BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA

35th
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA (Trust)
ALL INDIA INTER-UNIVERSITY
MOOT COURT COMPETITION

[FOR LAW STUDENTS]

(20th April to 22nd April, 2019)

In association with
The ICFAI Law School,
The ICFAI University, Rajawala Road,
Selaqui, Central Hope Town,
Dehradun, Uttarakhand

PROGRAMME, RULES & MOOT PROBLEMS

Sponsored by

BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA (TRUST)

21, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area, New Delhi 110 002
 Phone : 011-49225000/45, Fax : 011-49225011
E-mail : trustbci@gmail.com
Website : www.barcouncilofindia.org

2
 INTRODUCTION
In the practical training scheme prescribed for law students by the Bar Council of India, Moot
Court practice including preparation of brief and actual argument in similar situations constitutes
an important and essential learning experience. The lawyering skills, court craft, professional
ethics and approaches to advocacy that the student-lawyer develops through the moot court
exercises keep him/her in good stead when he/she enters the profession on his/her obtaining the
law degree.

The Trust organizes “All India Inter-University Moot Court Competitions” for law students to
promote the advocacy skills and love for the profession among the new entrants. It is held in
collaboration with a University, Law Department or a Law College each year. The students prepare
four problems sent by the Trust and argue in different rounds of competitions before they are
selected for the final round. The teams which are adjudged as Winner and Runner-up are awarded
with Merit Certificates and Prizes.
Scholarship of Rs. 1,000/- per month for a period of one year will be provided to those students
who are adjudged best in each round of the competition.
National Moot Court Competitions held during 1981 to 2015
1. 1981 Delhi
2. 1982 Poona
3. 1983 Cochin
4. 1984 Varanasi
5. 1985 Jodhpur
6. 1986 Delhi
7. 1987 Lucknow
8. 1988 Hyderabad
9. 1989 Shimla
10. 1990 Ujjain
11. 1993 Jodhpur
12. 1995 Kurukshetra
13. 1996 Cuttack
14. 1997 Goa
15. 1998 Pune
16. 2000 (January) Hyderabad
17. 2000 (December) Bangalore
3
 18. 2001 Chennai
19. 2002 Kolkata
20. 2003 Pune
21. 2004 Lucknow
22. 2005 Patna
23. 2006 Bhopal
24. 2008 (January) Patiala
25. 2008 (December) Lucknow
26. 2010 Ahmedabad
27. 2011 Odisha
28. 2012 (March) Delhi
29. 2013 Rajasthan
30. 2014 U.P.
31. 2015 Delhi
32 . 2016 Bangalore
33. 2017 Hyderabad
34 2018 U.P.
1st Bar Council of India International Law Moot Court Competition held at KIIT University,
Bhubaneswar, Odisha in the month of February, 2011
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA (BCI)

The Bar Council of India is an apex body for the entire legal profession constituted under the
Advocates Act, 1961. It has 21 members including the Attorney General and Solicitor General
who are ex-officio members. Each of the State Bar Council which is elected by the Advocates on
the roll practising in that State, has one representative elected from amongst the members of the
State Council in the Bar Council of India. Certain States which have common High Courts have
jointly one member in the Bar Council of India.
Among the functions of the BCI are regulating enrolment of new members to the Bar, enforcing
discipline and standards of ethics for the members of the profession, promoting welfare of
advocates and maintaining standards of legal education in consultation with Universities teaching
law for discharging these functions it has constituted several committees which meet in Delhi and
outside as often as required. Rules have been formulated under powers conferred by the Advocates
Act and are enforced through the State Bar Councils. The funds of the BCI come from its share of

2
the enrolment fee collected from advocates by the State Bar Councils. The office of the BCI is
located in Delhi in its own premises.
As an independent body representing the second largest legal profession in the world, the Bar
Council of India commands great respect and influence within the professional circles in India as
well as outside.
MEMBERS OF THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA
ShriManan Kumar Mishra Bihar
Chairman

ShriSatishAbaraoDeshmukh Maharashtra & Goa

Vice-Chairman

ShriApurba Kumar Sharma Assam, Nagaland,

Meghalaya,
Chairman, EC etc.

Shri Vijay Bhatt Uttarakhand

Managing Trustee, BCIT

Shri K. K. Venugopal Ex-officio

Attorney General of India

ShriTushar Mehta Ex-officio

Solicitor General of India

Shri Ashok Kumar Deb, MLA West Bengal

Co-Chairman

Shri S. Prabakaran Tamil Nadu

Co-Chairman

Shri Ramchander Rao N., MLC Seemandhra/Telangana

Co-Chairman

3
 Shri Bhoj Chandra Thakur Himachal Pradesh
Co-Chairman

Shri Debi Prasad Dhal Odisha

Co-Chairman

Shri Y. R. Sadasiva Reddy, Co-Chairman Karnataka

Shri Dinesh Pathak Uttar Pradesh

Co-Chairman & Vice-Chairman, EC

Shri ShailendraDubey, Member Chhattisgarh

Shri VedPrakash Sharma, Member Delhi

Shri Prashant Kumar Singh, Member Jharkhand

Shri Suresh Chandra Shrimali, Member Rajasthan

Shri Dilip K. Patel, Member Gujarat

Shri A. Rami Reddy, Member Andhra Pradesh

Shri Sunil Gupta, Member Madhya Pradesh

Shri SrimantoSen Secretary, BCI

Shri J.R. Sharma Addll. Secretary, BCI
Shri Ashok Kumar Pandey Joint Secretary, BCI

