SUBJECT: MOOT COURT EXERCISE, COURT VISIT AND

INTERNSHIP
Course Teacher Name : Assistant Professor Ms. Dichen Bhutia

MOOT –PREPOSITION ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

The Union of Janani is the second most populous country in the world and seventh largest in terms

of area. It has a diverse population divided on the lines of religion, ethnicity, caste, language and

culture. Janani, previously a British colony, gained independence around 74 years back and is

governed by a written constitution, structured to suit a quasi-federal system. Janani, a developing

country, is an active member of the international community as well as the United Nations

Organization. It has a robust multi-party system instituted as well which caters to the needs of the

citizens from various states of the country and represents their interests to the Center. Due to the

multiplicity of parties within each state, claiming majority by a single party proved to be a herculean

task. These imbalances led to various coalition governments being formed between the ruling party at

the Center and the regional parties at the State level. With a renewed Cabinet, the Union introduced

new legislation catering to the most significant aspects of the economy. This included the

introduction of Agricultural Reforms Bill, 2019, Preservation of Sovereignty Bill, 2019 and

Management of COVID 19 Bill, 2020. However, due to growing differences within the coalition

government, the Bills did not see the light of day.

2. The Janani Janta Party [JJP] had been in power at the Union level for the past three decades and

assumed a great deal of power and influence over most of the States. However, they started losing

support from most of their allies as the National Janani Party [NJP] had started gaining prominence

in the country. The situation was such that the JJP could only remain in power if they would align

themselves with North Eastern Alliance Party [NEAP], which was the strongest party consisting of

MPs from the North-Eastern area of Janani. It consisted of 7 States which were inundated with

political and economical instability and turmoil.

3. During the general elections for the year 2020, the NJP and JJP were in a tussle, the only way to

achieve a majority was to align themselves with NEAP. After a tough battle, Chief of NEAP, Mr.

Clarke, declared that the party has decided to align themselves with JJP and formed a coalition

government in the Center. For a long time, everything went smoothly. Owing to the constant

turbulence in the North-East region of the country, a political organization called the North Eastern

States’ Federation Freedom [FFF] had gained much prominence. Their objective had been to improve

their relations with the Center and work for advancing these states in terms of infrastructure,

technology, industry. During the past decade, they had gained people’s confidence, by being vocal

about their disagreements with the Union with respect to the new Bills which were introduced and

how they didn’t benefit the North Eastern population. Fearing the loss of their popularity in these

states, NEAP had to cater to the opinions of FFF. However, the problems faced by these states were

rarely ever covered by the media, and it was allegedly claimed by the FFF that the Central Executive

had always discriminated against these states and had led to a tainted perspective of citizens.

4. After a few months of the successful working of the coalition, the relationship between both the

Parties had deteriorated because of their differing agendas. The JJP wanted to introduce a bill to

prohibit cow slaughter and a bill for the preservation of the sovereignty of Janani which, if passed,

would oppose the religious sentiments of the people belonging to the North East Jananiians and

affect certain immigrants from neighboring nations respectively. The FFF commenced protests in the

North-Eastern States to pressure NEAP to vote against the bills. Due to mounting pressure, the NEAP

succumbed and voted against the Bill, thereby defeating the Bill in the Lower House.

5. In the midst of such events, the JJP Government introduced a bill in the Lower House of

Parliament to amend the Constitution. Under the Janani Constitution, certain regions of the different

states were given a special status based on the socio-political conditions and economic

backwardness. The Government led by JJP decided to give them the status of States instead of

special status and amended the Constitution to create 10 new States (106th Constitution

Amendment Act, 2021). And immediately held general elections in those new States and was

successful in forming its own government in all the ten new States. KNTV, a prestigious news outlet

in Janani, caught wind of a leaked report which suggested that JJP had introduced the

constitutional amendment as a measure to ensure the retention of the majority in the Parliament in

the upcoming elections and to pave the way for other amendments to the Constitution that requires

the ratification of one-half of the States. The government, however, refuted the claims and reasoned
its decision to establish 10 new States on the grounds of better administration and governance

according to the needs of such regions.

7. The 106th Constitution Amendment caused a huge uproar which was supplemented by the media.

Violent protests broke out, and the Union Government was accused of being anti-federal and

violating the basic structure of the Constitution. Large protests were backed by the FFF who resorted

to the destruction of public property.

8. In the year 2021, the country was going through the havoc wreaked by the deadly COVID - 19

pandemic. Janani was badly hit due to overpopulated cities, poor health infrastructure and waning

GDP. Owing to the difference in opinions between the Center and the North Eastern States, they did

not cooperate with the Central Government and this cost the lives of people.

