Moot Court Memorial 2

PG NO.
1
Lex Auctor B. Parmeshwar Dayal National Moot Court Competition - 2016
BEFORE
THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDICA
UTC= LA-BIDDING
2016
UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF CONSTITUION OF INDICA
IN THE MATTER OF
SATYA AND SASHI …………………………………………………………PETITIONER
V.
STATE OF MAHARAJ PRADESH……………………………………………..RESPONDENT
WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PETITIONER

PG NO.2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1) Index of abbreviation………………………………………………… PG NO.- 3

2) Index of authorities…………………………………………………… PG NO.-5
3) Statement of jurisdiction……………………………………………... PG NO.-11
4) Statement of facts.....................................................................................PG NO-12

5) Statement of issues……………………………………………………. PG NO.-15
6) Summary of arguments………………………………………………. PG NO.-16
7) Written pleadings……………………………………………………... PG NO.-18
8) Prayer…………………………………………………………………. PG NO.-29

PG NO.3
INDEX OF ABBREVIATION
Cr. Criminal
Appl. Appeal
w.p. Write petition
Rev. Revision
Mrs. Mister
Vs. Versus
Up Uttar Pradesh
Gov. Government
Scc Supreme court case
& And
@ At the rate
Air All India reporter
Fir First important report
Gov. Government
Hon‟al Honorable
OR‟s. Others
Pg. Page
Uoi Union of India
Anr. Another
Mrs. Misses
Ccr. Current criminal report
Ed. Edition
i.l.r Indian law reporter
l.j. Law journal
Re. Reference
Sd/ Singed

PG NO.4
Index of authorities
Supreme Court cases
1) Salili bali vs. union of India w.p. no. 10 of 2013
2) Upendra Pradhan vs. state of Orissa cra. Appl. No. 2174 of 2009
3) Ram narin vs. state of up cr. Misc. pit. No. 7526 of 2015
4) Hari ram vs. state of rajasthan cr. Appl. No. 907 of 2009
5) Babloo singh vs. state of up cr. Appl. No. 763 of 2003
6) Raju vs. state of Haryana cr. Appl. No. 281 of 2010
7) Munna vs. state scc 154 (2) 1989
8) Dharanbir vs. state cr. Appl. No. 860 of 2010
9) Gopinath gosh vs. state of Bengal scc 228 of 1984

PG NO.5
10) Alwzar Hossain vs. state of Bengal scc 489 (10) 2012
11) Pradip kumar vs. state of up scc 419 (4) 1995
12) The State Of West Bengal vs Anwar All Sarkar1952 AIR 75, 1952 SCR 284
13) Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs International Airport Authority Of India And Others
(1979 AIR(SC) 1628 )
14) Anwar Ali Sarkar vs The State Of West Bengal AIR 1952 Cal 150
15) Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. Union of India, (1996) 10 SCC 104
16) T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481.
17) State of Punjab v. Balkaran Singh, (2006) 8 SCC 481, 655
18) Tahseen poonawalla v union of india

PG NO.6
19) Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1984 SC
20) Romesh Thappar vs The State Of Madras 1950 AIR 124, 1950 SCR 594
21) Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Raju S.L.P. (Crl) No.1953 of 2014
22) S.P. Gupta v. President of India & Ors., AIR 1982 SC 149
23) Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1982 SC 1473
24) Sheela Barse v. Union of India 16AIR 1986 SC 1773
25) M/S SHARMA TRANSPORT REP.BY SHRI D.P.SHARMA Vs. GOVERNMENT

OF A.P. & ORS.(AIR 2002 SC 322

PG NO.7
STATUES
1) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015

2)The Indian Penal Code, 1860
3) The Constitution of India
4) The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
WEBSITES
1. WWW.SUPREMECOURTCASES.COM
2. WWW.INDIANKANOON.COM
3. WWW.MANUPATRA.COM
4. WWW.LIVELAW.COM
5. WWW.FIRSTPOST.COM
6. WWW.LEGALBLOG.IN

PG NO.8
BOOKS AND ARTICLES
V.G. Ramachandran, Law of Writs (6th ed. 2006).
Subhash C Kashyap, Constitutional Law Of India (2008)
Durga Das Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India, (8th ed. 2008)
Arvind P. Datar, Commentary on Constitution of India (2nd ed. 2007).
Shiva Rao, Framing of the Indian Constitution
DR. L.M. SINGHVI, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA( 2nd ed.) Vol I
H.M. Seervai , Constitutional Law of India (4th ed. 1993).