4
 THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA (TRUST) (BCIT)
The Bar Council of India Trust was created by the Bar Council of India in 1974 as an
educational and research foundation with the object of establishing one or more model law schools,
organizing legal aid to the poor, publishing law books and law reports and promoting welfare of
members of the profession. Since 1980 the Bar Council of India Trust has launched a number of
programmes designed to promote higher standards in legal education and in the legal profession.
The finances for these activities come from the interest accrued on the original sum transferred by
the Bar Council of India to the Trust in 1974. The Bar Council of India Trust is managed by a five-
member Board of Trustees elected for four years by the Bar Council of India from amongst the
members.
The Bar Council of India Trust publishes a quarterly Journal, called the “Indian Bar Review”
of which more than 1000 copies are circulated among regular subscribers in the profession and
outside. This Journal caters to the academic and professional interest of the legal community. It
has also published books on Constitutional Law, Legal Profession, Legal Education, Taxation
Law, Criminal procedure and a number of titles under the pre-law programme of the new 5-year
pattern of legal education.
The Trust jointly with the Bar Council of India has established a Law University at Bangalore
called the National Law School of India University. The Trust organises a series of summer
workshops for advocates under its continuing education scheme which help updating of knowledge
and skills and promoting specialization in professional services. A number of volumes of reading
materials on Constitutional Litigation, Criminal Advocacy, Labour Adjudication, Tort Litigation,
Human Rights Advocacy etc. have been produced to support the continuing legal education effort
which is now being undertaken by the State Bar Councils as well.
Under a scheme of training and fellowship, a number of junior advocates are selected every
year and provided placement with seniors for professional advancement. Annual inter university
moot court competition is sponsored by the Trust to improve the quality of professional education
and to promote skills of advocacy.

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE

5
 BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA (TRUST)
1. Shri Vijay Bhatt Managing Trustee
2. Shri Manan Kumar Mishra (Sr) Ex-officio Trustee
Chairman, BCI
3. Shri Dinesh Pathak Trustee
4. Shri Apurba Kumar Sharma(Sr) Trustee
5. Shri Bhoj Chander Thakur Trustee
6. Shri RamChander Rao N. (Sr.) Trustee
7. Shri Debi Prasad Dhal Trustee

Shri C.S. Kandpal Secretary Incharge

6
 About the University

The ICFAI University, Dehradun (IUD) established under the provisions of ‘The
ICFAI University Act, 2003 under Section 2(F) of the UGC. The campus is equipped with the
state of art facilities like auditoriums, conference halls, library, computer center, moot court hall,
language lab, canteen, sports complex and other recreation facilities.
IUD has evolved a comprehensive student-centric learning approach consisting of several
stages, designed to add significant value to the learner’s understanding in an integrated
manner, covering relevant knowledge, practical skills and positive attitudes. It offers Law,
Management, Engineering and Education Courses.
The university provides world class, innovative, career-oriented professional programs
through inclusive technology-aided pedagogies to equip students with the requisite professional
and life skills as well as social sensitivity and high sense of ethics. The university strives to create
an intellectually stimulating environment for research, particularly in areas bearing on the socio-
economic and cultural development of the State and the Nation.

ABOUT THE ICFAI LAW SCHOOL

ICFAI Law School, a constituent of the ICFAI University, Dehradun is established with an
objective of developing a new generation of legal professionals through comprehensive and
contemporary body of knowledge integrating law with Management/Humanities through rigorous
education and research programmes.

ICFAI Law School at present offers LL.B. (3 years), B.B.A-LL.B. (Hons.) (5 years), B.A. LL.B.
(Hons.) (5 years), LL.M. (1year) and Ph.D. degree programmes. The ICFAI Law School facilitates
its students to explore their intellectual potential and encourages their professional development
through a fine blend of career oriented courses and compulsory internships with Judges, Eminent
Lawyers, Law Firms, MNCs, PSUs, NGOs, International Organizations, etc. The courses are thus
designed to impart legal knowledge and skills, both theoretical and practical to the students to
make them leaders in their professional life

ICFAI Law School, IUD has excellent placement records exceeding 90% in last three years and
ranked among top law Colleges in India by India Today, The Week and Career 360 surveys 2018.

