Memorial of Respondent

MCA1128
AMITY LAW SCHOOL,

INTRA-MOOT COURT ACTIVITY
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF CHRISLAN

[UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF CHRISLAN]
League of Yuva, Child Rights Organization.………. (PETITIONER)
v.
Union of Chrislan.…………………………………… (RESPONDENTS)
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
[MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS] Page 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ____________________________________________4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES _____________________________________________5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ______________________________________8
STATEMENT OF FACTS ______________________________________________9
MEASURES AT ISSUE ________________________________________________11
SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS___________________________________________12
LEGAL PLEADINGS_________________________________________________ 14
1) WHETHER THE PRESENT ISSUE IS MAINTAINABLE?

1.1) Petitioner doesn’t have a locus standi in the present case
1.2) No violation of fundamental rights
1.3) Existence of an alternative remedy
2) WHETHER SECTION 15 OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT 2015 IS

CONTITUTIONAL?
2.1) That the mental faculty of every child can be considered equal or not
2.1) WHETHER THE IMPUGNED SECTION VIOLATES ARTICLE 14 AND
ARTICLE 15(3) OF THE CONSTITUTION?
2.1.1) The authority has applied the principle of unarbitrariness
2.1.2) The authorities have applied principle of unreasonableness and the impugned act well
within the contours of the procedure establiashed by law
2.3) The authorities have applied principle of reasonableness to the object or purpose of the
legislation
2.2) WHTHER THE IMPUGNED SECTION VIOLATES ARTICLE 21 OF THE

CONSTITUTION?
2.2.1) right of fair trial has not been violated
2.2.2) right of opportunity to be heard has not been violated
3) WHETHER THE POWER GIVEN TO CHILDREN’S COURT UNDER SECTION

20(1) OF THE ACT IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14?
4) WHETHER SECTION 15 OF THE JJ ACT IS IN CONSONANCE WITH

INTRNATIONAL LAWS?
4.1) that the international conventions are not in contravention with the constitution of
Chrislan
4.2) Article 51 as a guide to interpretation
PRAYER ______________________________________________________________29

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Sr.No. ABREVIATIONS EXPANSIONS
1. AIR All India Reporter
2. & And
3. Anr. Another
4. Art. Article
5. CrPC Code of Criminal Procedure
6. Ed. Edition
7. HC High Court
8. IPC Indian Penal Code
9. JJA Juvenile Justice Act
10. JJB Juvenile Justice Board
11. NCRB National Crime Records Bureau
12. Ors. Others
15. SC Supreme Court
16. SCC Supreme Court Cases
17. SCJ Supreme Court Journal
18. SCR Supreme Court Reporter
19. UOI Union of India
20. V. Versus
21. PIL Public Interest Litigation

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES CITED
SR.NO. CASES PG.NO
1. A.D.M., Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla 25
2. Avinash Chand Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2004) 2 SCC 726 15
3. Daryao v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 1457 15
4. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975 Supp. SCC 1 15, 19
5. Jolly George Verghese & Anr vs The Bank Of Cochin, 1980 24
6. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225 15, 19
7. Krishnan v. State of Madras, AIR 1951 SC 301 21
8. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 14
9. Mirza Ali Akbar Kashani vs United Arab Republic And Anr, 1966 25
SCR (1) 319
10. Namit Sharma v. Union of India, (2013) 1 SCC 745 14
11. People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 25
568
12. Praveen Singh v. State Of Punjab, (2000) 8 SCC 633 16, 19
13. Ramjilal v. Income Tax Officer, AIR 1951 SC 97 14
14. Soma Chakravorthy v. C.B.I., (2007) 5 SCC 403, 411 15, 18
15. Subramanian Swamy v. Raju, (2014) 8 SCC 390 22
16. Tinkushia Electric Supply Co. v. State Of Ass. , AIR 1990 SC 123 14, 18
17. Union of India v. Azadi BachaoAndolan, AIR 2004 SC 1107 28
18. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011 28
SR.NO. BOOKS
1) Steven M. Cox, Robert D. Hanser JUVENILE JUSTICE, A Guide to Theory,
Policy and Practice(7th ed.)
2) Mamta Rao, PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION, Legal Aid and Lok Adalat
(3rd ed.)
3) William J. Chambliss, Juvenile Crime and Justice

4) Justice K.G. Balakrishnan(Chief Justice Of India), JUVENILE JUSTICE
SYSTEM
5) Durga Das Basu, Commentry on the constitution of India (8th ed. ) ( Vol. 2 -
4, 8,10)
6) Richard Lawrence & Mario Hesse, JUVENILE JUSTICE
7) Samuel M. Davis, RIGHTS OF JUVENILE 2d, The Juvenile Justice System
(South Asian Edition)
8) H.M. Seervai, Constitution Law of India (4th ed. 2008)
9) Cort R. Bartol, Anne M. Bartol, CURRENT PERSPECTIVES in FORENSIC
PSYCHOLOGY and CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR (2nd ed.)
10) John Muncie, Gordon Hughes, YOUTH JUSTICE Critical Reading
11) Dr. S.K Kapoor, International Law & Human Rights (18th ed.)
SR.NO. CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS PG.NO.

1. ARTICLE 32 Passim
SR.NO. STATUTES
1. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. 2015.
2. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. 2007
3. Dr. S.K Kapoor, International Law & Human Rights (18th ed.)
SR. NO. TREATIES

1. United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1990Vienna
Convention on the law of treaties on 23 May 1969
2. Vienna Convention on the law of treaties on 23 May 1969
3. Beijing rules 1985
SR.NO. LEXICONS
1. Garner Bryana, Black’s law Dictionary, 7th Edn.1981, West Group
2. Collin’s Gem English Thesaurus, 8th Edn. 2016. Collins

3. Catherine Soanes, Oxford Dictionary Thesaurus, 40th Edn. 2006, Oxford
University Press
SR.NO. WEB RESOURCES

1. www.westlaw.india.com(WEST LAW INDIA)
2. www.manupatrafast.com(MANUPATRA)
3. www.judis.nic.in(SUPREME COURT OF INDIA OFFICIAL)
4. www.jstor.org (JSTOR)
5. www.scconline.com (SCC ONLINE)

