ORIENTAL COLLEGE OF LAW

PT III- MOOT COURT 2022-2023

LLB SEM V 3rd Year

INSTRUCTIONS FOR STUDENTS

1. The Issues are to be framed by group of students
2. Memorial must be typed only.
3. 20 to 25 pages memorial
4. Dress code - Black and white formal (Pant shirt or long kurti salwar)

MOOT PROBLEM - 1
1. Indiva is a country with a population of around 100 million people. It is a
Democratic Sovereign Republic with its own Constitution and Laws which
are in pari materia to the Laws of India. Indiva is a developing country with
a growing economy which is moving towards digitalization. There is still a
lot of scope for progressive reforms in the sphere of Cyber Laws and IPR
Laws in Indiva.

2. On 5 January 2020, ViaShare, a software company based in Delica (Capital

Region of Indiva) was granted patent protection on its technology for
managing Internet affiliate programs. The idea is that a piece of software
placed on a merchant’s site gives ViaShare the ability to track a user's online
behaviour from the moment the user clicks on a banner ad on a referring
Website to the point of a completed transaction on a merchant’s site. A
commission, payable to the referring site, is then generated when a user
clicks on one of these “affiliate links” or banner ads, and then purchases
something from the merchant’s site.

3. Similar affiliate programs can be found throughout the Internet in the form
of buttons that direct users to online stores selling anything from clothes,
cosmetics, medicines, software, or other products. In fact, some estimate that
hundreds of thousands of sites have added these “affiliate links” that
generate a commission if a user clicks on them and then buys something.
The significance of the ViaShare patent is that, depending on how broadly it
 is interpreted, ViaShare may be given the right to block anyone from using
such an arrangement of links between sites with commission payments.

4. However, on 5 February 2021, Vamazom, a Multinational Company dealing

with B2C retail through its website Vamazom.com, got a patent application
published. The published patent application was similar to ViaShare’s
granted patent, but additionally had structural/hardware limitations over the
patent for privacy enhancements. Signing in with user credentials and details
to Vamazom's website is required for the affiliate link to be operable.
Thereafter, the referring website started receiving commissions of up to 15
percent of the sale price for books that are sold this way and another 5
percent on anything else purchased through the affiliate link.

5. ViaShare Corporation has filed a Pre-Grant opposition before the Patent

office against the application of Vamazom contending that their company
has already been granted the Patent right of such software in India and that
Vamazom is attempting to get a similar software patented.

6. In the midst of these allegations, on 5th January 2021, in a major Cyber

Attack by an anonymous source, all the user data stored by ViaShare based
on consumer behaviour and personal details were leaked. This resulted in
many people getting fraudulent emails and frivolous calls.

7. Shortly after this attack, Indiva Cyber Cell (further referred to as Cyber Cell)
revealed that a huge chunk of user data was also found “active” on the dark
web. The Cyber Cell made attempts to remove the user data and provide
protection. However, it still caused many people major issues and resulted in
a lot of mental harassment.

8. Viashare has approached the Hon’ble High Court of Delica for an exparte
interim injunction against Vazamom’s usage of software in question.
Meanwhile, “Unity Legal Foundation” which is a non-profit organization
working for the protection of Consumers’ Rights and Privacy in the time
where business corporations are trying to encroach upon personal
information of consumers by monitoring their activities, on learning of this
 upcoming suit filed by ViaShare against Vamazom, has addressed the letter
to the Chief Justice of High court of Delica expressing their concern about
the recent breach of Right to Privacy of Citizens of Indiva and seeking
action of the Hon’ble High Court against the grant of patent to these types of
software.