*********
7
 MEMBERS OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF
35th Bar Council of India Trust
All India Inter-University Moot Court Competition, 2019
1. Shri Manan Kumar Mishra 5. Shri Dinesh Pathak
Chairman Trustee
Bar Council of India Bar Council of India Trust

2. Shri Vijay Bhatt 6. Prof. Dr. A. V. Narsimha Rao

Managing Trustee Director, the ICFAI Law School,
Bar Council of India (Trust) IFHE, Hyderabad

3. Shri 7. Prof Dr. Muddu Vinay

Chairman Pro-Vice Chancellor, IU Dehradun
Bar Council of India

4. Shri 8. Prof. Dr. Yugal Kishore

Trustee ICFAI Law School, IU Dehradun
Bar Council of India (Trust)

Contact Address
Sl Name Sl Name
No. No.
1 Mr Suneel Kumar - 9412673528
2 Mr Saurabh Siddartha- 8953894626
3 Mr. Avnish Bhatt -8800650722

8
ALL INDIA INTER-UNIVERSITY MOOT COURT COMPETITION
Rules for the conduct of the competition are as under:-

1. Participants should reach the venue one day prior to the competitions, i.e., by the evening
before the date for the first round of the competition.
2. There will be four rounds of competition with separate moot problem for each round. All teams
registered with the Bar Council of India (Trust) will participate in the first round. The teams
will be arranged on the basis of lots drawn and grouped in pairs of two for determining who
will contest against whom and for which side each team will argue. The Winner and Runner-
up teams of the last 4 years shall be put in different groups for different rounds. The Moot
court competition will be held on ‘Knock–Out’ basis.
3. Depending upon the number of teams participating in the first round, there will be
simultaneously as many Courts arguing the same problem.
4. Each Court will assign marks to each individual participant and the team in the manner shown
below:
Total Marks 100
For written submissions …20 Marks
For substance in arguments …40 Marks
For skills of advocacy …20 Marks
For general impression, court manners and
behaviour …20 Marks
—————————————————
Total …100 Marks
—————————————————
Before each round, all the judges shall as far as possible meet and decide upon the level of
marks on the basis of performance being excellent, good, fair, average etc., in order to ensure
uniformity in the matter of awarding marks for all the participants.
Soon after each round of competition the total marks of each participant and each University
team shall be calculated. The results shall be declared on the ‘knock–out’ basis but in any case,
the names of the Runners-Up team will not be forwarded to the next round. Such declaration

9
 should be made as far as possible within 30 minutes. The marks secured by each team in a
given round of the competition shall be consolidated and arranged according to the relative
merits based on the total scores.
5. The required number of teams for next round of competition shall be picked up from the top
in the order of merit. All winners of first round shall participate in the 2nd round. Such number
be increased by one in the event of being an odd number. The number of teams for the 3rd
round which will be the semi-final, shall be 4 only, which shall be rated on marks but any
Runner-Up of 2nd round shall not be allowed to go in the 3rd round.

The winning teams of each round will again be listed on the basis of lots drawn and will be
grouped into pairs. In other words, the side for which a team will be arguing will be known to
the teams only at the time of declaration of results and the lots of first round shall be drawn
by the University concerned in the manner prescribed by the Bar Council of India (Trust). In
the 2nd round also, attempts shall be made that the winners and the Runners-Up teams of the
last 4 competitions shall be put in different groups if they succeed in the 1st round.
The semi-final round will also be on ‘Knock out’ basis. In the semi-final, the teams will be
put in alphabetical order and Team A will argue against Team C and Team B against Team
D. The winner of semi-final shall contest in the final and there shall be two teams for final.
The first serial of semi-finalist and finalist will argue for the Petitioner and the second serial
shall argue for the Respondent.

Upon the receipt of the entries, the Organising Committee will divide the teams into suitable
number of sub-groups and each sub-group will have equal number of teams in it. The seeding
of the teams shall be made by the Bar Council of India (Trust) on the basis of the performance
of the previous years to eliminate the chance of the well recognised teams clashing with each
other in the 1st/2nd rounds. If any team has won twice or thrice, the selection of 8 teams shall
be made from the semi-finalists of the last 4 years who will automatically qualify for being in
8 groups as the group leader and the rest of the teams shall be divided in equal number in 8
groups and the schedule should be arranged in such a way that the seeded teams do not clash
with each other in 1st/2nd rounds. The ultimate discretion to place the teams in different
groups and to decide the seeding will lie with the Bar Council of India (Trust) and such
decision of the Bar Council of India (Trust) shall be final.

10
 6. The written submissions for the first problem has to be sent by each participant directly 7 days
in advance to the host university/ college which would arrange the Moot Court competition
with copies to the Bar Council of India (Trust). For the rest of the three problems written
submissions are to be submitted before the commencement of the competition. The written
submissions shall be evaluated under the supervision of the University and the Bar Council of
India (Trust) before the commencement of the competition. Written submissions be submitted
for both the sides. For each round of the competition, written submissions are required, for
which 20 marks are assigned.

The written submissions will contain a precise, well-researched set of arguments on facts and
law which the competitor feels are persuasive for the decision in the case (problem). It tests
the student’s skill on legal research and writing. It has to be written in English neatly typed or
handwritten on one side of the paper bearing sufficient margin. Ordinarily the length shall not
exceed five pages. It shall carry the name of the participant and University and shall be signed
by him/her. They are not returnable to the candidate. The Head of the Law Department of the
host University shall arrange its evaluation by a nominated team of experts well before the
commencement of the court and the marks awarded will be later entered into the evaluation
sheet distributed to the judges.

7. The Bar Council of India (Trust) shall constitute an Appellate Tribunal consisting of
Chairman, Bar Council of India, Managing Trustee, the Associate Managing Trustee, and all
other Members/Trustees of the Bar Council of India (Trust), local BCI member, the Director
or Principal of the host university/college, Head of the Law Department of the said
university/college and one more representative from the host university/college. The decision
of the aforesaid Tribunal shall be final.