PG NO.9
ARTICLES
1) Critique of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Bill, 2014 (JJ Bill)
2)http://articles.latimes.com/keyword/juvenile-justice
3) Prof. Ved Kumari on Juvenile Justice Act
4) Are Reforms Really Needed In the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Amendment Act, 2000
5) Elizabeth Cauffman and Laurence Steinberg, “(I‟m) maturity of Judgment in

Adolescence: Why Adolescents May Be Less Culpable Than Adults,”Behav. Sci. Law 18:
741 at742-743 (2000)
6) Developing Statutes for Competence to Stand Trial in Juvenile Delinquency

Proceedings: A Guide for Lawmakers, 2 April 2012

PG NO.10
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The counsels representing the petitioner have endorsed their pleadings before the hon‘ble
supreme court of Indica under article 321 of constitution of Indica in which the hon‘ble court has
the jurisdiction.
The present memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments.
1
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of
the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including
writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari,
whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this
Part
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 ) and ( 2 ),
Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its
jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause ( 2 )
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided
for by this Constitution

PG NO.11
STATEMENT OF FACTS
For the sake of brevity and convenience of the hon‘ble court the facts of the case are summarized
as follow
i. SATYA being a poor boy lives in city of GOLIA in Maharaja Pradesh, due to his poor
economic conditions he had to leave his school and hence he started to work at MR.
RAJAN‘S house who belongs to schedule caste.
ii. At MR.RAJAN‘S house S\SATYA use to do all the household work, it has been six years
since SATYA‘S employment. Besides this MR. RAJAN also has two kid one boy named
VANSH of 18 years and one daughter named VANI of 16 years.
iii. VANSH and VANI always use to behave rudely with SATYA and their behavior towards
SATYA was condescending even they also use to insult him occasionally. SATYA also
had complained the same to MR. RAJAN several times but he never paid attention to
SATYA‘S complain.
iv. SASHI another boy aged 11 years son of MR. SAXENA was playing football in the
ground where VANSH and VANI were doing their daily routine of jogging. While
playing soccer SASHI‘S ball got hit with VANI‘S head as result of which she had small
head injury. But as a consequence of these VANSH and SASHI had quarrel between
them which was then sorted by MR. MEHTA a resident of the society.
v. VANSH and SASHI were already having grievances with each other since childhood and
SASHI was also were well aware about the fact that VANSH, VANI and SATYA do not
share a good sort of relationship with each other.

PG NO.12
vi. Once VANSH asked SATYA to bring something from market which SATYA failed to
brought as the thing ordered by VANSH was not available in the market but still VANSH
abused SATYA. On such another occasion VANSH was abusing SATYA in the corridor
of society and this was witnessed by SASHI who standing there only. After VANSH and
SATYA were done SASHI went to SATYA and spoke about the same thing with
SATYA and discussed as how they share the feeling of hatred towards VANSH and
VANI.
vii. On 5th of March 2016 SATYA asked MR. RAJAN to grant him leave for 3 days as he
wanted to go to his village, on the very next day that is 6th of March MR.RAJAN also left
for his business meeting which was in another city. As it was a Sunday hence
MRS.RAJNI wife of MR.RAJAN decided to take children to an art exhibition. SATYA
was already having the knowledge about the aforesaid plan.
viii. At 6:30pm on 6th March MRS. RAJNI along with her children reached the venue of the
exhibition which was located at the outskirts of the city. As the organizers of the
exhibition were good friends of MRS. RAJNI hence she became busy talking to them
meanwhile at 8:30pm VANSH came to know that VANI was missing hence they stated
to search VANI. At around 10:00pm one of the guard went to the basement to switch off
the lights where he found a girl lying unconscious on the ground he informed the family
and she was identified as VANI after that they brought VANI back home.
ix. The next morning MR. RAJAN also came back where VANI narrated him the whole
story that she was taken to the basement area by SATYA and SASHI where they,
outraged her modesty by tearing off her clothes. She stated that she was also subjected to
rape. When she shouted for help her mouth was forcefully shut and in a sudden haste she
was strangled and then she became unconscious. And then the boys ran away.