MOOT PROBLEM 1 WILL BE DRAFTED BY FOLLOWING ROLL

NUMBERS:
Roll Name PETITIONER/RESPONDENT
No.
1 ANSARI AARZOO MOHD FURQAN PETITIONER

2 ANSARI MD SHAHZAD SHAKIR RESPONDENT

3 ANSARI NUZHAT KHATOON RIYAZAT HUSSAIN PETITIONER

4 BHANUSHALI DRISHTI DEEPAK RESPONDENT

5 CHAWLA ARTH HARJEET PETITIONER

6 CHHEDA VICKEY JAYANTILAL RESPONDENT

7 DHALANI MOHD ALTAF ZUBER PETITIONER

8 DHARAMSHI POOJA MUKUL RESPONDENT

9 DWIVEDI PUNIT SHANTANU PETITIONER

10 GAIKWAD BHAGYSHREE MALLIKARJUN RESPONDENT

11 GAMBHIR ANUPKAUR JASPALSINGH PETITIONER

12 GANGURDE PALLAVI AVINASH RESPONDENT

13 GAVDE MAGESH MANGESH PETITIONER

14 GAWADE ANIL DATTATRAY RESPONDENT

15 GHOLKAR SUHAS DIGAMBAR PETITIONER

16 GHOSH SUPRIYA ASIT RESPONDENT

17 GUPTA DURGESH ANIL KUMAR PETITIONER

18 GUPTA MINAKSHI RAJENDRA KUMAR RESPONDENT

19 GUPTA PRAMODKUMAR CHHOTELAL PETITIONER

20 GUPTA SIMRAN RAJKUMAR RESPONDENT

21 IYER AISHWARYA KRISHNAN PETITIONER

22 JADHAV KISHOR DATTATRAYA RESPONDENT

23 JAIN URJA DILIP PETITIONER

24 KAMBLE MRUNALINI PRASHANT RESPONDENT

25 KAMBLE RAHUL DNYANOBA PETITIONER

26 KANDEKAR HITESH JANARDAN RESPONDENT

27 KARANDE TATYABA VASANT PETITIONER

KARIPPATHOD RASHEEDA KHATOON RESPONDENT

28
HAMEED

29 KAZI SHIFA IMTIYAZ PETITIONER

30 KEDAR SHIVANI MANOJ RESPONDENT

 MOOT PROBLEM 2

1. Shanthisthan is a State in the Indian Union. One of the most important

pilgrimage destinations in the State is the Prathan's temple called Sapthagin
which is located in the Vannar Tiger Reserve in Shanthisthan: The temple
will remain open for five days every month and the major festival which is
called as "Mandalakalam"spans during the adjoining months of Vrishchikam
and Dhanu of the Traditional Malayalam Calendar (November and
December according to English Calendar). The temple will be open from the
first day of the Vrishchikam' and will close on the eleventh day of the
'Dhanu' as per the traditional Malayalam calendar. A devotee who desires to
visit the temple during "Mandalakalam'' has to follow Vratham' or penance
which is a hard and rigid lifestyle regimen for a period of 41 days prior to
the pilgrimage wherein purity in thought, word and deed is insisted. The 41
days vratham starts by weaning a special chain which consists of Rudraksha
and during the course of the 41 days of Vratham, the devotee is supposed to
have a lacto-vegetarian diet, abstain from marriage and sexual relations, not
to consume alcohol in any form, and are not even allowed to style and dress
their hair and nails. Devotees are also expected to serve the society and
others as much as possible and realize that God is everywhere. The
Sapthagiri Temple Administration Board (hereinafter STAB) records reflect
that about 5.5 crore pilgrims from across the country had visited the temple
in 2016-17 and the temple camed Rs. 393.69 crore as revenue.

2. The temple was visited by poor and rich alike in the past until the year 1981.
In the past, only few women pilgrims visited the temple due to the hardships
of pilgrimage. The main reason was the topography of the place where the
temple situates and also the route to the temple which passes through hilly
and forest tracts where there is presence of wild animals. Usually women
between the age of 10 and 50 abstained from visiting the temple as it will not
be physically capable of observing vratham or or penance for 41 days on
physiological grounds. There were instances where women below the age of
50 had visited the temple to conduct the first feeding ceremony of their
children and also during the monthly ceremonies wherein the temple will be
open for five days. The number of pilgrims Visiting the temple during the
 monthly opening is far less compared to the festival season,
"Mandalakalam" wherein crores of people visit.