8. The 1st and 2nd rounds will be for 90 minutes. The semi-final and final will be of 2 hours’
duration. Each participant will get about 30 minutes of which sometime will be used for
questions from the Bench.
9. The two participants representing a University will argue for the same side dividing the
arguments between themselves.
10. Each Court will have at least two Judges who will be drawn from the Bench and the Bar and
from amongst retired Judicial personnel and noted academicians. In the semi-final and final
11
 rounds, there shall be three Judges in each Court out of which one shall be from Bar Council
of India/Trust.
11. Student participants are advised to wear black coat and bands though it is not compulsory.
12. Necessary books and reports required by the teams will be provided by the host
University/College subject to availability.
13. Participants who have been adjudged as Best Student Advocate in the earlier competitions
held by the Bar Council of India (Trust) are not eligible for prizes again.
14. All participants should bring their identity certificates with their signatures duly attested by
the Principal/Dean for verification, if necessary.
15. The Bar Council of India (Trust) reserves the right to modify the rules if found necessary and
they shall be binding on all teams.
16. Arguments shall be in English.
17. The moot problems and rules are supplied in English only.
18. Separate accommodation for boys and girls is arranged by the host University. Free boarding
and lodging during the competition will be provided for all participants.
19. Both way (to and fro) second class train fare will be provided to each participant by the Bar
Council of India (Trust) if not paid by the sponsoring University.
20. The photograph of the students of the Winner and Runner-up teams of final round along with
their Bio-data will be published in the Indian Bar Review, which shall be supplied by
respective universities/colleges within a month from the declaration of the result.
*******

12
 MOOT PROBLEM - NO. 1

(FOR PRELIMINARY ROUND)

DISCLAIMER
The facts stated in the present case are fictitious and have been drafted solely for the purposes
of the competition. The Facts, names, locations and dates bear no resemblance to any person, event
or happening whether dead or alive. Any resemblance, if any found is purely co-incidental. . The
real names used in the problem are specifically for the purposes of the moot. No real incidents can
be attached to them.
 This problem does not intend to hurt the feelings of any section of society or to offend any
person.

MOOT PROPOSITION (First Round)

Mukhtar and Asma are Sunni and Shia Muslim respectively by religion and both are resident
of State of Chind, Pindiana. Asma was very ambitious girl who completed her education from a
very prestigious college of London. She is very inclined towards the teachings of Quran and
follows the traditions firmly hence she is a religious Muslim female whereas Mukhtar is a man
who is influenced with the modern culture of the society and influenced by the western culture and
has a habit of occasional drinking.
They happened to work together in a multinational company where they fell in love and with
mutual consent got married under Shariat Law. Asma was performing well in her career and could
foresee a high position in the company. Therefore she decided not to have kids for few years of
marriage. Mukhtar being an adamant person started forcing Asma to have a baby.
Mukhtar picked up frequent quarrels with his wife and was habituated to drinking regularly.
The disputes between the two kept escalating as Mukhtar resorted to forcible sex with Asma
besides beating her frequently.
Despite such regular assaults Asma tried to reconcile the matter and reported the incident to
her In-laws and parents. On the persuasion of parents and In-laws Mukhtar agreed to stop
assaulting her.
After few months of good behavior Mukhtar resumed forcing Asma for having a kid. Later in
2016 Asma got pregnant and Mukhtar was very happy on hearing the news but Aasma didn’t want
13
to have the child as she was at the peak of her career. She could not afford to apply for leave at
this juncture and thereby forgo her promotion to a higher post in the organization. Therefore she
decided to go for an abortion.
After knowing about her decision, Mukhtar and Asma’s in-laws along with her parents
convinced her to leave the job (as Muktar was earning a very high pay as well) and to have the
child. But unfortunately due to negligence of both, Asma suffered a miscarriage and Mukhtar
blamed her for the miscarriage as he thought that Asma herself was liable and deliberately created
the situation that resulted in miscarriage. He continued taunting and abusing her regularly and
making her believe that it was her fault.
Soon after the incident Mukhtar decided to go for a second marriage in spite of several
objections raised by Asma. Nevertheless he got married to Parveen. After his second marriage
Mukhtar started neglecting Asma and shifted to another apartment leaving Asma alone by herself.
Initially he gave maintenance to her but after few months he stopped paying maintenance. So in
order to maintain herself she started looking for a job but to no avail.
Later on 12th April, 2017 Mukhtar in the presence of witnesses Ahmed Khan and Na Wazish
Hussain (friends of Muktar) declared “I GIVE ‘TALAQ, TALAQ, TALAQ’, hence I divorced my
wife Asma from the said date and she is free to lead her life and the same was conveyed to Asma
by way of letter sent through post along with Divorce deed duly signed by witnesses. The amount
of Meher (dower) was tendered to be paid as and when required with the amount of maintenance
for the waiting period to the extent of Rs. 50,000.
Asma was shocked in disbelief to receive the information and decided to exercise her right as
a woman and filed a petition invoking original jurisdiction of the Apex Court under Article 32 of
the Constitution of Pindiana for attacking her by way of such declaration by Mukhtar. Meanwhile
triple talaq was made illegal by passing an ordinance The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights
on Marriage) Second Ordinance, 2019.
It is contended by the petitioner that the instant talaq provided by Shariat Law should be
declared void-ab-initio as it causes gross injustice and terminates the matrimonial ties between
spouses.
It is further contended that such practice of talaq-e-biddat (triple talaq) violates the fundamental
rights enshrined under Article 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of Pindiana where Muslim
population is second highest. It is also stated in the contention that countries like INDIA where
laws are at par with Pindiana, it is declared unconstitutional by high court of Chind. Later on