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 32 of The Constitution of India for the
violation of fundamental rights enumerated in Part III of the Constitution. The Respondent
maintains that no violation of rights has taken place. Therefore, this Hon’ble court need not
entertain its jurisdiction in this writ petition.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1) The Union of Chrislan is a developing country located in the east Asia. After it gained
independence from the British Colonial rule in 1950, it established democratic, republic and
secular form of government. Union of Chrislan has a form of democracy parallel to that of
India. The Constitution of Chrislan and all the corresponding laws is Pari Materia with the
Indian Constitution.
2) James, a 16- year old, dwells in Gotham, the most densely populated slums in Asia, situated
in Arkham which is situated on the west coast of Chrislan and is a financial center, with his
widowed mother and an older sister.
3) After dropping out of school at the age of 12, due to woeful economic conditions faced by
the family, James spends his time helping his mother at the construction site where he meets a
group of five boys aged between 19 years to 23 years and they take James into their gang and
together they engage in smoking, drinking, drugs, and petty theft.
4) One night after having excessive alcohol, the gang impulsively hatches a plan to burgle their
employer Mr. Thomas Wayne (65-year old man), living with his wife Mrs. Martha Wayne and
James reluctantly agrees to join them in order to buy a smartphone which he has desired for a
long time. They agree to not engage in any violence and abandon the plan. The gang of six
boys breaks into the house through a window and steal the couple’s watch, two laptops and a
tablet device unaware of the fact that Alfred and James were carrying a knife for safety
measures.
5) James accompanies Alfred to the employer’s bedroom where they proceed to search for
further valuables when, James makes an unsuccessful attempt at opening a safe which sets off
a loud alarm. Mr. Thomas Wayne wakes and quickly catches James, while his wife hurries to
call the police. James with the aid of Alfred, attempts to free themselves and run away but were
unsuccessful in their attempt. Due to the fear of getting caught and being imprisoned, James
and Alfred take out their knives and stab Mr. Wayne several times and then flee the premises
with the rest of the gang. Mr. Thomas Wayne succumbs to the stabbing wounds.

6) The police investigation commences and the six boys are quickly identified with the help of
the CCTV camera recordings at the entrance of the house. The five adult boys are arrested
while James is apprehended by the police under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015 [JJ Act].
7) James is interrogated by the police at the police station for over 6 hours and his repeated
requests to speak to his mother and older sister are denied. In a state of fear, James confesses
to the crime. All the boys are charged under section 302, and section 392 of the Chrislan Penal
Code, 1860 but James is brought before the Juvenile Justice Board, where his legal aid lawyer
denies James defense to his family as he already confessed the crime.
8) considering the crime to be of heinous nature, the prosecutor presses the Juvenile Justice
Board (JJB) for James to be tried as an adult for preliminary assessment under section 15 of
the JJ Act. Considering James’s family and economic background, and educational
background, JJB sends the case to the Children’s Court where he is tried as an adult and
sentenced him to life imprisonment.
9) League of Yuva, a Child Rights Organization intervenes in the matter and files an appeal
before the Supreme Court of Chrislan challenging the constitutionality of section 15 of the JJ
Act claiming that trying children below the age of 18 years as adults violates Part III of the
Constitution.

MEASURES AT ISSUE
ISSUE 1:
WHETHER THE PRESENT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE?
ISSUE 2:
WHETHER SECTION 15 OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT 2015 IS
CONSTITUTIONAL?
ISSUE 2.1:
WHETHER THE IMPUGNED SECTION VIOLATES ARTICLE 14 AND 15(3) OF
THE CONSTITUTION?
ISSUE 2.2:
WHETHER THE IMPUGNED SECTION VIOLATES ARTICLE 21 OF THE
CONSTITUTION?
ISSUE 3:
WHETHER THE POWER GIVEN TO CHILDREN’S COURT UNDER SECTION
20(1) OF THE ACT IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14?
ISSUE 4:
WHETHER SECTION 15 OF THE JJ ACT IS IN CONSONANCE WITH
INTERNATIONAL LAWS?

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE PRESENT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE?
It is humbly submitted by the Respondent that the PIL is not maintainable in the present case.
The fundamental rights of the of petitioner have not been violated. Even so, the fundamental
rights are subject to inherent limitations which are imposed by the constitution itself and an
existence of alternative remedy is sufficient to make the PIL fail.
ISSUE 2: WHETHER SECTION 15 OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT 2015 IS

CONSTITUTIONAL?
All the requirement of the instituting section 15 of JJ Act, 2015 have been filed in the present
case. First it “does not violate the very essence of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015” 1. Secondly it
does not violate various Fundamental Rights2. The act committed by Juvenile was done
maturely.
The respondent contends that the impugned section does not violate article 14 and article 21
of the constitution that is protection of life and personal liberty. As submitted by the
respondent that the Pa right to fair trial is not being violated of the juvenile. The policy
decision has a sound reason behind it. Hence, Article 21 is not violated in the present case.
ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE POWER GIVEN TO CHILDREN’S COURT UNDER

SECTION 20(1) OF THE ACT IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14?
It is humbly contended before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Chrislan that the power given to
the Children’s Court under section 20(1) is not violative of Article 14.
1
Amendment to Juvenile Justice Act criticized, The Hindu, April 25. 2015
2
International Journals of legal development and allied issues written by Sayashi Saha

ISSUE 4: WHETHER SECTION 15 OF THE JJ ACT IS IN CONSONANCE WITH
INTERNATIONAL LAWS?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the current Juvenile Justice
(Care and protection of Children) Act, 2015 is very much in consonance with the
provisions of the constitution of Chrislan. All the children in the group of 16-18 years are
treated equally and no child in the age group of 16-18 years who commit a heinous
offence are proposed to be treated differently under the current Act. Hence, there will not
be differential treatment of such children on any ground.
The Act of 2015, which has replaced the earlier Juvenile Justice Act 2000, has clearly
defined and classified offences as petty, serious and heinous, and defined differentiated
processes for each category. The present act which has been amended is very well in
consonance with the Article of the Constitution of Chrislan. The Union of Chrislan in a
signatory to various conventions which protect the rights of Children.
The United Nations Convention on Rights of Child was ratified by the Union of Chrislan
in 1992 and the 2000 Act was consequently brought in to adhere to the standards set by
the convention. The countries who are a signatory to the convention have certain
international commitments. However, by only becoming a mere signatory to the
convention does not make any country legally bound to follow the provisions of the
convention. It is only when then country has ratified such provisions, it becomes legally
bound to abide by them.