PG NO.13
x. On the next that is 7th of Marcha fir was being registered to the nearest police station
against SATYA and SASHI they both were charged under various sections under.
1) The INDIAN penal code
2) The protection of children from sexual offence act 2012 no.32 of 2012
3) The schedule cast and schedule tribe amendment act 2015 (no.1 of 2016).
xi. On 8th of March the investigating officer arrested SATYA and SASHI and the case went
to the juvenile justice board as both were minor. A preliminary assessment was about to
be made under section 15 of the juvenile justice board as both were minor and hence it
could be decided that whether the case can be heard by the district and session‘s court or
it will be decided by the juvenile justice board.
xii. As there was a huge media coverage and moreover the family of MR. RAJAN was very
influenceal hence SATYA and SASHI both thought that there case might go to the
district and sessions court and hence they decided to challenge the constitutional validity
of the section 15 of juvenile justice act 2015(2 of 2016) before supreme court of Indicia.
xiii. As SATYA and SASHI were minor and were victims of continues harassment by MR.
RAJAN specifically by VANSH and VANI hence they challenged the constitutional
validity of section 15 of juvenile justice act 2015.

PG NO.14
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
ON MAINTAINABILITY
I. THE WRIT PETITION IN THE PRESENT CASE IS MAINTAINABLE

BEFORE THE HON‟BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.
ON MERITS
II. WHETHER SECTION 15 OF JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT VOLIATE

BASIC STRUCTURE OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION?
a) THE IMPUGNED AMENDMENT VIOLATES ARTICLE 14 OF THE
CONSTITUTION.
b)IMPUGNED AMENDMENT VIOLATES ARTICLE 15(3) OF THE
CONSTITUTION.
c) CLASSIFICATION LACKS INTELLEGIBLE DIFFERENCIA.
III.WHETHER THE SECTION IS IN CONTRAVENTION TO UNITED
NATION CONVENTION ON RIGHTS OF CHILDREN?
IV.WHEATHER THE LEGISLATION IS CORRECT TO DECIDE THE AGE 16-

18?
a) STUDY OF BRAIN CELL.

PG NO.15
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ON MAINTAINABILITY
I. THE WRIT PETITION IN THE PRESENT CASE IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE
HON‘BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.
The petitioner, Society for Equality has litigation competence to submit the writ petition before
Supreme Court of India. Further, Article 32 of the Constitution of India gives power to the
Supreme Court of India to entertain the writ petition.
ON MERITS
II. THE SECTION 15 OF JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT 2015 VIOLATES THE BASIC
STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION
The Juvenile justice act 2015 allows children between 16 and 18 years alleged to have
committed heinous offences to be tried and sentenced as adults. While it does not expressly
lower the age of a child in conflict with law from 18 to 16 years, the effect is the same, as the
Bill proposes that children above 16 years can be tried and treated as adults. It thus completely
destroys the rehabilitative foundation of the existing juvenile justice system in India by adopting
a retributive approach for heinous crimes committed by children in this age group. In its Two
Hundred Sixty-Fourth Report, the Department-Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on
Human Resource Development on The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Bill,
2014 concluded in para 3.21 that ―the existing juvenile system is not only reformative and
rehabilitative in nature but also recognizes the fact that 16-18 years is an extremely sensitive and
critical age requiring greater protection2. Also it lacks in classification of intelligibledifferentia,
‗Preliminary assessment‘ by the Juvenile Justice Board violates the test of procedural fairness
under the Constitution
2
Critique of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Bill, 2014 (JJ Bill)