14
Mukhtar filed a Special Leave Petition to hold the ordinance unconstitutional. Subsequently the
Hon’ble Supreme Court combined both the matters & constituted a constitution bench of 7 Judges
to resolve both the cases.
Today the petition is listed for the final hearing in the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of Pindiana. Keeping in mind all the aforementioned points and any other relevant
points, prepare the arguments from both the sides.
*In addition to that, TEAMS ARE ALLOWED TO FRAME THEIR OWN ISSUES ON THE
BASIS OF THE MOOT PROBLEM.
*************

15
 MOOT PROBLEM - NO. 2

(FOR SECOND ROUND)

Raman Adhuri v. Union of India

&

NCT of Delhi Association of Privacy Rights v. Union of India

St. Andrews Higher Secondary School, Delhi is one of those private schools that are much sought
after by parents who are keen on principled and quality education for their children. The school
is known for its continuing ‘Talent & Aptitude Assessment Program’ [TAAP] and the students are
very often sent to participate in national and international competitions.

Raman Adhuri is a promising student of Grade 11- Science Stream; had always been a class topper
and was marked as “Exceptionally talented; a promising scientist in the making”, at the TAAP.
He had been selected for the National Best Mind Contest and had won several prizes in science
exhibitions. He was greatly interested in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and was working on an inquiry
project on AI.

His friends considered it but natural that Raman and Susan fell in love with each other. After all,
they had been neighbors and friends since childhood, had plenty of opportunities for spending long
hours in private, and had sort of grown up together. Their love and attraction for each other was
so obvious that peers tagged their pictures on fb with #Made4EachOther.

Ms. Susan Sebastian who was a Grade 12 Arts student in the same school, was actively involved
in student politics. She was known to be smart, bold, outspoken and aspiring to join active politics
after her graduation.

As in every year, the 11th and 12th Graders met at their usual pub for their customary Valentine’s
Day Bash, an unofficial school party. Susan and Raman stole the show that night, when Susan

———————————————————————————————————————————————————

16
dramatically sat on her knees holding a rose and proposed to Raman. Raman reciprocated quite
gracefully and agreed to be Susan’s for now and forever. The scene thundered with applause and
cheers. The pictures were live wired in Instagram with hundreds of likes and shares. This indeed
became the talk of the school.

The Principal on being briefed of the incident by other teachers immediately called for a meeting
with the parents of both the students and told them that the children were extremely talented and
hence should be role models for the other students. The Principal intimated them that these kinds
of incidents actually sidetrack them from focusing on studies, which should be their prime priority.
He also warned the parents to control the children.

Thereafter the parents imposed restrictions on both of them and did not allow them to meet outside
the school. Susan’s parents were particularly angry with her and threatened her that she would face
complete seclusion if she meets Raman again. They started dropping Susan to school and picking
her back every day immediately after her classes. For a month, Raman and Susan could not meet
at all, and both were seemingly upset and distracted from studies.

However at the School Annual Debate, when they finally got a chance to talk to each other in
private, Susan burst in to tears and told Raman that she cannot live without him and that her
parents were being unreasonable and were also emotionally blackmailing her by saying that they
would commit suicide if she speaks to him. She suggested that they get away from all these people
and get married at the earliest, so that they can never be separated. Raman tried to reason with
Susan, but eventually on Susan’s insistence agreed to her proposal. They wrote a letter informing
their parents that they have decided to live together and also pleading them not to search for them,
and dropped it in their respective mail boxes, before boarding a train to the south.

It was after eight long months of panic search that the parents found Raman and Susan living in
Chennai. With the help of Delhi police, they forcibly brought them back to Delhi. Susan’s parents,
on finding that she was pregnant, filed an FIR with Delhi Police alleging Raman of rape on their
minor daughter. The FIR was registered and Raman was charged of rape, as Susan was 17 years
and 4 months old at that time.

As Raman was 16 years and 8 months old, he was sent to a juvenile home. The Juvenile Justice
Board after preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection

17
of Children Act) 2015 found that Raman knowingly had had sexual intercourse with Susan and
hence passed an order under Section 18(3) of the Act that Raman need to be tried as an adult and
transferred the case for trial before the Children’s Court.

During the investigation Susan refused to make any statement about the paternity of her child and
affirmed and reaffirmed that she was the one who forced Raman to run away from home and live
with her. She also expressed her wish to live with Raman. Raman was charged for committing
rape under S.376 of IPC and for committing ‘penetrative sexual assault’ under S.3 of Prevention
of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

During the pendency of trial, Susan gave birth to a baby boy. Prosecution’s demand for a DNA
test on the infant to determine paternity and therefore establish the sexual intercourse was objected
to by the defense counsel on grounds of privacy and violation of fundamental rights. However the
trial court permitted the DNA test, the report of which revealed that Raman is the biological
father. Raman’s request to not consider the DNA report as permissible evidence was rejected by
the trial court.

