MOOT PROBLEM No.

1
IN THE HONBLE’SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION 1 OF 2016

PQR & Ors Petitioners

Vs.
State of Mahadpur Respondents

The State of Mahadpur, by an amendment dated 4th November, 2016, brought about
an amendment to the Mahadpur Preservation of Animals Act, 1976 [hereinafter
referred to as the MPA, 1976]. It was published in the Mahadpur Gazette on 4 th
November, 2016. The said amendment has received President’s assent on
November 4th, 2016.

The newly added Sections, namely, Sections 5A to 5D, in effect, imposed a total
ban, inter alia, on the transportation, slaughter, import and possession of any flesh
of cows, bulls and bullocks slaughtered outside the State of Mahadpur.

Also, by sections 9A and 9B, the burden of proving that the slaughter, transport,
export outside the State, sale, purchase or possession of Flesh of cow, bull or bullock,
was not in contravention of the MPA, 1976 is upon the accused.

There was a major furore amongst certain class of the Public as well as the slaughter
House Owners, that the said total Ban, being first of its kind, is highly arbitrary and
Unconstitutuioanl.

Being aggrieved by the said ban, a Public Interest Litigation came to be filled by a
public spirited citizen, PQR, in the Hon’ble High Court, challenging the vires of the
MPA Act, 1971. The Slaughter Houses Association also filed a Writ Petition on 13th
December, 2016 challenging the vires of the MPA Act, 1971. The said Petitions
raised several challaenges, inter alia.

a. Sections 5A to 5D violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Right of

Privacy includes right of choice. The provisions as amended have taken away
the fundamental right of Citizens right of choice and right to be left alone.
b. Section 9-B is also violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India since,
the reverse burden of proof is cast upon the accused to show that he is
innocent, violating the general presumption of the accused being innocent
until proven guilty.
c. The amended provisions have also been challenged on the ground of being
violate of article 19(1) (g), inter alia, freedom of trade.
d. There is also a challenge on the amendments being violate of the Fundamental
Right to Practice and Propagate Religion under Article 25 as well as violation
of Cultural Right under Article 29.

The State of Mahadpur, defended the vires of the said Amendment, inter alia, on the
following grounds namely:

a. Right of privacy is not an absolute fundamental Right. Every Fundamental

Right is subject to reasonable restrictions.
b. Fundamental Rights cannot be read in isolation but along with the Directive
Principles and Fundamental Duties. The Petitioners cannot seek violation of
Fundamental rights when a Legislation seeks to achieve a “Compelling Public
Interest”.
c. Reasonable restrictions in implementation of Directive Principles of State
Policy should be upheld as being in Public Interest and individual interest
must yield to the same.
 d. The Apex Court has brought within its ambit the Right of Life for Animals as
well.

The Hon’ble High Court has upheld the validity of the amendments and the
Petitioners are before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition under
Article 136.

The Mahadpur Preservation of Animals Act, 1976 and the amendments are Pari
material to the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976.

Participants can incorporate and urge additional ancillary points.

 MOOT PROBLEM No. 2

The Chairman, Railway Board & ORS….……………………………PETITIONER

Vs.

Mrs. Chanda Bose & ORS…………………………………………RESPONDENT

Heena Ibraham, a citizen of Bangladesh came to India on official duty in the month
of December 2016. Before returning to Bangladesh, she wanted to visit Ajmer
Sharif. With that intent in mind, she arrived at Calcutta on 24th December, 2016 and
stayed at a hotel at 10, Sudder Street, Police station Taltola.

She arrived at Howrah Railway Station on 1st Jan, 2017 at about 14.00 hours to avail
Jodhour Express at 23.00 Hours for paying a visit to Ajmer Sharif. She had, however,
a wait listed ticket and so the approached a Train ticket Examiner at the Station for
confirmation of berth against her ticket. The Train ticket Examiner asked her to wait
in the Ladies Waiting room. She accordingly came to the ladies waiting room and
rested there.

At about 17.00 hours on 1st Jan, 2017, two unknown persons (later identified as one
Ashoke Singh, a tout who posed himself as a very influential person of the Railway
and Siya Ram Singh a railway ticket broker having good acquaintance with some of
the Railway Staff of Howrah Station) approached her, took her ticket and returned
the same after confirming reservation in Coach No. S-3 (Berth No.17) of Jodhpur
Express. At about 20.00 hours Siya Ram Singh came again to her with a boy named
Kashi and told her to accompany the boy to a restaurant if she wanted to have food
for the night. Accordingly at about 21.00 hours she went to a nearby eating house
with Kashi and had her meal there. Soon after she had taken her meal, she vomited
and came back to the Ladies Waiting room.
At about 21.00 hours Ashoke Singh along with Rafi Ahmed a parcel Supervisor at
Howrah Station came to the ladies Waiting Room before boarding the train. She
appeared to have some doubt initially but on being certified by the lady attendants
engaged on duty at the ladies Waiting Room about their credentials she accompanied
them to Yatri Niwas. Sitaram Singh, a khalasi of electric Department of Howrah
Station joined them on way to Yatri Niwas.