PG NO.16
Hence, there is no need to subject them to different or adult judicial system as it will go against
Articles 14 and 15(3) of the Constitution.‖ This recommendation has been entirely ignored.
III. the Section is in contravention to United Nations convention for Child Rights

PG NO.17
WRITTEN PLEADINGS
1) Whether the honorable Supreme Court can entertain the present case?
Article 323 provides right to move the Supreme Court , acting in a bona fide manner, in
case of violation of fundamental right, for the benefit of the society at large. The
Amendment Act in question is violative of the basic structure of the constitution and the
right to equality ensured as a fundamental right under Articles 14 of the constitution4.
Thus in the present case, by virtue of power conferred under Article 32 of the constitution
Supreme Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present writ .
The Counsel humbly submits that in Romesh Thappar5, the Supreme Court ruled that such
a petition can come straight to the Supreme Court without going to the High Court first.
The Court stated that unlike Art. 226, Art. 32 confers a Fundamental Right on the
individual and imposes an obligation on the Supreme Court which it must discharge when
a person complains of infringement of a Fundamental Right. Art. 32 provides a guaranteed
remedy for the enforcement of the Fundamental Rights and constitutes the Supreme Court
as the ―guarantor and protector of Fundamental Rights.‖ This proposition has been
reiterated by the Supreme Court in a number of cases.
3
32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the
rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in
the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may
be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 ) and ( 2 ),
Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its
jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause ( 2 )
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for
by this Constitution
4
Tehseen poonawalla v union of india
5
Romesh Thappar vs The State Of Madras 1950 AIR 124, 1950 SCR 594

PG NO.18
The Section 15 of JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECTION )ACT 2015 is

unconstitutional and should be declared as void.
2) Whether the section 15 of juvenile justice act violates the basic structure of the
constitution of India?
It is most humbly submitted before this honorable court that the amendment being made in the
section 15 of the juvenile justice act violates the article 14 of the constitution of indica as article
14 of the constitution states the right to equality before the law but the amendment the grounds
of being unreasonable, arbitrary and hence, in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
2.1) THE IMPUNGED VIOLATES ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION
The concept of equality and equal protection of laws guaranteed by Article 14 in its
spectrum
Encompasses social and economic justice in a political democracy6. Implicit in the

concept
Of equality is the concept that persons who are in fact unequally circumstanced7 cannot be
Cannot be treated as par and equal as unequal‘s8. The principle guiding Article 14 is that there
should not be discrimination between onePerson and another if as regards the subject matter of
6
Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. Union of India, (1996) 10 SCC 104
7
T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481.
8
State of Punjab v. Balkaran Singh, (2006) 8 SCC 481, 655

PG NO.19
the legislation their position is theSame, or in other words, action must not be arbitrary but must
be based on some valid.The guarantee of equality before the law is an aspect of what Dicey calls
the Rule OF Law in England. It means that no man is above the law and that every person
whatever be his rank or condition is subject to the jurisdiction of ordinary courts.
Rule of law require that no person shall be subjected to harsh, uncivilized or discriminatory
treatment even when the object is the securing of the paramount exigencies of law and order
The Bill requires the JJB to arbitrarily assess culpability prior to even an establishment of guilt.
This assessment is in essence a sentencing decision that is arrived at even before the guilt is
established. This is in complete violation of the presumption of innocence - a central tenet of the
juvenile justice as well as the criminal justice system. Further, accurate assessment of „mental
Capacity‟ is impossible and will inevitably lead to arbitrary transfers. The Bill assumes that
An accurate assessment of mental capacity/maturity for the purpose of transfer is possible when
this is in fact not true. Latest research shows that individualized assessments of adolescent
mental capacity is not possible and the suggestion that it can be done would mean ―exceeding the
limits of science‖. Evaluation of mental capacity is a complex process which cannot be done
accurately by the JJB even with the help of experienced psychologists. Such assessments will be
fraught with errors and arbitrariness and will allow inherent biases to determine which child is
transferred to an adult court. When psycho-social maturity or mental capacity cannot be
measured or assessed accurately, it will be a travesty of justice if children alleged to be in
conflict with the law are transferred to an adult criminal court and ultimately sent to an
adult prison based on such a flawed assessment. 9
9
Bonnie & Scott, ‗The Teenage Brain: Adolescent Research and the Law‘, Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 22(2) 158–161 (2013), p.161.