LEGAL PLEADINGS
1. THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FILED UNDER ART. 32 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF CHRISLAN IS NOT MAINTAINABLE.
A Public Interest Litigation can be filed under Article 32 of the constitution for enforcement of
Fundamental Rights3, as guaranteed by part III of the constitution4.
In the present case firstly, there has been no violation of the fundamental rights and secondly,
the petitioner has failed to exhaust his alternative remedy. The action taken by the state was in
furtherance of the principle of social justice and thus cannot be termed as arbitrary or as one
which was without the application of the mind.
1.1 Petitioner has no locus standi in the present case:
The respondent submits that the Court has held that only if there is a violation of
Fundamental Rights can it step in under the Jurisdiction of Article 325. The petitioner is
raising a mere scholarly objection, without any locus standi. No one has been displaced, there
is no damnum, the Petitioner cannot seek a remedy. Moreover, the enactment of the Juvenile
Justice Act, 2015 has added a new dimension to the existing Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. The
Juvenile Justice Board has explicit power to hear the matters concerning the Juvenile Justice
Act, 2015. When an authority has been specifically set up to hear the issue pertaining to the
nature of this writ petition, the petitioner need not bring up this issue before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court.
1.2 no violation of fundamental rights:
The jurisdiction under Art. 32 can be invoked only when Fundamental Rights are violated 6. It
has been held that if a right, other than a fundamental right is claimed to be violated then such
questions can be addressed only in the appropriate proceedings and not an application under
Art. 327. In the present case, that there has been no direct and inevitable effect on the
fundamental rights8. Further any violation of fundamental right as claimed by the petitioner is
illusionary. It is submitted that in the second part of the submission it will be shown that there
is no violation of fundamental right under Article 14 and 21 of the constitution9.
3
Article 32(1) when r/w 32(2) itself states that, Article 32 can only be invoked for enforcement of rights as
guaranteed by Part III and, for issuing writs to enforce Rights as guaranteed under Part III.
4
Andhra Industrial Works v.. Chief Controller of Imports and Ors AIR 1974 SC 1539 ¶ 10, Guruvayur
Devaswom Managing Committee v. CK Rajan and Ors. (2003) 7 SCC 546 ¶ 50, BALCO Employees Union
(Regd.) v. Union of India (2002) 2 SCC 333.
5
Romesh Thapar v Union of India, AIR 1950 SC 124
6
Durga Das Basu's Commentary on the Constitution of India, 3705 (Justice Y.V Chandrachud, Justice S.S
Subbramani, Justice B.P Banerjee, 8th Ed. 2008).
7
Ramjilal v. Income Tax Officer, AIR 1951 SC 97
8
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248; Namit Sharma v. Union of India, (2013) 1 SCC 745.
9
Constitution of Indica, 1950 parimateria to the constitution of India, 1950

1.3 existence of an alternative remedy:-
It has been held that Art. 32 confers ‘extraordinary jurisdiction’, the same must be used
sparingly and in circumstances where no alternative remedy is available remedy is
available10. Art. 32(1) confers a right to move the Hon’ble Supreme court by ‘appropriate
proceedings’. Appropriate proceedings include procedural factors such as res judicata11,
delay in filing the petition and parallel proceedings in another court. The petitioner in the
present case had the remedy to approach the Hon’ble High Court12. It is submitted that the
petitioner had an alternative remedy to approach the High Court under Art.226. The power of
High Court under Art. 226 is wider than the powers of this court under Art. 32 of the
Constitution. It was held in Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Asstt. Collector of
Central Excise v. Jainson Hosiery13 where there is alternative statutory remedy court should
not interfere unless the alternative remedy is too dilatory or cannot grant quick relief. Thus,
the respondents humbly submit that the present PIL is not maintainable on the ground that
alternative remedy has not been exhausted. Considering the points raised, it is submitted that
the petition must be quashed.
2. THAT THE SECTION 15 OF JUVNILE JUSTICE (Care and Protection for

Children) ACT, 2015 IS CONSTITUTIONAL.
Before delving deeper into the facts of the case it is important for us to understand with clarity
the concept of Juvenile. In common usage the term Juvenile is used to refer to a person who
has not attained the age of majority i.e. not completed the 18th year of his birth. The various
statues in operation in our countries have defined the idea a juvenile in several statutes.
Section 2(k)14 a “juvenile” or “child” is a person who has not completed eighteenth year of age.
Section 2(12)15, “Child” means a person who has not completed the eighteenth year of age.
As provided in the facts of the case and as the problem requires, we hereby adhere to the
definition provided by Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
More than a century ago ‘Abraham Lincoln’ said “a child is a person who is going to carry bon
what you have started. He is going to sit where you are sitting, and when you are gone attend
to those things which you think are important”16.
10
Secretary, Govt. of India v. Alka Subhash Gadia, 1990 SCR, Supl. (3) 583; Avinash Chand Gupta v. State of
Uttar Pradesh, (2004) 2 SCC 726; Union of India v. Paul Manickam, AIR 2003 SC 4622.
11
Daryao v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 1457
12
Durga Das Basu, Shorter Constitution of India, 396 (13th ed., 2001).
13
Article 226 of Constitution of Indica, 1950 parimateria to the constitution of India, 1950
14
AIR 1979 SC 1889
15
Tinkushia Electric Supply Co. v. State Of Ass. , AIR 1990 SC 123.
16
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225; Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975 Supp.
SCC 1.

Since a nation’s future depends upon the young generation, the children deserve compassion
and bestowal of the best care to protect this burgeoning human resource. A child is born
innocent and if nourished with tender, care and attention he or she will blossom with the
facilities physical, mental, moral and spiritual into a person of stature and excellence17.
Almost all the countries have developed Juvenile Justice system to deal with young offenders.
In India scene for the children has changed a lot and their problems and related issues have
been given attention and are being discussed at various forums. A good number of our children
on account of socio-economic reasons have adding themselves in the list of delinquent children.
There is need to give specific importance to children in society. Importance of a child is well
recognized since ages. Nowadays children are under tremendous social pressure due to new
changing social perceptions and due to this they try to commit crimes18.
Sec. 15 of JJ Act, 2015 says that a child commits a crime in the heinous category Section 2(k)
he will then go before a Juvenile Justice Board and the Board does not have police, a lawyer,
it has psychologists, social workers and it has experts. Their job is not to condemn the children.
As the board will just decide that whether the child has committed the crime in an adult mind
or in a childish mind.
Sec. 15 of JJ Act, 2015 is constitutional as nowhere in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
of Children) Act, 2015 says that once they are tried as an adult criminal, they will be sent to
the jail but they will be provided with the lawyer or their respected parents can also hire a
lawyer. They are provided with the same access of justice as adults are and hence the children
will be appearing before the children’s court where it be decided that they are tried as an adult
they have the power to appeal like anyone else like anyone else like in High Court and Supreme
Court where no fundamental rights of the juvenile are been violated where they get an
opportunity to be heard and also their right of natural justice is not been violated. If the juveniles
are seen as an adult, they will be put into children’s jail that is a Detention Schools or also
known as place of safety.
In one of the rape cases19 the court sentenced a teenager to 3 years in a Detention Centre.
Although in response to public rage, the government fast tracked tougher laws against ex
crimes, it resisted calls to change the juvenile law and return the adult age from 16-18. The trial
was held behind closed doors to protect his identity and media were barred from reporting on
any details of proceedings. During the trial the juvenile had been held at detention facility for
violent young offenders in Delhi and kept away from other inmates.
As we are also of the opinion that the rape of Nirbhaya and the cost of her life only reinforces
that India requires “De Facto” equality, freedom from superstition, renunciation of arcane,
misogynist traditions and practices which are at variance with the constitution, which seeks to
debilitate and handicap women20.
17
Soma Chakravorthy v. C.B.I., (2007) 5 SCC 403, 411
18
Praveen Singh v. State Of Punjab, (2000) 8 SCC 633.
19
JUSTICE VERMA COMMITTEE report (para 15) Pg. No. 29
20
Banerjee and Mohanty(2013)