She was taken to room No.102 on the first floor of Yatri Niwas. The room was
booked in the name of Ashoke Singh against Railway Card pass no. 3638 since 30th
Dec, 2016. In room no.102 two other persons namely, one Lalan Singh, Parcel Clerk
of Howrah Railway Station and Awdesh Singh, Parcel Clearing Agent were waiting.
Heena Ibraham suspected something amiss when Ashoke Singh forced her into the
room. Awdesh Singh bolted the room from outside and stood on guard outside the
Sunil Sharma (Age 16 years boy helper in railway on contract basis) took liquor
inside the room and also forcibly compelled her to consume liquor. All the five
persons who were present inside the room brutally violated, and committed gang
rape on Heena Ibraham, who was in a state of shock and daze.

When she could recover, she managed to escape from the room of Yatri Niwas and
came back to the platform where again she met Siya Ram Singh and found him
talking to Ashoke Singh. Seeing her plight Siya Ram Singh pretended to be her
saviour and also abused and slapped Ashoke Singh. Since it was well past midnight
and Jodhpur Express had already departed, Siya Ram requested Heena Ibraham to
accompany him to his residence to rest for the night with his wife and children. He
assured her to help entrain Poorva Express on the following morning.

Thereafter Siyaram accompanied by Ram Samiram Sharma, a friend of siyaram took

her to the rented flat of Ram Samiram Sharma at 66, pathuriaghata Street, Police
Station Jorabagan, Calcutta. There Siyaram raped Heena Ibraham and when she
protested and resisted violently Siyaram and Ram Samiran Sharma gagged her
mouth and nostrils intending to kill her as a result Heena bled profusely. On being
informed by the landlord of the building following the hue and cry raised by Heena
Ibraham, she was reecued by Jorabagan Police.”

On the basis of abovementioned facts one social activist and Advocate mrs. Chanda
Bose and few NGO Members filed petition under article 226 as Public Interest
Litigation against Railway Board and Union of India for Heena Ibraham, the victim,
and many such other victims of rapes committed in the railway premises, saying that
the main accused in the instant case are employees of the railways, and the Union of
India and they are perpetrators of the heinous crime of gang rape repeatedly
committed upon the helpless victim Heena Ibraham.

It was on the basis of the above facts that the High Court awarded a sum of Rs. 10
lacs under Article 226 as compensation to Heena Ibraham, as the High Court was of
the opinion that the rape was committed at the building (Rail Yatri Niwas) belonging
to the Railways and the gang rape was perpetrated by the railway empoyees.

Now the case is before the Supreme Court. The points to be argued before the
Supreme Court are:

 Whether Heena Ibraham who is a foreigner and not an Indian citizen is entitled
to any relief / compensation under Constitution of India?
 Whether the commission of an offence like rape by the person concerned,
would make the railway or the Union of India liable to pay compensation to
the victim of the offence on the ground of vicarious liability?
 Whether the accused Sunil Sharma (age 16 years boy) can be treated as an
adult for the offence of gang Rape?

Prepare arguments on behalf of both the parties.

 MOOT PROBLEM No. 3

ALERT INDIVA

Vs.

STATE OF BRAMHA AND OTHER

The State of BRAHMA is one of the States in Indiva. Due to wrath of nature the
state is facing an acute scarcity of water and the condition in major part of the state
is near to drought.

To meet this situation, the state of BRAMHA has taken a policy decision to construct
the number of dams in the State so that the rainy water could be accumulated in the
dams which would help in meeting the growing needs of water for the purpose of
drinking, agriculture and also for the Industries. The Government is also of the
opinion that the accumulation water in the dams would help in recouping the
underground water level in the state.

One of such dams is to be constructed in a district which is more severely affected.

The construction of the dam would affect ten villages which are adjoining to the
location of the dam. The villagers have agriculture as their main occupation and as
a consequence of the water stored in the dam, their agricultural fields would either
be submerged or get water logged which would deprive them of their right to
livelihood.

The state of BAMHA for the purpose of the construction of dam had floated global
tenders and one of the companies, Reliable Industries limited has been given a
contract to construct a dam.

The reliable industries limited for the purpose of construction of the dam had applied
for environment clearance to the Ministry of Environment and Forest for the
purpose.
Environment clearance has been given to the company on the ground that the
Government has an authority to do so in larger public interest.