PG NO.20
Principle which itself must not be irrational or discriminatory.The principle of

reasonableness and rationality which is legally as well as philosophically an essential
element of equality or non-arbitrariness is projected by Art. 14 and it must characterize
every State action, whether it be under authority of law or in exercise of executive power
without making of law. The State cannot, therefore, act arbitrarily in entering into
relationship, contractual or otherwise with a third party, but its action must conform to
some standard or norm which is rational and non-discriminatory. In Ramana Dayaram
Shetty Vs International Airport Authority Of India And Others (1979 AIR(SC) 1628 ) the
expression ―arbitrarily‖ means: in an unreasonable manner, as fixed or done capriciously
or at pleasure, without adequate determining principle, not founded in the nature of things,
non-rational, not done or acting according to reason or judgment, depending on the will
alone. In M/S SHARMA TRANSPORT REP.BY SHRI D.P.SHARMA Vs. GOVERNMENT
OF A.P. & ORS.(AIR 2002 SC 322
2.2) IMPUGNED AMENDMENT VIOLATES ARTICLE 15 (3) OF THE

CONSTITUTION
It is further submitted that the impugned Act is in violation of Article 15(3) of the
Constitution of India. It is submitted that the stated object of the Act is for the welfare of
Children, however, the amendment passed makes the legislation draconian and against the idea
of welfare of children. It is submitted that the idea behind treating a certain age group as children
is to protect the most vulnerable section of the society. In case a crime is committed by the
children,theendeavor of the state should be reformative rather than punitive or worse retributive.

PG NO.21
The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), a multi-disciplinary body meant to dispose matters in the best
interest of the child, is now empowered to re-criminalize the child.10
The law of juvenile justice stands on the principles of restorative justice and any digression from
the same would be detrimental to the right of the children and in contravention with the principle
as enunciated under Article 15(3) of the Constitution. It is respectfully submitted that the
impugned Act seeksTo punish the child in conflict with law for the failure of the
Society at large in providing the child with adequate care andProtection
2.3) Classification Lacks Intelligible Differentia
Article 14 forbids class legislation but does not forbid reasonable classification for the
Purpose of legislation. I t is submitted that the impugned Act seeks to create aFictional
classification between the children belonging to ageGroup of 16-18 years on the basis of
degree of crime "allegedly"Committed by them the correct position will be that class
legislation is permissible if theClassification on which it is based is rational and has a
nexus with the object sought to beAchieved. Mere classification is not enough to get over
the inhibition of this Article. TheClassification must be rational. The differentia which is
the basis of classification and theObject of the Act are distinct things and what is
necessary is that there must be a nexus between them. The legislation is given the utmost
latitude in making the classification and it is only when there is a palpable abuse of power
and the differences made have no rationalRelation to the objectives that judicial
interference becomes necessary. Every State action must be informed by reason and it
follows that an act uninformed by reason is per se arbitrary
10
Developing Statutes for Competence to Stand Trial in Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings: A Guide for
Lawmakers, 2 April 2012