India’s juvenile is undergoing what USA went through during 1980-90. During this period
USA felt that there was an “impending doom” due to rapid increase in violent crimes by
juvenile. Such fear and perception induced major changes in laws and resulting in imposing
tougher sanctions on juveniles to adult court, using blended sentences reducing confidentiality
protection for juveniles and putting public safety and accountability ahead of the best interest
of the child (Torbet and Szymanski 1998). Similarly, in India an increase in violent crimes
especially sexual assault, rape, murder has caused public outrage and canons for policy makers
to reconsider juvenile law. The call has been taken to reduce the juvenile age from 18 years to
16 years and to try juvenile as an adult. The Hon’ble Supreme Court should consider and assess
a young offender “emotional, intellectual and mental maturity as a juvenile rather than being
the decision of the age”.
It is respectfully submitted that the present data on juvenile crime under IPC and special and
local laws in 2012 by age and gender, the number of crimes is committed in three age groups
i.e. 7-12 years, 12-16 years and 16-18 years. According to the NCRB report (2013) only 2% of
the juvenile crime is committed by the children below the age of 12 years, 31% by the children
between the ages of 12-16 years and 67% by children between the ages of 16-18 years21.
The logical response to crime as rational behavior is tougher punishment as a deterrent.

Deterrence discourages offenders from repeating their crimes by threatening to punish them
more harshly the next time. Tougher laws and sanctions are effective as deterrents against
crime: Most persons after all do obey most of the laws most of the times. The effectiveness of
punishment as deterrent to crime, however, depends on three factors: certainly, speed and
severity offenders will be deterred from crime only if they believe they are likely to be caught,
convicted and punished. Furthermore, punishment is more effective if it is administered soon
after the violation, and if it is sufficiently severe.
Thus, it is respectfully submitted that Sec. 15 of JJ Act, 2015 is constitutional.
2.1 That the mental faculty of every child can be considered equal or not:-
In the present case a Juvenile has committed murder which is a heinous offence. According to
Sec. 15 of JJ Act, 2015 states that young offender’s mental maturity, emotional and intellectual
maturity has to be checked. In the present case the juvenile was found to be mentally matured.
According to Cesare Beccaria (1738-1794) and Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) their primary
concern was not to explain criminal behavior but to develop a legal system by which the
punishment would fit into the crime. According to “classical theory” person commits crime
simply because they have made a rational decision to do so. Classical theory has thus been
referred as utilitarian approach to crime. Lawrence Cohen and Marcus Felson developed a
version of rational theory known as “Routine activity theory”. They concluded that crime is
closely related to interaction of three variables associated with the “routine activities” they are:
the availability of suitable targets of crime, the absence of capable guardians and the presence
of motivated offenders. In the present case as Juvenile had suitable crime target in front of his
eyes and as he had the motive of committing the crime when he accompanied Alfred a 23-year-
21
JUSTICE VERMA COMMITTEE report (para 34)

old leader of the group to Mr. Thomas Wayne’s room to steal more and in attempt to do so, the
alarm of the house was set off. The time when the juvenile accepted the weapon of crime, the
knife, his motive of harming Mr. Wayne was crystal clear.
According to cultural deviance theory Walter Miller (1958), number of “focal errors” that
dominate lower class cultures and often run counter to lawful, middle class behavior.
1. Trouble: getting into trouble and being able to handle trouble are valued, so trouble
making behavior such as fighting, drinking, and sexual misconduct are quite accepted.
2. Toughness: surviving in lower-class subcultures requires toughness, so physical strength,
fighting ability, and mental toughness are valued over being soft and sentimental.
3. Smartness: formal education is not valued as much as being “street smart” and able to
out smart or “out-con” one’s opponent,
4. Excitement: similar to “trouble”, members of the lower class seek to enliven their tough
life through excitement such as gambling, fighting, getting drunk, sexual activity.
5. Fate: members of the lower class believe there is a little they can do to change their
course in life, and that any good that may come their way is simply through luck and
good fortune
6. Autonomy: lower-class youth learn to value being independent, and not depend on
anyone else, particularly authority figures such as police, parents, and teachers.
In the present case juvenile belongs to an economically low family where according to Walter
Miller those who belong to an economically low family have the toughness and smartness
where they can easily control their emotions and they have the physical strength and the
mental capability which are valued over the sentiments and kindness.
In the present case it is observed that the juvenile along with the other 5 members of the
group had planned for the burglary and the Juvenile had also kept the weapon of the murder,
a knife, which indicates that the intention to harm existed since the plan was initiated. When
the crime took place and the other four members were ready to flee away from the crime
scene it was the Juvenile and Alfred (23-year-old) group leader who went on further to Mr.
Thomas Wayne (65-year-old) and got caught by setting off an alarm inside the room. The
decision to accompany Alfred was an individual decision made by the Juvenile and hence it
shows that the juvenile was capable enough to make decision on his own.
Thus, the maturity level of understanding is that the intention of the crime is deciding factor.
In the present case there was planning and plotting involved in the crime to take place as the
motive of the crime is clear enough.
The conduct of the Juvenile shows that he had matured enough because after Mr. Thomas
Wayne had caught him and was not letting him go, juvenile with the aid of Alfred fled the
place by stabbing Mr. Thomas Wayne.
Thus, the respondent humbly submits before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that Sec. 15 of JJ
Act, 2015 is constitutional and the Juvenile was mature enough to commit the crime.

