary confinement
constitutes torture or cruel, barbaric, or degrading treatment or punishment,40 and is therefore
against Art 5 of Universal Declaration on Human Rights. 41
IV. Depravation or lack of access to food constitute torture.
As per the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment, deprivation or lack of access to adequate food in prison or other forms of
detention may constitute torture or inhuman and degrading treatment.42
35
Chairman Railway Board & Ors v Chandrima Das & Ors (1973) 2 SCC 696.
36
37
38
Universal Declaration on Human Rights 1948, art 5.
39
Coppola F., “The Brain in Solitude: An (other) Eighth Amendment Challenge to Solitary
Confinement”, Journal of Law and the Biosciences, Vol. 7, Issue 1, Jan-June 2020, lsz017,
<https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsz017> (last seen on 22-5-2022).
40
Chowdhury, Nitai Roy, Indian Prison Laws and Correction of Prisoners, 2002, p. 2.s.
41
PAGE | XVII

Therefore, it is submitted that depravation of food i.e., penal diet under sec 46(9)43 is against
Art 5 of Universal Declaration on Human Rights.44
In the light of the above arguments, it is submitted that Sec 30(2) and Sec 46(9) of the Indian
Prisons Act is against Art 5 of Universal Declaration on Human Rights.
42
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, art 1.
43
44
PAGE | XVIII

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore in the light of the facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced, and
authorities cited, may this Hon’ble Court be pleased to adjudge and declare that:
I. SECTION 30(2) OF THE INDIAN PRISONS ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
II. CONFINEMENT OF RAKESH KUMAR UNDER SECTION 30(2) IS INVALID.
III. SEC 30(2) & 46(9) OF THE INDIAN PRISON ACT IS AGAINST ARTICLE 5 OF
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION ON HUMAN RIGHTS.
And/or
Pass any other order that it may deem fit in the interest of justice, equity, and good
conscience.
s/d
On behalf of Appellant/s
PAGE | XIX

P-5 (Memo)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

P-5 (Memo)

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

P-5 (Memo)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MOOT COURT AND CLINICAL LEGAL EDUCATION, 2023

Team Code: P-5

MOOT COURT AND CLINICAL LEGAL EDUCATION, 2023

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR…………………………………………….….….…RESPONDENTS

MEMORIAL for PETITIONER

MEMORIAL for PETITIONER

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................ II

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................ III

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................. V

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ................................................................................... VI

STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................................. VII

ISSUES RAISED ................................................................................................................ VIII

SUMMARY OF ARGUEMENTS ....................................................................................... IX

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ............................................................................................... XI

A. SECTION 30(2) OF THE INDIAN PRISONS ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.XI

I. VIOLATES ART 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION. .................................................................XI

II. VIOLATES ART 19 OF THE CONSTITUTION. ............................................................... XII

III. VIOLATES ART 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION. .......................................................... XIII

B. CONFINEMENT OF RAKESH KUMAR UNDER SEC 30(2) OF THE INDIAN

PRISON ACT IS INVALID. ............................................................................................ XV

SENTENCE OF DEATH’ FOR SEC 30(2). .............................................................................. XV

V. PRISON AUTHORITIES ARE NOT AUTHORISED TO IMPOSE SOLITARY CONFINEMENT. .. XV

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ........................................... XVII

VI. SOLITARY CONFINEMENT CONSTITUTES MENTAL TORTURE. .............................. XVII

VII. DEPRAVATION OR LACK OF ACCESS TO FOOD CONSTITUTE TORTURE. ................ XVII

PRAYER FOR RELIEF .................................................................................................... XIX

MEMORIAL for PETITIONER

746 ..................................................................................................................................... XIII

Kharak Singh v State of UP 1963 AIR 1295 .................................................................. XII, XIII

Maneka Gandhi v Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597............................................................ XIII

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597............................................................... X

Shatrughan Chauhan v Union of India (2014) 3 SCC 1 [90 ................................................. XIV

State of Maharashtra v Saeed Sohail Sheikh (2012) 13 SCC 192......................................... XV

State of Maharashtra v. Sindhi AIR 1975 SC 1665 .............................................................. XIV

T V Vatheeswaran v State of Tamil Nadu 1983 (2) SCC 68 ....................................................XI

Triveniben v State of Gujarat 1989 1 SCC 678 ..................................................................... XV

Indian Penal Code 1860, s 73. .............................................................................................. XIV

Indian Prisons Act 1894, s 30(2)............................................................................................ XV

Indian Prisons Act 1894, s 46(9)........................................................................................... XVI

Indian Prisons Act 1894, s 46(9)............................................................................................ XV

ndian Prisons Act 1894, s 30(2) ............................................................................................ XIV

MEMORIAL for PETITIONER

Constitution of India, art 14 ........................................................................................ X, XI, XII

Constitution of India, art 19 .............................................................................................. X, XII

Constitution of India, art 21 ...................................................................................................... X

Constitution of India, art 21. ................................................................................................. XIII

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or

Punishment, art 1 ............................................................................................................... XVI

Universal Declaration on Human Rights 1948, art 5 .................................................... XV, XVI

<https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsz017> (last seen on 22-5-2022) ......................................... XVI

Moot Proposition 5 ................................................................................................................ XII

Moot Proposition Para 3 .............................................................................................. XIII, XIV

Moot Proposition Para 4 ............................................................................................... XIV, XV

Moot Proposition Para 4. .........................................................................................................XI

Moot Proposition Para 5 ..........................................................................................................XI

MEMORIAL for PETITIONER

AIR All India Records