3. In 1981, a Notification was issued by the STAB during "Mandalakalam",

prohibiting the entry of women of the age group 10 to 50, taking into
account the religious sentiments and practices followed in the temple since
centuries. Consequently, a devotee approached the Hon'ble High Court of
Shanthistan seeking action against a young woman who visited the temple
for her infant's first-feeding ceremony. The Division Bench of Shanthisthan
High Court, vide its judgment in the year 1981, banned the entry of women
in the age group of 10-50 claiming that such a practice of not allowing
women of that age group was very much prevalent in the past and that it was
according to the traditional practices irrespective of the monthly opening
festival or the major festival season. The High Court directed the
Government of Shanthisthan to use all the measures required to implement
the decision of the High Court and accordingly, Sapthagiri Temple
Administration Rules 1956, was amended and Rule 5A was added which
reads thus:

"Rule 5A. The classes of persons mentioned hereunder shall not be entitled
to offer worship in any place of public worship or bathe in or use the water
of any sacred tank, well, spring or watercourse appurtenant to a place of
public worship whether situated within or outside precincts thereof, or any
sacred place including a bill or lullock, or a road, street or pathway which is
requisite for obtaining access to the place of public worship:

(a) Women at such times during which they are not by custom and usage
allowed to enter a place of public worship.
(b) Persons under pollution arising out of birth or death in their families"

5. In the year 2012, a Public Interest Litigation was filed under Art 32 of the
Constitution in the Supreme Court of India by an organization called Friends
of Women assailing the constitutionality of Rule 5A of the Temple
Administration Rules 1956. This was based on the ground that the Rule
which restricted the entry of women in Sapthagiri violates the right to
 equality and freedom of religion guaranteed under the Constitution of India.
The Supreme Court of India in its decision dated 1 October, 2018 allowed
the entry of all women into the Sapthagiri Prathan temple. The Apex Court
held that women, irrespective of their age, have the right to enter the temple
and declared that Rule 5A of the Sapthagiri Temple Administration Rules
1956 was unconstitutional as it is arbitrary and runs counter to the principles
of gender equality espoused by the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Court
also held that the impugned religious practices excluding women in entering
the temple fail to stand the judicial scrutiny premised on fundamental rights
pertaining to religion guaranteed by the Constitution of India.

6. The first two weeks of October 2018 witnessed large scale protest in the
State against the decision of the Supreme Court Though a few women, on
the strength of the decision attempted to visit the temple in the ensuing
monthly opening festival the believers prevented them from entering the
temple and despite the best of the efforts by the Government, the decision
could not be implemented. As vanous political parties also joined the
devotees in their protests, large-scale violence happened and caused massive
destruction of public properties. On October 12, 2018, the Parliament
enacted the Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act,
2018 with, following provisions:

THE HINDU PLACES OF PUBLIC WORSHIP (AUTHORISATION OF

ENTRY) ACT, 2018.

An Act to authorise the entry of all sections of Hindus to Places of public worship

and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

Be it enacted by Parliament in the Sixty Eight Year of the Republic of India as

follows: Section 1. Short title, extent and commencement.

(1) This Act may be called the The Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation
of Entry) Act, 2018
(2) It extends to the whole of India, except the State of Jammu and Kashmir. (3) It
shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification
in the Official Gazette, appoint.

Section 2. Definitions: In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,

(a) "Hindu" includes a person professing the Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina religion; (b)
"Place of public worship" means a place, by whatever name known or to
whomsoever belonging, which is dedicated to, or for the benefit of, or is used
generally by, Hindus or any section or class thereof. for the performance of any
religious service or for offering prayers therein, and includes all subsidiary shrines,
mutts, devasthanams and namaskara mandapams, and also any sacred tanks, wells,
springs and water courses, the waters of which are worshiped, or are used for
bathing or for worship.

(c) "section or class" includes any division, sub-division, caste, sub-caste, sect or
denomination whatsoever."