2.A WHETHER THE IMPUGNED SECTION VIOLATES ARTICLE 14 AND 15(3)
OF THE CONSTITUTION.
It is humbly submitted that Art. 14 of the Chrislan Constitution envisage equal protection or
equal treatment in similar circumstances22. Art. 14 is a basic structure23. The requirement of
the validity of a law with reference to Art. 14 is that it should not be arbitrary and
classification should be reasonable24. It is submitted by the respondents that the
implementation of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 is not violative of Art.14 and the Rule of
Law dealt by the Juveniles.
2.A.1 The authority has applied the principle of arbitrariness:
There is no cut through strait jacket formula to evolve objectively, what amount to
arbitrariness but can only be culled out from circumstances and fact25. The respondent
submits that the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 has not been framed arbitrarily. The decision has
been taken in consonance with various provisions of various acts in the interests of social
justice. Art. 14 secures all persons within the territory of India against arbitrary law as well as
arbitrary application of laws26. In the present case the juvenile Justice Act, 2015, as
precautionary step, is issued in order to curb the heinous case offences which are been dealt
by the juvenile and the crime committed by the children between the ages of 16-18 years is
67%27. Considering the fact that the executive has taken steps to implement measures to
ensure the safety of women in public transport28. In the view of the Justice Verma Committee
the protests are clearly a call to modern India to renounce old ways of thinking, looking and
acting towards women and are strong, positive move towards true empowerment29.
As we are also of the opinion that the rape of Nirbhaya and the cost of her life only reinforces
that India requires “De Facto” equality, freedom from superstition, renunciation of arcane,
misogynist traditions and practices which are at variance with the constitution, which seeks to
debilitate and handicap women30. Thus, the impugned act31 passes the test of arbitrariness and
is well within the prescribed realm of Art. 14.
2.A.2 The authorities have applied principle of reasonableness and the impugned act is
well within contours of the procedure established by law:
22
Tinkushia Electric Supply Co. v. State Of Ass. , AIR 1990 SC 123
23
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225; Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975
Supp. SCC 1.
24
Soma Chakravorthy v. C.B.I., (2007) 5 SCC 403, 411.
25
Praveen Singh v. State Of Punjab, (2000) 8 SCC 633
26
JUSTICE VERMA COMMITTEE report (para 15) Pg. No. 29
27
National Crime Report Bureau (2013), The Handbook Of Juvenile and its Delinquency. Pg. No.55
28
Orders go out for CCTVs, bus checks, petrol vans, Indian Express, Delhi January 10,2013., JUSTICE
VERMA COMMITTEE report (para 37)
29
JUSTICE VERMA COMMITTEE report (para 39
30
31
Juvenile Justice( Care and Protection of children), 2015

It is submitted that Art. 14 as including the principles of reasonableness only requires the
government to act reasonable grounds32. The court function is to check whether the decision
taken is fair and free from the taint of unreasonableness and has substantially compiled with
the norm of procedure33. The impugned act in no way takes away Fundamental Rights or
vitiates any procedure established by law. In fact, in “Sarkar” it was noted that “classification
implies discrimination between persons classified and those who are not members of that
class”.
…. Atchison, 30 Topeka & Santa Fe R. Co. v. Matthews, that upon the class or caste duties
and burdens different from those resting upon the general public …… indeed the very idea of
classification is that of equality, so that it goes without saying that the mere fact of inequality
in no manner determines the matter of constitutionality”34. The Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 is
reasonable because the crime committed by the juveniles has increased a lot and due to this
the women are not entitled for the equal protection of laws. Any offences which are
committed to them should not be tried in a facially compliant manner, but in an effective
manner, so that there is honesty of purpose, integrity of prosecution as well as successful
conviction of such offences, for which the state must evolve a dynamic review mechanism.
Thus, the impugned act passes the test of reasonableness.
2.A.3 The authorities have applied principle of reasonableness to the object or purpose of
the legislation:
The object or the purpose of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 is being fulfilled and it has not
been drafted hastily or arbitrarily. The object of the act35 is being fulfilled as there are various
heinous offences such as rape, murder, kidnapping, burglary which has been increased day by
day by the juveniles between the age of 16-18 years36. In the case of Nirbhaya the sacrifice of
her life only reinforces that India requires “De Facto” equality, freedom from superstition,
renunciation of arcane, misogynist traditions and practices which are at variance with the
Constitution, which seeks to debilitate and handicap women37. Also, in the case of Banerjee
and Mohanty, 2013 the girl was brutally raped by the juvenile. Thus, the object of the
Juvenile is being fulfilled of treating the juveniles as an adult criminal who is between the age
group of 16-18 years. It is respectfully submitted that as the crimes are being increased by the
juveniles hence the tougher laws are to be implemented. The logical reasoning to crime as a
rational behavior is tougher punishment as a deterrent. Specific Deterrence discourages
offenders from repeating their crimes by threatening to punish them more harshly the next
time.
Tougher laws and sanctions are effective as deterrents against crime and also the
effectiveness of punishment as a deterrent to crime depends on three factors that is creativity,
32
Durga Das Basu's Commentary on the Constitution of India, 1360 (Justice Y.V Chandrachud, Justice S.S
Subbramani, Justice B.P Banerjee, 8th Ed. 2008)
33
Fertilizer Corpn Kamgar Union v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 568, 584
34
JUSTICE VERMA COMMITTEE report (para 16)Pg. No. 29
35
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children), 2015
36
National crime Report Bureau (2013), The Handbook of Delinquency and Juvenile Justice, Pg. No. 55,56,57.
37

speed and severity38. Thus, the harsher laws on the juveniles are been implemented so that the
heinous offence committed by the juveniles stops with a good effect. The object of the act39 is
to provide equality to women as women are entitled not only to equality under Article 14 but
are also entitled to the equal protection of the laws. The State is responsible to live and
administer the Constitution. As far as the rights of women are concerned, the State has failed
to fulfil its tryst and pledge with the Constitution to create both, atmospheric climatic and
ground conditions for their welfare and benefit. Thus, to fulfil the rights and to protect
women and children the act has been amended and hence the impugned act passes the
principle of reasonableness and object or purpose to the legislation.
2.B WHETHER THE IMPUGNED SECTION VIOLATES ARTICLE 21 OF THE

CONSTITUTION.
It is humbly submitted Art. 21 of the Indica Constitution envisage the protection of life and
personal liberty. In the present case of Juvenile the right of opportunity to be heard and the
right of natural justice has not been infringed because in the act40 . ‘Procedure established by
Law’ in Art. 21 means the law prescribed by Parliament at any given point of time.
Parliament has the power to change the procedure by enacting a law by amending it and when
the procedure is so changed, it becomes ‘Procedure established by law’41. Further in order to
establish violation of Art. 21 the act should be subjected to the equality test of Art. 14 and test
of reasonableness under Article 1942. The Art. 14 does not strike at arbitrariness and also the
test of reasonableness is also not been satisfied. It is submitted by the respondents that the
implementation of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 is not violative of Art. 21.
2.4.1 Right of fair trial has not been violated:
The term “Natural Justice” is technical terminology for the rule against bias (nemo iudex in
causa sua) and the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem)43. Conducting a fair trial for
those who are accused of criminal offences is the cornerstone of democracy. Conducting a
fair trial is beneficial for both that is to the society as well as to the accused. Right to fair trial
is enriched in Art. 21. In the act44 it has not been said that a 16 or an 18-year-old child goes to a
jail. It says that suppose a child has committed a crime in the heinous category 45 the juvenile
will go before a Juvenile Justice Board the board does not have police, lawyer but it has
psychologist, social worker and also it has experts46. Their job is not to condemn them rather
they will just decide that whether the crime committed by the juvenile was committed in an
adult mind or in a childish mind.
38
Juvenile Justice by Richard Lawrence & Mario Hesse( Pg. No. 30)
39
40
Ibid
41
Krishnan v. State of Madras, AIR 1951 SC 301
42
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India.AIR 1978 SC 597
43
Black law Dictionary
44
45
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children), 2015 (sec.2(k))
46
According to section 15 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children), 2015