The agriculturist in the village are also not in favour of the construction of the dam
since they would be displaced from the land where the dam is to be constructed and
would be deprived of their livelihood.

“Alert Indiva” is NGO which for the protection of environment in Indiva. “Älert
Indiva” which is fighting for the cause of environment has appealed to the
Government not to proceed with the construction of the dam since it would lead to
an environmental imbalance in the State.

However the state of BRAMHA is determined to proceed with the construction of

dam in public interest.

“Alert Indiva” has therefore filed a petition under Art.226 and Art.227 of the
Constitution of Indiva on the ground that the Environment Clearance Certificate
granted is bad in letter and spirit of the constitution and against the national interest.

“Alert Indiva” has also taken the cause of the agriculture who are likely to be
displaced and has submitted that the construction of the said dam is in violation of
Art.21 of the constitution of Indiva as regards right to life and Personal liberty of the
agriculturists in the area.

The High Court of Judicature of Bramha has admitted the petition for hearing and
has framed the following issues for the purpose of adjudication.

Issue No.01

Whether the present petition has been field in public interest and therefore
maintainable as a Public Interest Litigation?

Issue No. 02
Whether the Writ Petition filed under Art.226 and Art.227 of the Constitution of
Indiva is Maintainable?

Issue No. 03

Whether the High Court of BRAMHA can interfere in any policy decision taken by
the State of BRAMHA?

Issue No. 04

Whether the displacement of the agriculturists from the area where the proposed dam
is to be constructed amounts to violation of Art. 21 of the Constitution of Indiva?

Issue No. 05

Whether the Environment Clearance Certificate granted by the State is contrary to

the provisions of Constitution of Indiva?

Issue No. 06

Whether the decision taken by the State of BRAHMA to construct the dam deserves
to be maintained or should be quashed and set aside?

Note: Laws of Indiva are the same as laws of India.

 MOOT PROBLEM No. 4

SOCIETY FOR EQUITY V.UNION OF FONDA

1. The Union of Fonda is a multicultural society, where the inhabitants,

belonging to different ethnic backgrounds, speak different languages and
practice different religious faiths. The national motto has always been ‘unity
in diversity’.

2. Soon after the elections, the Central Government took initiative to fulfill the
election promise which included a legislative protection to the private choice
of the individuals.

3. The Parliament, accordingly, enacted the “Protection of Private Choice Act,

2016”, inter alia, permitting the owners of the residential premises in urban
areas, to freely choose the tenants and lessees. However, the Act prohibited
discrimination against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

4. Taking advantage of the law, the owners of the residential premises in urban
area immediately started openly advertising in the dailies, inviting tenants and
lessees. The advertisements typically stated-“only married couples”, “only
vegetarians”, etc. Some in their advertisement, even openly added- “no
minorities”, “no single women”. The women working in the film industry, in
fashion designing, hospitality, etc, became the main target of the hostile
discriminations.

5. When a cine actress, who was a unwed mother, wanted an apartment near the
school where her child was admitted, she failed in getting a lease for the
apartment; the owner declined to lease the apartment at the insistence of the
Resident’s Welfare Association that no lease should be given to single unwed
mother and cine actress or actor.

6. The “Society for Equality”, an NGO, led by an actress, Ms. Ramya Singh,
filed a Writ Petition in the supreme court of fonda challenging the
constitutional validity of the Act of 2016, inter alia, contending that it is a
legislative disguise for reinventing and promoting the historical
 discriminations embedded in the society. She alleged that the Act of 2016 is
the antithesis of private equality as reflected in the Equality as reflected in the
Equality Act of 2010 enacted by the British parliament. She further
emphasized that the provisions of the impugned Act of 2016 are wholly
contrary to the constitutional philosophy of equality. However, the union of
fonda (UFO) filed its reply defending the act of 2016 on the ground that the
Art 14 does not apply to the individuals. The UFO further contended that the
provisions of impugned Act of 2016 execute the constitutionally guaranteed
freedom to make private choices.
_______________________________________________

7. At the admission Stage, the attorney general appeared for the UFO and sought
reference of the Writ petition to the constitution bench of five judges on the
grounds that a substantial question of law as the interpretation of the
constitution arises - in as much as ,the freedom trumps over equality in case
of conflict between the two .However , the division bench of two judges
declined to refer the matter to five judges, but referred it to a bench of three
judges.

8. The matter is listed before the bench of three judges on ‘X’ 4th March, 2017,
for final disposal.

8.The Mooters shall prepare a brief for the Petitioner/Society for Equality an
the Respondent/Union of Fonda.

__________________________________________________________________

Note: Fonda means India for the purpose of this moot problem.