Section 3. Places of public worship to be open to all section and classes of Hindus:-
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time
being in force or any custom or usage or any instrument having effect by virtue of
any such law or any decree or order of court, every place of public worship which
is open to Hindus generally or to any section or class thereof, shall be open to all
sections and classes of Hindus; and no Hindu of whatsoever section or class shall,
in any manner, be prevented, obstructed or discouraged from entering such place of
public worship, or from worshiping or offering prayers thereat, or performing any
religious service therein, in the like manner and to the extent as any other Hindu of
whatsoever section or class may enter, worship, pray or perform: Provided that in
the case of public worship which is a temple founded for the benefit of any
religious denomination or section thereof, the provisions of this section, shall be
subject to the right of that religious denomination or section as the case may be, to
manage its own affairs in matters of religion.26)
Section 4. Prohibition to offer worship in public places: The classes of persons
mentioned hereunder shall not be entitled to offer worship in any place of public
worship or bathe in or use the water of any sacred tank, well, spring or water
course appurtenant to a place of public worship whether situated within or outside
precincts thereof, or any sacred place including a hill or hillock, or a road, street or
pathway which is requisite for obtaining access to the place of public worship

(a) Persons who are not Hindus.

(b) Women at such time during which they are not by custom and usage allowed

to enter a place of public worship.

(c) Persons under pollution arising out of birth or death in their families.

(d) Drunken or disorderly persons.

(e) Persons suffering from any loathsome or contagious disease.

(Persons of unsound mind except when taken for worship under proper control and
with the permission of the executive authority of the place of public worship
concerned.

(g) Professional beggars when their entry is solely for the purpose of begging

FC Section 6. Penalty-Any person who contravenes the provisions of Section 3 or

2/2000Section 4 shall be punishable on first conviction with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to two years, and with fine which
may extend two thousand rupees, and in the event of a second or subsequent
conviction with imprisonment for a term of not less than six months but which may
extend to five years and also with a fine of not less than ten thousand rupees but
which may extend to one lakh rupees. without worant-Police arrest Section 7.
Offences to be cognizable and bailable (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), an offence punishable under
this Act shall be bailable. (2) An offence punishable under this Act shall be
cognizable

Section 8. Power to make rules.-(1) The Central Government may, by notification

in the Official Gazette, make rules to carry out the provisions of this Act.

The Act was included in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution and Gazette
notification for the commencement of the Act was issued on October 15 2018

7. On October 24, 2018, Friends of Women filed a Weir petition Under Art 32 of
the Constitution, challenging the validity of The Hindu Places of Public Worship
(Authorisation of Entry) Act, 2018 on the grounds of lack of legislative
competency and violation of fundamental rights. On behalf of the Union
Government, all the contentions are refuted. The matter has been listed for final
hearing before the Supreme Court.

MOOT PROBLEM 2 WILL BE DRAFTED BY FOLLOWING ROLL

NUMBERS:

Roll No Name PETITIONER/RESPONDENT

31 KEWAT SAGAR DEEPAK PETITIONER
32 KHIZAR MEHAZ ZEESHAN RESPONDENT
33 KHAN IRAM AMIN PETITIONER
34 KHAN IRFAN AHMED ALI RESPONDENT
35 KHAN MUHAMMAD KHIZER KHALID PETITIONER
36 KHAN NABEEL JUNED RESPONDENT
37 KHAN QUDSIYA ZUBER PETITIONER
38 KHAN RANA ANJUM SHAKIL AHMED RESPONDENT
39 KHAN ZAKIR HUSAIN GULAM HUSAIN PETITIONER
40 KHANNA NIDHI RAJINDERNATH RESPONDENT
41 LOKHANDE SANKET GAUTAM PETITIONER
42 MALLICK ASMA JAVEED RESPONDENT
43 MANOJ KUMAR PETITIONER
44 MARGALE SANJAY LAXMAN RESPONDENT
45 MHATRE ROHAN DNYANESHWAR PETITIONER
46 MISHRA ABHISHEK ARUN RESPONDENT
47 MISHRA DEEPAK OMPRAKASH PETITIONER
48 MISHRA GOVIND KUMAR RAMLAKHAN RESPONDENT
49 MOGHE AJAY DIWAKAR PETITIONER
50 MORE RAHUL HIRALAL RESPONDENT
51 MUTKE BALU KISAN PETITIONER
52 NAGLE SHANTANU RAJESH RESPONDENT
53 PAL ASHOKKUMAR RANGNATH PETITIONER
54 PANDEY AKASH TIRTHRAJ RESPONDENT
55 PANDEY ASHOK KUMAR HARKESH NARAYAN PETITIONER
56 PANDEY MAMTA RAJKISHORE RESPONDENT
57 PANICKER ABHIJITH MURALEEKRISHNAN PETITIONER
58 PATHAN NAEEM KHAN AKHATAR KHAN RESPONDENT
59 PATIL JAYSHRI ANAND PETITIONER
60 PATIL MINAKSHI PANDURANG RESPONDENT
 MOOT PROBLEM 3