If Juvenile Justice Board gives a decision that the child has committed the crime with an adult
mind then the juvenile will not be sent to the jail and kept with the hardened criminals but
rather the juveniles in conflict with law would be kept for 3 years in the detention School
which is known as place of safety and the psychologists and the experts would be giving the
treatment to the Juveniles in conflict with law and they would be checking up the mental
capacity and once they are reformed the juveniles in conflict with law would be released and
would not be sent to the jail for rest of the time span but if they are not reformed then the
juveniles in conflict with law will be staying at the Detention School till the age of 21 years
and then for the rest of the time span would be sent to the jail. The juveniles in conflict with
law are provided with the same access to justice as the adults are accessed. The juvenile in
conflict with law would be appearing before the court and then the Children’s Court will
decide whether the juveniles would be punished under an adult system or into a juvenile
system. Thus, if the juveniles in conflict with law are not satisfied with the judgment they are
provided with another chance where they can approach the Hon’ble High Court or the
Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus, by this act47 a large number of heinous crimes committed by
the juveniles between the age of 16-18 years would be stopped and the juvenile crime is the
fastest rising and hence to stop it some of the harsher laws are to be made.
In the present case of Juvenile and his right to natural justice has not been violated as the case
was sent to the Juvenile Justice Board and a preliminary assessment was made under section
15 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 and the preliminary assessment is not a trial period but it is
an enquiry period where both of them would be tested by the psychologists and the experts
whether the crime committed by them is done in an adult mind or a childish mind. By a mere
apprehension they approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court that their fundamental right under
Art.21 that is right to natural justice has been violated and they would be tried as adult and
the case would be dealt by the Sessions Court. Thus, there has been no violation of Art.21 as
there has been just a mere apprehension and assumption by the minors but there has been no
verdict which has been passed by the Juvenile Justice Board.
2.4.2 Right of opportunity to be heard has not been violated:
The right of opportunity is enriched under Art.21 of the Constitution48 has not been violated
because the case of the juveniles has been sent to the Juvenile Justice Board and there is a
preliminary assessment which is about to be made under section 1549. The trial period has not
been started due to which right of opportunity has not been violated and if Juvenile would be
tried as an adult criminal then he would be appeared before the court where he would be
given a chance to give his justification as there is a rule in law that both the parties are to be
heard in the court when trial period starts.
The respondent humbly submits that there has been no violation of Art. 21 of the
Constitution.
47
48
Constitution of Indica, 1950 parimateria to the constitution of India, 1950
49

3. WHETHER THE POWER GIVEN TO CHILDREN’S COURT UNDER SECTION
20(1) OF THE ACT IS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14.
It is humbly submitted to the court that the power given to the Children’s Court under section
20(1) of the Act is not violative of Article 14.
Since it has been mentioned before in Article 15 (3) of the Indian Constitution that the State
has the power to make special provisions for the protection of women and children it makes
the impugned section as not violative of Article 14.
Article 14 is about equal protection of law and equality before law but here we must consider
“intelligible Differentia” where equal people being treated with equals and the unequal being
treated with unequal.
And since, the main motive of a place of safety is to reform the Juvenile and to rehabilitate
the Juvenile to continue with his life with dignity and if the Juvenile is showing improvement
in his behaviour then after a proper evaluation of the Juvenile by the authorities i.e., a
probation officer or the District Child Protection Unit or the Court itself will evaluate the
Juvenile and if the Juvenile has undergone progressive reformative changes only then the
Court may consider and reduce the term of stay.
This power given to the Children’s Court is conditional and therefore it also abides equality
before law and also equal protection of law.
In the recent times it was observed that the State was at discretionary when the Pandemic had
begun and hence, section 20(1) is not violative of section 14.
4. THAT THE ACT IN CONSONANCE WITH THE INTERNATIONAL

PRINCIPLES IN RESPECT OF JUVENILES
The Union of Chrislan is a signatory to various conventions which protect the rights of
children. The United Nations Convention on Rights of Child (hereinafter an UNCRC) was
ratified by the Union of Chrislan in 1992 and the 2000 Act was consequently brought in to
adhere to the standards set by the Convention. Specifically, it is pointed out that the practice
of statutory exclusion which ensures that perpetrators of certain grave offences are prosecuted
as adults; ‘judicial waiver’, granting discretion to special juvenile courts to waive jurisdiction
and transfer the juvenile’s case to an ordinary court of law and also the policy of concurrent
jurisdiction of both the ordinary and juvenile courts giving discretion to the prosecutor to
initiate proceedings in the more suitable court are followed in foreign jurisdictions50.
The Act. Of 2015 maintains this aim and seeks to improve implementation and procedural
delays experienced by the 2000 Act. The UNCRC state that signatory countries should treat
50
Subramanian Swamy v. Raju, (2014) 8 SCC 390.

every child under the age of 18 years in the same manner and not try them as adults.
However, many other countries who have also ratified the convention try juveniles as adults,
in case of certain crimes. These countries include the UK, France, Germany, etc. The United
States is not a signatory to the UNCRC and also treats Juveniles as adults in case of certain
crimes.
The provisions of various countries cannot be overlooked while dealing with such a sensitive
issue. In United Kingdom, “Extended” custodial sentences are given to young persons if their
crime is so serious that no other alternative is suitable, or if the young person is a habitual
offender, or if the Judge thinks the person is a risk to public safety. In United States of
America, the majority age is 18 years, but persons older than 14 years may be tried as an
adult if they commit serious crimes (rape, murder, robbery, etc.). The state of New York pegs
the age of Juvenility at 16 years, and permits the prosecution of persons aged between 13-16
years as adults in case of serious crimes.
In Nepal, the minimum age of criminal responsibility is 10 years. A child is a person below
16 years. A person between 16-18 years are charged and tried as adults under the judicial
system of Nepal.
Also, countries like U.K. Canada and USA have departed from the obligations under the UN
Convention. The countries who are a signatory to the convention have certain international
commitments. However, by only becoming a mere signatory to the convention does not make
any country legally bound to follow the provisions of the convention. It is only when then
country has ratified such provisions, it becomes legally bound to abide by them. In England if
an act of Parliament is clearly in conflict with law the municipal courts are bound to enforce
that Act51 and that rule of international law shall have no validity in England.
4.1 That the international conventions are not in contravention with the constitution of
Chrislan
The Union of Chrislan is a signatory to a various convention which protects the right of a
children. The UNCRC was ratified by Union of Chrislan agreeing in principles all articles
except with certain reservation on issue on relating to a child labour and the and the JJ Act,
2015 did not consequently brought in to adhere to the standards set by the convention.
Art. 51(a): Promotion of international peace
1) This Art. Embodies the object of India in the international sphere. But it does not lay
down that international treaties or agreements entered into by India shall have the force of
municipal law without appropriate legislation.52
2) In order to be binding on the municipal court’s legislation would be required if a treaty
a) Where it provides for payment of money to foreign power53
51
Mortensen v Peters, (1906) 8 Fraser, 93; Nibhoyet v. Nibhoyet, (1879) 4 PD 1(24)
52
Jolly George Verghese & Anr vs The Bank of Cochin, 1980 SCR (2) 913
53
Ibid.