PG NO.22
The Preamble to the JJ Bill, 2014 states that it seeks ―to consolidate and amend the law relating
to children alleged and found to be in conflict with law and children in need of care and
protection by catering to their basic needs through proper care, protection, development,
treatment, social re-integration, by adopting a child-friendly approach in the adjudication and
disposal of matters in the best interest of children and for their rehabilitation through processes
provided, and institutions and bodies established.‖ None of these objectives can be met by
sending children alleged and found to be in conflict with the law to ‗places of safety‘ and/or an
adult criminal justice system.
Transfer will deprive these juveniles not only of protection and treatment and would amount to
sentencing them to physical and sexual abuse by adult under-trials and convicts and leaving them
with no option but to pursue a career in crime11.
3) Whether the amendment is in contravention of the United Nations convection?
The humble Petitioner submits that the impugnedAmendment is against the UN

Convention on the Rights ofThe Child which is a comprehensive, internationally binding
Agreement on the rights of children (hereinafter referred to as"The UNCRC"), which was
adopted by the United NationsGeneral Assembly in 1989. The definition of child as
envisagedIn Article-1 states;―For the purposes of the present Convention, a child means
Every human being below the age of eighteen years unlessunder the law applicable to the
child, majority is attainedEarlier."
The object clause of the present amendment states thus;
11
Critique of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Bill, 2014 (JJ Bill)

PG NO.23
"AND WHEREAS, the Government of India has acceded on the11th December, 1992 to
the Convention on the Rights of theChild, adopted by the General Assembly of United
Nations,Which has prescribed a set of standards to be adhered to by allState parties in
securing the best interest of child;"
The Petitioner submits that the mention of UNCRC in theObjective of the impugned
amendment is a mere eye wash asthe amendment seeks to erode the very definition of
child asEnvisaged in the UNCRC.
The Petitioner further submits that section 16 of the ActOf 2000 (the existing Act) had a
specific provision to deal withChildren between 16-18 years who had committed serious
Offences which was well within the existing juvenile systemand that there was no need to
push juvenile offenders intoAdult criminal system.
The Petitioner submits that our country accepts the international convention of keeping 18
years as the age of the child
And the same is reflected in various laws. Where the age of child was kept at 18 years
such as Contract Act, Motor Vehicles Act, etc.
It is submitted that the Amended Act provides that theChild alleged to have a committed a
heinous crime and isFound mentally and physically capable of committing the same
And understanding the implication of his act will be tried inThe Children Court,
established under the Commissions forProtection of Child Rights Act, 2005 or a Special
Court under The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012,

PG NO.24
Wherever existing and where such courts have not beendesignated, the Court of Sessions
having jurisdiction to tryOffences under the Act.
. These rehabilitative dispositions included admonition, community service, imposition of

a fine, probation, group counselling and an extreme measure of
Deprivation of liberty by way of placement of the child in a special home for three years.
These alternatives were in absolute compliance with UN Convention on the rights of the
Child. In the impugned legislation, however, the Juvenile Justice Board, a body meant to
dispose cases in the best interest of children, is being obligated to decide whether a
Child should be pushed into the adult system on the basis of a preliminary inquiry. The
Petitioner submits that it is highly arbitrary inquiry violating several rights under the
Constitution as well as the UNCRC.
Data already shows that more than half the children apprehended for offences come from
families with an annual income of less than Rs. 25,000 while only 0.55% of the children
apprehended come from families with an annual income of more than Rs. 3,00,000.12
Undoubtedly, the provisions of the JJ Bill will result in class, caste and religion-based targeting
of children under the garb of assessing their potential contribution to society and extent of
reformation. Such discrimination is also contrary to Article 2 of the legally binding UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child which prohibits discrimination of any kind, including
religion, property and other status
12
Crime in India, 2013, Compendium, National Crime Records Bureau (2014), pg. 4. Available at
http://ncrb.gov.in/CD-CII2013/compendium%202013.pdf