9. The ten new States and a few other States of Janani had requested assistance from the Union for

additional medical supplies. The Central Government, then, issued a direction to all the States that

the surplus medical resources, for instance, PPE kits, surgical masks, sanitizer, etc, are to be given

to the Union which shall be further shared with the States having limited resources. However, the

seven states anticipated a huge demand for those medical resources and hence did not give them to

the Union. They were also vocal about questionable methods adopted by the Union in passing the

106th Constitutional (Amendment) Act, 2021.

10. Observing the conditions prevailing in the 7 states, the President upon receiving a report from the

Governor, imposed Emergency in these 7 States under Article 356 of the Constitution of Janani.

11. Several organizations rose up against the imposition of Emergency, claiming that the action is

violative of the basic structure of the Constitution of Janani and destroyed the very essence of a

federal system of government. Angered by the turn of events, FFF challenged the constitutional

validity of the action of imposing the President’s Rule under the Constitution of Janani.

6 12. Further Janani being a member of the UN, had to work in pursuance of the Envision 2030, an

initiative which laid down the 17 sustainable development goals for all countries to employ, one of

which was the “Good Health and Well-Being” of all its citizens. Thus the Union Government planned

another set of amendments to the Constitution. 13. Owing to the fact that States were unable to

perform their duties laid down under Chapter IV of the Constitution and to meet the Envision 2030

goals, the Union Government through the 107th Constitution Amendment Act, 2022 moved Entry

numbers 1, 6 and 14 from the State List to the Concurrent List of the Constitution of Janani. With

the help of the Governments in Ten new States and other States where JJP was in power
independently or through alliance succeeded in getting the ratification of one half of the States of the

Union of Janani. 14. Mr. Clarke filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the 107th

Constitution Amendment Act 2022. The Supreme Court clubbed the matters filed by the FFF and Mr.

Clarke. The hearing is fixed on 5th June 2022

The following issues are for consideration of the Supreme Court of Janani - 1. Whether the

imposition of the President’s Rule in the North East States is justified under Art. 356? 2. Whether the

106th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2021 is constitutional? 3. Whether the 107th Constitutional

Amendment Act, 2022 is constitutional?

NOTE: a) The laws of Janani are in PariMateria with the laws of India. b) Participants are free

to amend and form their own issues and sub-issues (Minimum 1 Issue, Maximum 5 Issues)

MOOT PROBLEM ON CRIMINAL LAW

In the case of:

Mrs. Madhu V. Mr. Vaidya and Others

Mr. Rahul Sen and Mrs. Susmita Sen were married in 2017 and were residents of Kolkata in the State of
West Bengal and they were working there in a US based Multi National company.

After 3 years of their happy marital life, Mrs. Susmita Sen became aware that she cannot give birth to a
healthy child. She came to know about this fact by reading medical reports kept secretly by her husband. As
per that report Mr. Rahul suffered from some serious congenital medical problem that may pass on to their
child.

Then they had quite a big fight in this regard that he never told her about his health problem either prior to
her marriage or thereafter but kept the information secret. She remained in her in-laws house under their
care, as her husband went for employment training program to Pune for two months.
After some time Mr. Rahul learnt that his wife, desirous of having a healthy child, developed an extra marital
relationship with her office colleague, Mr. Vaidya. However, he did not object to the same.
Mr. Vaidya however, confessed to his wife that he had an illicit relationship with Mrs. Susmita. Mrs. Madhu,
wife of Mr. Vaidya, furious about the matter, filed a complaint against her husband as ‘main accused,’ Mrs.
Susmita Sen as ‘second accused’ and Mr. Rahul Sen as ‘an abettor’ as he, through his silence and
acquiescence facilitated, rather, to put it bluntly, encouraged Mrs. Susmita Sen and Mr. Vaidya to indulge in
‘adultery’ thereby ruining her marital life. She pleaded that she too shall be recognized as ‘aggrieved
person’ as her matrimonial life was disturbed with these developments.
Meanwhile, an NGO filed a Public Interest Limitation in the Supreme Court with a plea that Section 497 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 shall be struck down as it violates Articles 14, 15 and 21 of Indian Constitution on
the ground that the relevant section of Indian Penal Code, 1860 gives ‘immunity only to adulteress but not to
men’ when both are equally guilty. As a matter of principle of ‘public policy’, gender neutrality shall be
observed in criminal law.
Mrs. Madhu also impleaded herself challenging the constitutional validity of sec. 497 in the Supreme Court
as it violates different Articles of Indian Constitution. She also submits that such ‘total immunity cannot be
given to Mrs. Susmita, the adulteress.
She submits that S. 198 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is also unconstitutional for it ‘discriminates
on the basis of sex’ which is prohibited under Article 15 (1) of Indian Constitution.