Raman filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court challenging the relevant provisions of IPC,
POCSO and JJ Act as violative of his fundamental rights. Meanwhile the Association for Privacy
Rights (APR), a public spirited NGO also filed a writ petition challenging the 2018 amendment to
the IPC which enhances the punishment of rape on girls below 16 years. They argued that as
consent is made irrelevant in charges of rape, consensual sexual intercourse between adolescents
is unreasonably penalized and therefore violates right to life and personal liberty of adolescents
aged less than 18. APR also argued that prohibiting sexual activity between consenting persons,
both being in the age group of 16 – 18 is grossly arbitrary and violates Article 14 read with Article
19(1) (a) and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. They also challenged the competency of the
Parliament and State Legislatures to impose archaic social morality on the citizen and dictating
sexual preferences for citizens, which is beyond the legislative domain.

Supreme Court clubbed both the writ petitions. The case has been posted for final hearing.
****

18
 MOOT PROBLEM - NO. 3

(FOR SEMI - FINAL ROUND)

Abhay through John Fernandez Vs Sarvesh Sharma and Others

John Fernandez was working as Chief of Operations at Radiant Call Centre located at
Lucknow, U.P. In a matter of a few years, he rose to his present position. As he was in his early
thirties, he planned to get married and begin a new chapter in his life. His old parents were also
keen that their only son should be settled before their death.

As Chief of Operations, John headed the group in which Siya a good looking and efficient girl
worked as team leader. Although not her immediate boss, John on several occasions had the
good fortune to personally interact with her. He found Siya to be meticulous in her work,
intelligent and nice. These qualities endeared her to John.

He found himself waiting for more occasions to meet her even if it was only to discuss work.
John knew he was growing to love Siya. He was happy to find that Siya also seemed to be
comfortable in his company. Finally, unable to contain himself any further, once over lunch at
the cafeteria, he mentioned to her that he intended to get married and shyly expressed his
feelings for her.

Siya reciprocated John’s feelings. John was elated. But Siya hastily added that she was from
an orthodox Hindu family and would be able to get married to John only if her parents agreed.
In her heart she knew this was going to be a Herculean task.

Back home, Siya approached her parents with great apprehension. Finding her father in a jovial
mood, she dropped the bomb. She told him, her mother and her grandmother present there that
she loved John and wanted to marry him. There was pin drop silence. Siya was afraid that her
father may throw her out of the house. But to her utter surprise, her grandmother who adored
Siya, exclaimed that she was happy that Siya had chosen her life partner and that it did not
matter that he was a Christian. She went on to mention that religion is man-made, a social
construct created to interpret the reality. After hearing this, Siya’s father and mother remained
quiet and nodded giving her permission to marry John.

19
 John and Siya married on 10th May 1999. They were a happy couple. Unfortunately, at the
end of five years of their marriage, their friends could notice things beginning to change. At
work, John and Siya continued doing their work well but they seemed pensive and
preoccupied. They were both longing for a child and were now upset that they had not been
blessed with a child as yet. They hoped for the best. Siya consulted reputed doctors to find out
what the problem was. Medical tests revealed that Siya would not be able to conceive a child.
What was worse, her medical condition could not be treated. She realized that she would never
know how it felt to be a mother. She was shattered…She wondered what John would say and
what he would think of her.

John was handed over Siya’s medical report. When John read about Siya’s medical condition,
he was disturbed and extremely disappointed. The report mentioned Condition: Female
Infertility: Cause: Damaged Fallopian tubes. He knew Siya would be devastated.

His mind raced back to an article in the Newsweek magazine he had read some days ago. In
the article, expert doctors in an interview had explained how the surrogacy process works and
had also emphasized the pros and cons of such method. Siya and John went through the article
titled “The New World of Surrogacy”. They exclaimed, “This is just what we need.”!

In June 2004, John and Siya after due enquiries, approached the only Fertility Egg Center in
Lucknow as they wanted to waste no time for their baby to be born. The Coordinator of the
Centre who was a Specialist Doctor explained the terms and conditions of the surrogacy
process. He mentioned that as Siya was unable to conceive, the best alternative would be for
the couple to hire the services of a surrogate mother through artificial insemination. The couple
thought about the process and agreed that in the circumstances it was the most viable
alternative for them.

They were shown a list of egg donors and/or surrogate mothers. One name which caught the
attention of the couple was the name Ms. Savitri Yadav, Hindu, aged 28 years, a widow. The
couple informed the Coordinator that they would like to meet and talk to Savitri personally.
On meeting Ms. Savitri Yadav, John and Siya explained to her the purpose of their visit there
and the terms of the agreement they were going to sign within a week. Savitri seemed to
understand this couple’s anxiety to have a baby. She herself was keen to experience
motherhood- an occasion which unfortunately was taken away from her when she lost her
husband in a fatal accident.