b) Where justifiable rights of the citizens or others are registered or infringed 54
c) Where laws of the State are modified
In the present case no such rights of the juvenile are been violated and the laws of the JJ Act,
2015 has been modified by the Parliament for the benefit of the society at large specially for
the security and protection of women and children. Thus, the respondent submits that
international law should not prevail over municipal law until and unless it is ambiguous in
nature.
Art. 51 as a guide to interpretation:
In the absence of contrary legislation, municipal courts in India55 would respect rules of
international law56, but if there is any express legislation contrary to a rule of International
Law, Indian Courts are bound to give effects to the Indian Law57.
In A.D.M., Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla58; the discussing judgment of Justice Khanna rightly
held the view that if there is a conflict between the municipal law on one side and
international law or the provision of any treaty obligation on the other, court will give will
give effect to municipal law. Similarly, in People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of
India59, the Hon’ble Supreme Court severely regulated telephone tapping which is permitted
under Sec. 5(2) of The Telegraph Act. The court took into consideration the right to privacy
implicit in Art. 21 and recognized by Art. 12 of UDHR, 1948, Art. 17 of ICCPR 1966. The
foregoing principles should extend to Art. 51 as well. Hence though the court cannot make
directly make a law which is the function of the legislature60 or even to apply a law on its
view as it should be directly make a law which is the function of the legislature or even to
apply a law on its view as it should be, which involves a question of policy, it may apply Art.
51 when there is no contrary authority binding on the court. In the case of Entertainment
Network (I) Ltd. v. Super Cassette Industries61, the Supreme Court observed that the court has
in number of cases applied the norms of international law, in particular, the International
Covenants to interpret domestic legislation if by reason therefore the tenor of domestic law is
not breached and in case of any inconsistency the domestic legislation should prevail, and
further noted that in interpreting the domestic/municipal laws, the Court has extensively
made use of international law, inter alia, for the following purposes:
(i) As a mean of interpretation;
(ii) Justification or fortification of a stance taken;
54
Maganbhai Ishwarbhai Patel v. Union of India AIR 1969 SC 783
55
Moti Lai v. U.P , AIR 195 ALL 257(EB)
56
Ibid
57
Mirza Ali Akbar Kashani vs United Arab Republic And Anr, 1966 SCR (1) 319
58
A.D.M., Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla AIR 1976 SC 1207, 1291
59
People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 568
60
Bhat v. Union of India, (1990) 3 SCC 65
61
2008 (9) SCALE 69

(iii) To fulfil spirit of international obligations which India has entered into, when they are
not in conflict with the existing domestic law;
(iv) To reflect international changes and reflect the wider civilization;
(v) To provide a relief contained in a covenant, but not in a national law;
(vi) To fill gaps in law62.
The Supreme Court also observed that the courts should not be loath to refer to the
International Conventions, where the protection of human rights, environment, ecology and
other second-generation or third-generation rights are involved63. Anzilotti propounded a
different approach. In his view, international law is conditioned by the principle ‘pacta sunt
servanda’, that is, agreements between states are to be respected, while national law is
conditioned by the fundamental principle or norm that state legislation is to be obeyed. The
two legal systems are accordingly entirely distinct.
In the present case the rights of the women and children are to be protected as it is a duty of
the state to do so thus the international law is not taken into consideration because the act
being committed in the territory of India therefore municipal law will prevail over
international treaties are not “Supreme law of land” hence municipal law will prevail over
the other.
The interpretation of international treaties and convention is governed by Art. 31 and 32 of

the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969. When Statutes are enacted to give
effect to any treaty of convention, Art. 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention becomes relevant
for the interpretation of such statutes. Art.31 and 32 of the convention read thus.
Art.31: (1) A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary
meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and
purpose.
Art. 32: “resource may be had to supplementary means of interpretation including the
preparatory work of the treaty and the circumstances of its conclusion, in order to confirm the
meaning resulting from the application of Art. 31, or to determine the meaning when the
interpretation according to Art 31;
(a) Leaves the meaning ambiguous or obscure; (or)

(b) Leads to a result which is manifestly absurd or unreasonable.
International legal obligations are not always enforceable in the national jurisdictions of
England, the U.S. and India; national courts give effect to international law only if it does not
conflict with clear and unambiguous internal law of the nation concerned. Non-self-executing
62
Ibid., p. 92
63
Ibid., p. 94

treaties in particular require legislative action, specific adoption of their provisions into
municipal law.
In the present case the treaty has been interpreted in the good faith in accordance with the
ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its
object and purpose as there is a respect for the international treaties but as the crimes
committed by the juveniles between the age 16-18 years have increased a lot due to which the
laws made by the parliaments for the juvenile are harsher and tougher sanctions are
implemented for the benefit of the society at large specially to women. The object of the act64
is to provide equality to women as women are entitled not only to equality under Article 14
but are also entitled to the equal protection of the laws. The State is responsible to live and
administer the Constitution. Thus, to fulfil the rights and to protect women and children the
act has been amended and hence the impugned act passes the principle of reasonableness and
object or purpose to the legislation.
In the present case Juvenile Act,2015 is not ambiguous in nature neither it is manifestly
absurd or unreasonable because in the case of Nirbhaya the sacrifice of her life only
reinforces that India requires “De Facto” equality, freedom from superstition, renunciation of
arcane, misogynist traditions and practices which are at variance with the Constitution, which
seeks to debilitate and handicap women65. Also, in the case of case of Banerjee and
Mohanty,2013 the girl was brutally raped by the juvenile. Thus, the object of the Juvenile is
being fulfilled of treating the juveniles as an adult criminal who is between the age group of
16-18 years. It is respectfully submitted that as the crimes are being increased by the
juveniles hence the tougher laws are to be implemented.
It is necessary to study the practice of states to understand as to how they, within the
framework of their internal legal order, apply the rules of international law and resolve the
conflict, if any, between a rule of international law and a rule of national law. States generally
give effect to the rules of international law, though the procedures vary and are considerably
flexible. The doctrinal dispute to this extent is sans practical consequences. A distinction is
made between customary international law and treaty rules of international law in the practice
of states66.
International law or the law of nations is primarily a system governing the relationship of
nations inter se, and for its apt appreciation it is significant to know as to how international
legal obligations are enforced in national jurisdictions, more so in today’s flat world. In close
relationship with this subject is the relationship between international law and national law or
municipal law or domestic or internal law of nations (“states”), described by reference to two
contending concepts: monism and dualism.
Monism is the idea or the monist theory assumes that international law and national law are
simply two components of a single legal system or body of knowledge, and regards ‘law’ as
64
65
66
Study in this Paper is limited to the practice of India, the U.K. and the U.S