1. State of Saurashtra is democratic country and same state share border with
Pakrashtra, Afghanirashtra and Banglarashtra. The constitutions of
Pakrashtra, Afghanirashtra and Banglarashtra provide for a specific state
religion. As a result, many persons belonging to minority like Hindu, Sikh,
Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian communities have faced persecution on
grounds of religion in those countries. Some of them also have fears about
such persecution in their day-to-day life where right to practice, profess and
propagate their religion has been obstructed and restricted. Many such
persons have fled to Saurashtra to seek shelter and continued to stay in
Saurashtra even if their travel documents have expired or they have
incomplete or no documents.

2. The Citizenship Act, 1955 (57 of 1955) was enacted to provide for the
acquisition and determination of State of Saurashtra. The Citizenship Act,
1955 provides various ways in which citizenship may be acquired. It
provides for citizenship by birth, descent, registration, naturalisation and by
incorporation of territory into Saurashtra. In addition, it regulates the
registration of Overseas Citizen of Saurashtra Cardholders (OCIs), and their
rights. An OCI is entitled to some benefits such as a multiple-entry,
multipurpose lifelong visa to visit Saurashtra. The Act prohibits illegal
migrants from acquiring Saurashtra citizenship. It defines an illegal migrant
as a foreigner: (i) who enters Saurashtra without a valid passport or travel
documents, or (ii) stays beyond the permitted time. The Central
Government exempted migrants from the adverse penal consequences of
the Passport (Entry into Saurashtra) Act,1920 and the Foreigners Act, 1946
 and rules or orders made there under. Subsequently, the Central
Government also made them eligible for long term visa to stay in
Saurashtra.

3. Now, it is proposed to make migrants eligible for Saurashtra Citizenship.

The illegal migrants who have entered into India up to the cut of date of
31.12.2014 need a special regime to govern their citizenship matters. State
of Saurashtra passed THE CITIZENSHIP (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2019,
An Act further to amend the Citizenship Act, 1955. BE it enacted by
Parliament of the Republic of Saurashtra as follows:—

1. (1) This Act may be called the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019.
(2) It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by
notification in the Official Gazette, appoint.
2. In the Citizenship Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), in section 2, in
sub-section

(1), in clause (b), the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:—

"Provided that any person belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or
Christian community from Pakrashtra, Afghanirashtra or Banglarashtra, who
entered into Saurashtra on or before the 31st day of

December, 2014 and who has been exempted by the Central Government by or
under clause

(c) of sub section (2) of section 3 of the Passport (Entry into Saurashtra) Act,
1920 or from the application of the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 or any
rule or order made there under, shall not be treated as illegal migrant for the
purposes of this Act;".

3. After section 6A of the principal Act, the following section shall be inserted,
namely:—'6B.
(1) The Central Government or an authority specified by it in this behalf may,
subject to such conditions, restrictions and manner as may be prescribed, on an
application made in this behalf, grant a certificate of registration or certificate of
naturalisation to a person referred to in the proviso to clause (b) of sub-section
(1) of section 2. (2) Subject to fulfilment of the conditions specified in section 5
or the qualifications for naturalisation under the provisions of the Third
Schedule, a person granted the certificate of registration or certificate of
naturalisation under sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be acitizen of Saurashtra
from the date of his entry into Saurashtra.