20
 Savitri was happy that her life’s desire to experience motherhood was soon going to get
fulfilled. John and Siya found Savitri to be caring and compassionate and both felt she was the
right choice to bring their baby to this world. They sat together for an hour and discussed the
terms of the contract. Their meeting ended on the note that they would finalise the contract
with her in the following week.

The terms discussed between both were mentioned in the contract. It was stated that in the
event that the pregnancy was successful, Savitri the surrogate mother, would be paid five lakhs
for the entire treatment which would cover the medical expenses incurred by Savitri from
conception till the birth of John’s child upto the eighth month.

The child would remain with Savitri till it completed 8 months. At the end of its eighth month,
the child would have to be given back to its father as per the agreement between the parties.
Savitri would have no rights over the child except as regards the money agreed to be taken by
her for the purpose of covering the medical expenses and incidental expenses till the child had
completed 8 months. It was also agreed by both that the child would not claim Savitri’s
property.

Soon after, Savitri underwent artificial insemination in the month of August the same year, and
on 24th May 2005, Savitri gave birth to a healthy baby boy. John and Siya were informed about
the birth. They were overjoyed. They sincerely hoped he would grow up soon and that they
would be able to take him at the end of January.

In January 2006, Abhay was handed over to John and Siya. They paid all expenses to Savitri
as per the terms of the agreement and were able to take their Abhay in their arms which made
them ecstatic. Although Savitri was sad at parting with the baby but she suppressed her
feelings.

Years went by. Abhay was thirteen years old. He had been told about Savitri by his parents
and although he did not have the opportunity to meet her, she held a special place in his heart.
One day, John was handed over a letter from the Lucknow Fertility Clinic. The letter was
addressed to Abhay. It was from Savitri. In the letter Savitri, mentioned that since she was
diagnosed with advanced stages of cancer, she did not have long to live. She mentioned that
since Abhay was the child she was fortunate to have, she had a small cottage in the outskirts
of Lucknow where she is living now alone and she wished that after her death she would like
to give it to Abhay. She also made a request to Abhay that it was her wish that on her death
21
 Abhay would light her funeral pyre. Savitri also mentioned to Abhay that there was a special
bond between them and even though she did not see him now as a young grown boy, he would
always be the only person she loved the most in the world. She mentioned that she had a brother
Sarvesh and a sister Sneha but no parents. The letter also stated that Savitri had informed both
her siblings about her wishes.

Tears welled up in John’s and Siyas eyes. After much deliberation, they showed the letter to
Abhay. Abhay too grew emotional. He knew he would like to fulfill Savitri’s wishes. On
Savitri’s death, Abhay did as he was told by her in the letter. He also told his parents that he
would like to have Savitri’s house and keep it as it held great sentimental value for him. But
Abhay learnt that despite Savitri’s last wishes being clearly mentioned, her brother had staked
claim to all of Savitri’s property including her small cottage. He had even gone to the extent
of going to the Court to obtain a declaration as the heir of her property. Abhay was hurt and
angry and expressed to his parents his desire to fulfill his real mother’s wishes even if it meant
going to the court of law. Abhay finally approached the trial court through his father contending
that he being class one heir of Savitri, he is entitled to her property.

******

22
 MOOT PROBLEM - NO. 4

(FOR FINAL ROUND)

DISCLAIMER

The facts stated in the present case are fictitious and have been drafted solely for the purpose
of the competition. The Facts, names, locations and dates bear no resemblance to any person, event
or happening whether dead or alive. Any resemblance, if any found is purely co-incidental. .The
real names used in the problem are specifically for the purposes of the moot. No real incidents can
be attached to them. This problem does not intend to hurt the feelings of any section of society or
to offend any person.
(Problem)