PG NO.25
4) Whether the legislation is correct to decide the age of 16-18?
The legislation has failed to study various scientific as well as philosophical basis before
deciding the age 16 -18
4.1 Study of brain cells
The Petitioner herein submits that the brain of the teenager is not completely developed
and he/ she is incapable of fully understanding the consequences of his actions or
omissions. It is submitted that in 2007, a study conducted at the National Institute of
Mental Health (NIMH), U.S., scanned the brains of nearly 1,000 healthy children between
ages 3 and 18. Child and adolescent psychiatrist Jay Geed, who conducted the Magnetic
Resonance Imaging (MRI) scans and followed the actual physical changes in the
adolescent brain,
Believes that brain maturation peaks around the age of 25. In a 2005 paper on
―Adolescence, Brain Development and Legal Culpability‖, Dr. Geed was quoted as
saying, ―Part of the brain that is helping organization, planning and strategizing is not
Done being built yet… It‘s sort of unfair to expect [adolescents] to have adult levels of
organizational skills or decision-making before their brain is finished being built.‖
According to available neuro-scientific data, the frontal lobe, especially the prefrontal cortex, is
among the last parts of the brain to fully mature. The frontal lobes are responsible for impulse
control, in charge of decision-making, judgment and emotions — and therefore crucial when
fixing ―culpability‖ in the case of juvenile delinquency. Further, we now know conclusively that
teenagers tend to be impulsive and prone to mood swings because the limbic system — which
processes emotions — is still developing. The finding herein has been affirmed in a research
paper titled Cruel and Unusual Punishment: The Juvenile Death Penalty Adolescence, Brain

PG NO.26
Development and Legal Culpability published by the Juvenile Justice Centre of the American
Bar Association.
In Sheela Barse v. Union of India16, the Supreme Court observed: ―Even where children are
accused of offences, they must not be kept in jails. It is no answer on the part of the State to say
That it has not got enough number of remand homes or observation homes or other places where
children can be kept and that is why they are lodged in jails.
It is also no answer on the part of the State to urge that the ward in the jail where the children are
kept in separate from the ward in which the other prisoners are detained. It is the atmosphere of
the jail which has a highly injurious.
Effect on the mind of the child, estranging him from the society and breeding in him aversion
bordering on hatred against a system which keeps him in jail
Research in developmental psychology explains the difference in cognitive capacity and

psychosocial maturity between children including adolescents and adults that influence their
decision-making in anti-social situations.13Whether the juvenile understood the consequences of
the offence or whether he or she had the mental and physical capacity to commit the offence is a
narrow and non-holistic approach to respond to serious/heinous crimes. It fails to take into
account the ongoing process of development and its impact on children, especially adolescents.
13
2Elizabeth Cauffman and Laurence Steinberg, ―(I‘m) maturity of Judgment in Adolescence: Why Adolescents May
Be Less Culpable than Adults,‖Behav. Sci. Law 18: 741 at742-743 (2000)

PG NO.27
According to Andrew Von Hirsch, Honorary Professor of Penal Theory and Penal Law at
Cambridge University, ―[y]young adolescents, the reasoning must be, cannot reasonably be
expected to have a fully-fledged comprehension of what people‘s basic interests are and how
typical crimes affect those interests – because achieving this kind of understanding is a
Developmental process. Developing that understanding calls both for cognitive skills and
capacity for moral reasoning which develop over time – and does so precisely during the period
of adolescence…‖3 While the cognitive levels of a 16 or 17 year old may match that of an adult,
findings show that they lack psychosocial maturity levels as compared to adults.4 Adolescents
are more prone to peer. Further, The Child shall be forced to face trial which will have negative
Effect on the psychology of the child. Under the existing law, if a child, in conflict with law,
between the ages of 16-18 years was found to have committed an offence by the Juvenile Justice
Board, there was a range of rehabilitative dispositions that could be passed by the Juvenile
Justice Board
.