(3) On and from the date of commencement of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, any
proceeding pending against a person under this section in respect of illegal migration or
citizenship shall stand abated on conferment of citizenship to him:

Provided that such person shall not be disqualified for making application for
citizenship under this section on the ground that the proceeding is pending
against him and the Central Government or authority specified by it in this behalf
shall not reject his application on that ground if he is otherwise found qualified
for grant of citizenship under this section: Provided further that the person who
makes the application for citizenship under this section shall not be deprived of
his rights and privileges to which he was entitled on the date of receipt of his
application on the ground of making such application.

(4) Nothing in this section shall apply to tribal area of State of Saurashtra as included in the
Sixth Schedule to the Constitution and the area covered under "The Inner Line" notified under
the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873.'

4. In section 7D of the principal Act,— (i) after clause (d), the following clause shall be
inserted
 ,namely:— "(da) the Overseas Citizen of State of Saurashtra Cardholder has
violated any of the provisions of this Act or provisions of any other law for time
being in force as may be specified by the Central Government in the notification
published in the Official Gazette; or";(ii) after clause (f), the following proviso
shall be inserted, namely:—"Provided that no order under this section shall be
passed unless the Overseas Citizen of India Cardholder has been given a
reasonable opportunity of being heard.".

5. In section 18 of the principal Act, in sub-section (2), after clause (ee), the following clause
shall be inserted, namely:— "(eei) the conditions, restrictions and manner for granting
certificate of registration or certificate of naturalisation under sub-section (1) of section 6B;".

6. In the Third Schedule to the principal Act, in clause (d), the following proviso shall be
inserted, namely:— 'Provided that for the person belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain,
Parsi or Christian community in Pakrashtra, Afghanirashtra and Banglarashtra, the aggregate
period of residence or service of Government in Saurashtra as required under this clause shall
be read as "not less than five years" in place of "not less than eleven years".'.

4. Ms Snehal Singh is practicing lawyer in Supreme Court of the State of

Saurashtra and is member of NGO who work for welfare of refugees and migrant.
Who file case before Supreme Court to challenge constitutional validity on the
ground that THE CITIZENSHIP (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2019 violates to spirit
and text of written constitution of State of Saurashtra, this Act differentiating on
grounds of religion is a violation of Article 14, 21 and other provisions of
constitution of State of Saurashtra and Also it gives wide discretion to
government to cancel OCI registration, etc. This case was admitted and posted for
nal hearing before Supreme Court of State of Saurashtra.
MOOT PROBLEM 3 WILL BE DRAFTED BY THE FOLLOWING ROLL
NUMBERS:
Roll No Name PETITIONER/RESPONDENT
61 PATIL SHEJAL SHASHIKANT PETITIONER
62 PATIL SHUBHANGI JALINDAR RESPONDENT
63 PHADTARE ROHIT RAGHUNATH PETITIONER
64 POTPHODE SIDDHESH MORESHWAR RESPONDENT
65 POWAR NANDKUMAR SHIVAJI PETITIONER
66 QAZI SANA SALEEM RESPONDENT
67 QADRI SAYYED IMRAN KASAMALI PETITIONER
68 QURESHI AMIR ALI ABID HUSAIN RESPONDENT
69 RAJPUROHIT DIKSHITA JAGDISH PETITIONER
70 RAUT VIJAY GAUTAM RESPONDENT
71 RUVIKAR GANESH BHUSHAN PETITIONER
72 SAH SANJEET KUMAR RAM GULAM SAH RESPONDENT
73 SAHOO JOSHNA RANI JAGABANDHU PETITIONER
74 SAKUNDE HARISHCHANDRA HANAMANT RESPONDENT
75 SAMANT PRAJAKTA UMAKANT PETITIONER
76 SARFARE GAURAV SAKHARAM RESPONDENT
77 SAROJ ASHISH KUMAR RAMASARE PETITIONER
78 SAWANT NIRANTAR BALKRUSHNA RESPONDENT
79 SAYED ALI HASAN IMTIYAZ HUSSAIN PETITIONER
80 SAYYED SABIYA IRSHAD ALI RESPONDENT
81 SAYYED BURHANUDDIN SHAMSHUDDIN PETITIONER
82 SHAH RAJKUMAR HARISHANKAR RESPONDENT
83 SHAIKH ABDUL AZIZ SHAHNAWAZ PETITIONER
84 SHAIKH ARIF NOORMOHD RESPONDENT
85 SHAIKH JASMIN YUNUS PETITIONER
86 SHAIKH MEHFOOZ KARAM HUSEN RESPONDENT
88 SHAIKH MEHNAAZ WAHEED PETITIONER
89 SHAIKH MOIN USMAN RESPONDENT
90 SHAIKH YASMIN JALIL PETITIONER