1) Zindustan is a country having the same laws and customs as applicable in India. In the said
country there is a State of Shampa, which shares its border with the country Karma, having neutral
relationship. In the state of Shampa there is a village known as Bahadurgarh which is situated at
the border. The village is known to be a place where terrorist attacks are frequent.
2) On 20th of March 2019, at 2:00 Am, the police forcefully entered a house in the Village
Bahadurgarh where they arrested 5 people, namely Jason, Ian, Vishal, Sagar and Altaf on the
ground that they belonged to a terrorist group that were conspiring a terrorist attack.
3) Police while making the arrest shot at Ian and Vishal who died at the spot.
4) On the same day at 4 Am, the police brought Jason, Sagar and Altaf to the police station
who were kept locked in the prison cell.
5) All the arrested persons were from poor and backward families. The families of the arrested
persons were feeling helpless as the police was not sharing any information with them and time
and again stating that “terrorist have no right to ask questions”. The families of the arrested persons
also approached the Chief Minister of Shampa and various other officials but no action was taken.
6) As no help was provided to them by the police and the officials, the families of the arrested
persons approached a renowned NGO namely Lok Maulik Adhikar Sangathan. The families stated
23
that the arrested persons were member of XYZ political party, and they frequently used to meet to
discuss party matters. As the elections were approaching, meetings were more frequent. Neither
the party nor the arrested people had a link with any terrorist activity, and the allegations against
them were false.
7) Lok Maulik Adhikar Sangathan, has filed a writ of mandamus, under Article 32 before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court along with the affidavits of the wives of the deceased setting out the
miserable condition of their families after the death of their respective husbands. The affidavits for
the arrested persons were also filed claiming that they were only party workers and not terrorists.
The NGO had requested the court to direct the police to release the arrested persons and to direct
appropriate action against the involved police officials. It also prayed for compensation award in
favour of the members of the families of the deceased.
8) A counter affidavit was filed by the Joint Secretary [Home], Government of Shampa, in
which the allegation of 'fake encounter' were denied. The affidavit mentioned that there was a
genuine cross firing between the police and the activists of XYZ political party, and during this
cross firing two deaths occurred. The report of the Superintendent of Police, Bahadurgarh was
trusted in backing the said averment. It was further submitted that XYZ political party was
involved in illegal and terrorist activities and in acts causing disruption to the public order.
Particulars of several F.I.Rs were produced which issued in respect of crimes committed by them
under different police stations in the area were set out. The truth and correctness of the supporting
affidavits was also disputed. The State has claimed that the mentioned encounter is not a fake one
and therefore the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.
9) The police was not able to prove the validity of the encounter. And the court is convinced
that sufficient evidence is present which establishes that the shooting occurred at a faraway place
and not in the village as suggested by the police.
10) Further arguments were made by the council for the Respondent stating that as the place
of incident is not a peaceful area, certain additional and unusual powers have to be given to the
police to deal with terrorism. In order to fight terrorism it is necessary to vest a good amount of
discretion in the police and para-military forces who are constantly engaged in battle with them. It
is up to the force to decide when to act, how to act and where to act. It is not upon the court to
decide how the terrorists are to be fought. There are various types of fanatics and terrorist in the
Country and they have to be subdued. And it is up to the government to determine whether they
should be fought politically or be dealt with by force. Court is not the appropriate forum to

24
determine these questions. Administrative Liquidation is available to the police under such
circumstances.

Keeping in mind all the aforementioned points and any other relevant points prepare the
arguments from both the sides.

* TEAMS ARE ALLOWED TO FRAME THEIR OWN ISSUES ON THE BASIS OF THE
MOOT PROBLEM.

*******

For any clarifications Prof. Suneel Kumar

pertaining to the Moot Mobile: 9412673528
E-mail: bcimooticfai2019@iudehradun.edu.in
Problems, participants may
contact -

25
 BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA
35TH ALL INDIA MOOT COURT COMPETITON
(20TH APRIL TO 22ND APRIL, 2019)
PROGRAMME*

Date and
Time EVENT Venue
Day
ICFAI Law
20th April, School
8 AM to
2019 Reporting time of participants and Formal Registration
10.00 AM University
Saturday
Campus
ICFAI Law
10.15 AM- School
-do- Inauguration
12.00 noon University
Campus
ICFAI Law
School
12.15 PM- Draw of Lots, Allotment of court rooms and Exchange
-do- University
1.15 PM of memorials / Orientation Programme
Campus

ICFAI Law
1.15 PM – School
-do- Lunch
2.00 PM University
Campus
ICFAI Law
2.00 PM to School
-do- Judges’ briefing
2.30 PM University
Campus
ICFAI Law
2.45 PM – School
-do- PRELIMINARY ROUND (First Round)
4.15 PM University
Campus

26
 ICFAI Law
School
4.15 PM Tea
University
Campus
ICFAI Law
Announcement of result of Preliminary Round and
School
-do- 5.00 PM Draw of lots for Second Round, allotment of court
University
rooms and exchange of memorials.
Campus
ICFAI Law
School
-do- 7.30 PM Dinner
University
Campus

ICFAI Law
21st April,
School
2019, 8.00 AM Breakfast
University
Sunday
Campus
ICFAI Law
10.00 AM School
-do- SECOND ROUND
–11.30 PM University
Campus
ICFAI Law
12.30 PM School
-do- Lunch
– 1.30 PM University
Campus
ICFAI Law
Announcement of result of SECOND ROUND and
2.00 PM – School
-do- Draw of lots for SEMIFINAL ROUND, allotment of
3.00 PM University
court rooms and exchange of memorials.
Campus
ICFAI Law
3.00 PM— School
-do- SEMIFINAL ROUND
5.00 PM University
Campus

27
 ICFAI Law
5.30 PM – Tea School
-do-
6.00 PM University
Campus
Announcement of result of SEMIFINALROUND and ICFAI Law
allotment of teams for FINALROUND and exchange School
-do- 6.00 PM of memorials. University
Campus
ICFAI Law
School
-do- 7.30 PM Dinner
University
Campus

ICFAI Law
22nd April, School
2019, 8.00 AM Breakfast
University
Monday
Campus
ICFAI Law
10.30 AM- School
-do- FINAL ROUND
12.30 PM University
Campus
ICFAI Law
1.00 PM – School
-do- Lunch
2.00 PM University
Campus
ICFAI Law
Valedictory Function
2.30 PM – School
-do- Announcement of Results of Final Round & Prize
4.00 PM University
Distribution
Campus
ICFAI Law
4.30 PM School
-do- High Tea
onwards University
Campus

28
 ICFAI Law
6.00 PM School
-do- Departure
onwards University
Campus

❖ The schedule given above is tentative which may change as per the requirements of the event
especially the arrivals of VIP’s.
❖ The venue of stay will be informed after the teams have registered.

29