Mrs. Madhu also filed a petition in the Family Court for ‘divorce’ from her husband under The Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955.
Mr. Rahul also applied for divorce from his wife under The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Mrs. Susmita Sen
objected that ‘it is strange that he, instead of she, filed for divorce when ‘in reality non-disclosure of his
serious health problem has brought forth this state of affairs’.

The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against all the accused persons ‘declaring that Sec. 497
does not violate any of the provisions of the Indian Constitution.
The Supreme Court, after hearing preliminary arguments, admitted and clubbed all the SLPs for final
disposal.

● The matter to be heard by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

● Students shall prepare memorials/arguments for both Petitioner and Respondent.

● Students may frame their own issues

MOOT COURT PROBLEM

CIVIL CASE

Modern School of Environmental Studies Vs Union of India

The present environmental problems in Delhi, India, are a threat to the well-being of the city's and area's
inhabitants as well as the flora and fauna. Delhi, the sixth-most populated metropolis in the world, is one of
the most heavily polluted cities in India, having for instance one of the country's highest volumes of
particulate matter pollution. This was corroborated by an announcement by the World Health Organization,
in May 2014, that New Delhi was the most polluted city in the world.

Overpopulation and the ensuing overuse of scarce resources such as water have put pressure on the
environment. The city suffers from air pollution caused by road dust and industry, with comparatively
smaller contributions from unclean engines in transportation, especially diesel powered city buses and
trucks, and two-wheelers and three-wheelers with two-stroke engines. Besides human and environmental
damage, pollution has caused economic damage as well.

On April 8, 2015, picking up several points brought out in the ‘Death by Breath’ series, an ongoing
investigation on the quality of air in Delhi, the Delhi Green Tribunal (DGT) issued a fresh ban on all diesel
buses and trucks more than 5 years old from plying in the National Capital Region. A day after that, the
Delhi government came up with a unique order of the era whereby the vehicles with odd and even
registration numbers will be allowed on alternate days from January 01, 2016. It also passed an order to
requisition school buses to ply as commercial, public buses after school had ended in order to encourage the
commuters of Delhi to take public transport rather than rely solely on their private vehicles.
The Modern School of Environmental Studies, Delhi was plying school buses running on diesel purchased
in 2005 for school purposes, and coincidently, all the buses were of the odd number series. This order of the
Delhi government proved to be the last nail in the coffin for the school.

The Modern School of Environmental Studies was not the sole victim of the ban and thus got the support of
all the private schools of Delhi. And so, aggrieved by the orders of DGT and the Delhi government, the
Action Committee for Unaided Recognized Private Schools, Delhi has filed a Writ petition in the Supreme
Court against the DGT ban and the Odd-Even formula order of Delhi government on the following grounds:

● That taking the schools' own buses is in violation of Education Act which stipulates that school's
assets cannot be put to commercial use. The school buses are the assets of the schools and allowing
them for use as commercial vehicles shall amount to violation of basic principles and provisions of
DSEAR (Delhi School Education Act and Rules) 1973.

● That the insurance of school buses stipulates use of buses for students only. The school buses are not
permitted to be used for general public nor should the school buses be used for hire.

● That the road tax exemption also stipulates the buses shall not be used for any commercial purposes.

● That the Motor Vehicles Act prescribed a fitness test, and not the vehicle’s age, to ascertain whether
it should be allowed to ply or not. They also contended that the DGT could not substitute by its order
what has been written in the Motor Vehicles Act, which did not put a ban on vehicles older than 5
years.

● That it is further contended that such a ban is completely arbitrary, and raised the argument that it is
not the College who is responsible for making Delhi a gas chamber.

A group of public-spirited individuals also filed a Public Interest Litigation before the Supreme Court of
India, Delhi. While the ban on diesel buses and trucks older than five years did not directly affect private
individuals, the Odd-Even formula did, especially those who have to commute to work and also persons
with disabilities and other vulnerable groups who rely on their personal means of transport to get by. The
writ petition was based on allegations of the violation of the fundamental rights of the citizens – including
Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. They also averred that the decision was made without
any informed public discussion or debate, and without paying attention to the particular circumstances of
India which are different from those of other countries where this rule has previously been implemented.
The individuals approached the court to issue a writ that would restrain the Delhi government from
implementing the Odd-Even rule on private vehicles and cars in Delhi. The two petitions have been clubbed
together to be heard by the Apex Court. Argue from the both side.