PG NO.28
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
IN THE LIGHT OF THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED, CASES AND AUTHORITIES

CITED ABOVE, THE PETITIONER HUMBLY REQUESTS THE HON‟BLE SUPREME
COURT OF INDIA, TO ADMIT THE WRIT PETITION, AND IN SO DOING,
ADJUDGE AND DECLARE THAT:
I. THE JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT (CARE AND PROTECTION ACT) ACT, 2015 IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL BEING INTER-ALIA VIOLATIVE OF THE BASIC STRUCTURE
OF THE CONSTITUTION, THE PRINCIPLES OF EQUALITY ENSHRINED IN THE
PREAMBLE OF THE CONSTITUTION..
AND PASS ANY OTHER ORDER, DIRECTION OR RELIEF THAT IT MAY DEEM
FIT IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, FAIRNESS, EQUITY AND GOOD
CONSCIENCE.
FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL DUTY BOUND FOREVER
PRAY.
SD/-
COUNSELS FOR THE PETITIONER

PG NO.29

PG NO.30

Moot Court Memorial 2

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Moot Court Memorial 2

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

PG NO.

THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDICA

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF CONSTITUION OF INDICA

SATYA AND SASHI …………………………………………………………PETITIONER

STATE OF MAHARAJ PRADESH……………………………………………..RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PETITIONER

1) Index of abbreviation………………………………………………… PG NO.- 3

4) Statement of facts.....................................................................................PG NO-12

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PETITIONER

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PETITIONER

Supreme Court cases

1) Salili bali vs. union of India w.p. no. 10 of 2013

5) Babloo singh vs. state of up cr. Appl. No. 763 of 2003

6) Raju vs. state of Haryana cr. Appl. No. 281 of 2010

7) Munna vs. state scc 154 (2) 1989

8) Dharanbir vs. state cr. Appl. No. 860 of 2010

9) Gopinath gosh vs. state of Bengal scc 228 of 1984

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PETITIONER

11) Pradip kumar vs. state of up scc 419 (4) 1995

16) T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 8 SCC 481.

17) State of Punjab v. Balkaran Singh, (2006) 8 SCC 481, 655

18) Tahseen poonawalla v union of india

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PETITIONER

21) Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Raju S.L.P. (Crl) No.1953 of 2014

24) Sheela Barse v. Union of India 16AIR 1986 SC 1773

25) M/S SHARMA TRANSPORT REP.BY SHRI D.P.SHARMA Vs. GOVERNMENT

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PETITIONER

1) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PETITIONER

BOOKS AND ARTICLES

V.G. Ramachandran, Law of Writs (6th ed. 2006).

Subhash C Kashyap, Constitutional Law Of India (2008)

Arvind P. Datar, Commentary on Constitution of India (2nd ed. 2007).

Shiva Rao, Framing of the Indian Constitution

DR. L.M. SINGHVI, CONSTITUTION OF INDIA( 2nd ed.) Vol I

H.M. Seervai , Constitutional Law of India (4th ed. 1993).

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PETITIONER

3) Prof. Ved Kumari on Juvenile Justice Act

5) Elizabeth Cauffman and Laurence Steinberg, “(I‟m) maturity of Judgment in

6) Developing Statutes for Competence to Stand Trial in Juvenile Delinquency

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PETITIONER

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PETITIONER

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PETITIONER

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PETITIONER

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PETITIONER

I. THE WRIT PETITION IN THE PRESENT CASE IS MAINTAINABLE

II. WHETHER SECTION 15 OF JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT VOLIATE

IV.WHEATHER THE LEGISLATION IS CORRECT TO DECIDE THE AGE 16-

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PETITIONER

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PETITIONER

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PETITIONER

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PETITIONER

The Section 15 of JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECTION )ACT 2015 is

2.1) THE IMPUNGED VIOLATES ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION

Encompasses social and economic justice in a political democracy6. Implicit in the

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PETITIONER

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PETITIONER

Principle which itself must not be irrational or discriminatory.The principle of

2.2) IMPUGNED AMENDMENT VIOLATES ARTICLE 15 (3) OF THE

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PETITIONER

2.3) Classification Lacks Intelligible Differentia

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PETITIONER

3) Whether the amendment is in contravention of the United Nations convection?