ANTARIK SARKAR MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION-2019

MOOT PROPOSITION

¶ 1. The Union of Kalinga got its independence in the year 1947 from the rigours and clutches
of British colonisation. A constituent assembly was formed to draft a Constitution of its own.
After almost three years of hardwork and toil a Supreme Document was created which became
the lengthiest Constitution in the world. The country is diversified on the basis of caste, creed,
religion and race. Kalinga is a blend of unity in diversity. The Constitution provided for the
provisions which ensured the healthy working of the democracy and welfare of all the people
concerned.

¶ 2. Freedoms of media and press are fully ensured. The founding fathers of the Constitution
were well aware of the fact that without a free and fair media, a democracy would hardly
sustain. Media is regarded as the ‘fourth pillar’ of the democracy. Under the fundamental right
to ‘freedom of speech and expression’, the freedom of press and media are implicit. Therefore,
they are granted all the rights to freely gather, examine, analyse and publish news which may
concern the public as a whole.

¶ 3. Mithila was an eastern province/state in the Union of Kalinga. Vikram Dubey (23) is the
son of a renowned politician, Mr. Ranjit Dubey who is a forefront leader of the ruling-party of
the state. Ms. Shamaira Khan (22) is the daughter of Mr. Abu Sayed Khan who was a middle-
class government servant. Vikram and Shamaira met each other in their college and fall in love
with each other. Day by day their intimacy blossomed beyond bounds and they started to keep
sexual relationships. Vikram started to seek frequent sexual favours from the girl, at times, he
tried to establish sexual relationship against the order of nature. This made the lady reluctant
to continue with the relationship. She started to avoid Vikram and denied his every attempt to
keep physical relationship. In spite of this, the boy often chased her under several pretexts.

¶ 4. Mr. Abu Sayed Khan filed an F.I.R. alleging that Vikram along with his two friends
forcibly abducted the lady when she was out for some shopping purposes on 12th March 2018.
He further complained that they attempted to penetrate their male organs to the private part of
the lady. Shamaira tried to resist them and endeavoured to escape from their holds. Such
resistance enraged the men and they poured acid on her body which resulted in severe burn
injuries on her face and middle part of the body. Subsequently, they threw her out of the vehicle

Page | 1
 ANTARIK SARKAR MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION-2019

and escaped from the scene. She was admitted in hospital by the help of a few passer-by
individuals.

¶ 5. On the basis of these facts, police conducted investigation and finally submitted the
chargesheet in the learned trial Court for the charges under Sections 376, 377, 307, 354-D and
326-A r/w Section 34 against Vikram and under Sections 376, 307 and 326-A r/w Section 34
of K.P.C., 1860, against his two friends. The trial Court ultimately found the accused persons
guilty of the offences alleged and sentenced them to imprisonment for life. Aggrieved by the
decision of the trial Court, the accused persons moved to the High Court of Mithila in appeals
against their convictions. The High Court of Mithila after hearing the appeals upheld the
decision of the learned trial Court. Again, aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, they
preferred an appeal to the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶ 6. As the accused was from a political family, the entire matter got a very high media
coverage. The details of both the boy and girl and their family were aired in televised media-
shows repeatedly. The media houses hardly hesitated to disclose the identity of the victim as a
result of which the dignity and honour of the girl’s family was disgraced. They, especially the
girl was socially ostracized. It became very difficult for her to lead a dignified life any further.
Being the victim of excess media trial, she filed a writ petition in the Hon’ble Apex Court of
Kalinga under Article 32 of the Constitution for the violation of her fundamental rights and
failure of print as well as electronic media to comply with the obligation under Section 228-A
of K.P.C, 1860.

¶ 7. The incidents and instances of acid attack in Union of Kalinga are in rise day by day. They
have come to be disastrous for certain innocent human beings, especially girls who fall prey to
the grudges of some anti-social persons. Mr. Surendra Mahalik, a social-activist felt the
necessity of a legislative measure to regulate the sale of acid and other coercive substances.
Unguided and unregularized access to those substances has become hazardous to the well-
being of society. He urged the attention of the Supreme Judicial Authority in the matter through
a P.I.L. He prayed the Hon’ble Court to issue a writ of mandamus to the Parliament to
implement a suitable law to control and regulate the sale of acid and other coercive and
chemical substances which may be detrimental to the interest of society.

¶ 8. As all the three matters involved similar issues, the Hon’ble Supreme Court clubbed them
and the Hon’ble Chief Justice allotted the matter to a Full-Judge Bench for final hearing while
exercising his power under the Constitution of Kalinga.

Page | 2
 ANTARIK SARKAR MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION-2019

The participants are hereby requested to prepare their respective arguments for the following
issues.

1- Whether the impugned matters are maintainable before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court?
2- Whether the conviction of the accused persons under the alleged charges are
sustainable in the eyes of law?
3- Whether the fundamental rights of the prosecutrix got violated by the acts of
media and press?
4- Whether the non-availability of suitable legislations to regulate the sale of acid and
other coercive substances is violative of constitutional provisions?

Disclaimer:

(i) The laws of Union of Kalinga are pari materia to the laws of Union of India and
the laws of State of Mithila is pari materia to the laws of State of Odisha.
(ii) The Moot Problem is completely fictitious and any resemblance to any of the
persons and facts presented herein is only a co-incidence.
(iii) The participants are requested to frame their respective arguments under the
aforesaid issues and not to make any additional issues of their own.
(iv) The participants are, however, free to divide the issues into further sub-issues
according to their suitability and convenience.

Page | 3