one entity. Both are interrelated parts of the one single legal structure and form a unity. It is
believed that both originate from a single grundnorm. There is also an alternative theory
which, being monistic, asserts the supremacy not of international law but of municipal law;
see, for example, Wenzel’s work67.
Dualism is the position or the dualist theory assumes that international law and internal law
of states are two separate and distinct legal systems. Being different legal orders,
international law would not as such from part of the internal law of a state. Where, in
particular cases, rules of international law apply within a state, they do so a result of their
adoption by the internal law of the state. They apply as part of the internal law of the state
and not as international law. Dualism refrains from any controversy as to supremacy of the
one legal system over the other. Each one is considered supreme in one’s own sphere and
operates on a different level. The positivist writers, Triepel and Anzilotti lead the exponents
of dualism. According to Triepel, there are two distinctions between national law and
international law:
(i) the subjects of national law are individuals, while the subjects of international law are
states solely and exclusively;
(ii) Juridical origins of the two legal systems are different: the source of national law is the
will of the state itself, while the source of international law is the common will (Gemeinwille)
of states.
(iii) Another distinction between the two is: national law is a law of sovereign over
individuals; international law is a law, not above, but between sovereign states.
In the present case municipal law should prevail over international law because the crime rate
of the juveniles has been increased and it is within the territory of Indica and also municipal
law takes care of an individual and if any wrong happens within the territory of Indica then it
is the duty of the state to protect the citizens rather than following the international treaties. If
the municipal law is ambiguous in nature then the international law can be taken into
consideration or else not.
Though a legislation must be interpreted in conformity with international principles, it is a

different thing to say that treaty must be given effect to without a law or in the absence of the
municipal laws68. It was held that doctrine of “monism” as prevailing in European countries
does not prevail in India. It was held that doctrine of “dualism” is applicable. A treaty entered
by Indica cannot become a law of the land and it cannot be implemented unless Parliament
passes a law under Art. 253. But making the law under that authority is necessary when the
treaty or agreement operates to restrict the rights of the citizen or others or modifies the laws
67
Oppenheim’s International Law, (1992), Vol. I, p. 54
68
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011

of the State. If the rights of the citizens or others which are justiciable are not affected, no
legislative measure is needed to give effect to the treaty or agreement69.
The respondent humbly submits that in the present case the act in question is not in
contravention with the Constitutional Provisions of the Constitution of Indica as well as it is
also in consonance with the principle of UNCRC and also there is respect for the
international treaties.
PRAYER:
In the light of the issue raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this Hon’ble
Court be pleased to:
1. DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION.

2. TO HOLD THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO BREACH OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.
3. TO HOLD THAT SECTION 15 OF JJ ACT, 2015 IS CONSTITUTIONAL.
All of which is respectfully submitted and for such act of kindness the respondent shall be
duty bound as ever pray.
69
Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan, AIR 2004 SC 1107

Memorial of Respondent

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Memorial of Respondent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MCA1128

AMITY LAW SCHOOL,

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF CHRISLAN

League of Yuva, Child Rights Organization.………. (PETITIONER)

Union of Chrislan.…………………………………… (RESPONDENTS)

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

[MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS] Page 1

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ____________________________________________4

1) WHETHER THE PRESENT ISSUE IS MAINTAINABLE?

2) WHETHER SECTION 15 OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT 2015 IS

2.2) WHTHER THE IMPUGNED SECTION VIOLATES ARTICLE 21 OF THE

3) WHETHER THE POWER GIVEN TO CHILDREN’S COURT UNDER SECTION

4) WHETHER SECTION 15 OF THE JJ ACT IS IN CONSONANCE WITH

[MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS] Page 3

Sr.No. ABREVIATIONS EXPANSIONS

1. AIR All India Reporter

5. CrPC Code of Criminal Procedure

8. IPC Indian Penal Code

9. JJA Juvenile Justice Act

10. JJB Juvenile Justice Board

11. NCRB National Crime Records Bureau

12. Ors. Others

15. SC Supreme Court

16. SCC Supreme Court Cases

17. SCJ Supreme Court Journal

18. SCR Supreme Court Reporter

19. UOI Union of India

21. PIL Public Interest Litigation

[MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS] Page 4

[MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS] Page 5

SR.NO. CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS PG.NO.

SR. NO. TREATIES

[MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS] Page 6

SR.NO. WEB RESOURCES

3. www.judis.nic.in(SUPREME COURT OF INDIA OFFICIAL)

[MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS] Page 7

[MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS] Page 8

[MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS] Page 9

[MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS] Page 10

[MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS] Page 11

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE PRESENT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE?

ISSUE 2: WHETHER SECTION 15 OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT 2015 IS

ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE POWER GIVEN TO CHILDREN’S COURT UNDER

[MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS] Page 12

[MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS] Page 13

1. THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FILED UNDER ART. 32 OF

1.1 Petitioner has no locus standi in the present case:

1.2 no violation of fundamental rights:

[MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS] Page 14

2. THAT THE SECTION 15 OF JUVNILE JUSTICE (Care and Protection for

[MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS] Page 15

[MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS] Page 16

The logical response to crime as rational behavior is tougher punishment as a deterrent.

Thus, it is respectfully submitted that Sec. 15 of JJ Act, 2015 is constitutional.

[MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS] Page 17

[MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS] Page 18

2.A.1 The authority has applied the principle of arbitrariness:

[MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS] Page 19

[MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS] Page 20

2.B WHETHER THE IMPUGNED SECTION VIOLATES ARTICLE 21 OF THE

2.4.1 Right of fair trial has not been violated:

[MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENTS] Page 21