MOOT PROBLEM 4

1. Arohi was a middle-class, upper caste Hindu. He married Aruna in the

year 1977. Aruna gave birth to a daughter Mala in 1978, and a son in
1980. They were happy at the thought that their family was complete.
However, in an unfortunate turn of events, their son died in an accident
at home when he was two years old. They were very upset but tried to
have another child and with God’s grace, Aruna gave birth to another
son in the year 1983. Looking at his horoscope, the pandit suggested a
special ritual to be followed every month for the welfare of his son till
the age of five as there was danger to his life till that time. Despite
observance of the ritual with full reverence by the couple, this son also
died in a road accident just as he turned five years old. The couple was
completely devastated. They were apprehensive that another child may
meet the same fate if they tried for another child. However, they tried
and yet another son was born to them a third time in the year 1990. At
his naming ceremony, they consulted the astrologers and were advised
to give away that child in adoption to a person of the lower caste if
they wanted this child to live. They named him Kaushal and decided to
give him up for adoption. Their sweeper, Maina Devi, a 50 year old
widow with no children agreed to take the child in adoption and to
give him back to them for his bringing up as she did not have the
means to bring him up.

2. In a formal ceremony Kaushal was given to Maina Devi by Arohi and

Aruna and was taken by Maina Devi. Thereafter, she gave him back to
the couple for bringing him up on her behalf. Maina Devi kept visiting
them regularly and gave something for Kaushal every month till he
was ten years old when she died. In the meanwhile, in the year 1994
 another son was born to Arohi and Aruna and he was named Balraj.

3. The fact of adoption of Kaushal was treated by Arohi and Aruna as a

formality to save his life and he was brought up by Arohi and Aruna as
their son with Mala and Balraj. Arohi died intestate in the year 2012.
Aruna decided to divide the property in four equal shares, one each for
herself, Mala, Kaushal and Balraj. Mala and Balraj objected to it and
demanded 1/3 share in the property as Kaushal had no right having
been given in adoption to Maina Devi. Aruna’s pleas that the adoption
was a mere ritual carried out on the advice of the astrologer to save
Kaushal’s life but without any intention actually to give him up, had
no effect on them. They maintained that the adoption was legal and
complete when Kaushal was given and taken in adoption with a free
will. Unable to resolve their dispute, Mala and Balraj filed a suit for
division of property and declaration that Kaushal was not an heir to
any property of Arohi in the absence of a will.

4. The lower court decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. Aruna and Kaushal
filed an appeal against the order asking for an equal share to Kaushal
in the suit properties being the natural born son. They pleaded that the
adoption was not valid in the absence of the intention to really give
him in adoption. Alternatively, they pleaded that the adoption was bad
as Aruna’s consent was vitiated having been given under the mistaken
belief that it was a religious ceremony aimed at saving the life of her
son. In addition, it was submitted that an adoption that puts the child in
a situation of deprivation cannot be held valid and binding being
contrary to the principle of best interest of the child.
MOOT PROBLEM 4 WILL BE DRAFTED BY THE FOLLOWING ROLL
NUMBERS:

Roll No Name PETITIONER/RESPONDENT

91 SHARMA SHUBHAM ARAVIND KUMAR PETITIONER
92 SHETTY ANUJ JAYANT RESPONDENT
93 SHINGE RUPALI LAXMAN PETITIONER
94 SHRIVASTAVA RAGINI PRAKASH CHANDRA RESPONDENT
95 SHRIVASTAVA ROHINI PRAKASH CHANDRA PETITIONER

SHUKLA JAGDAMBAPRASAD RESPONDENT

96
HARISHCHANDRA

97 SIDDIQUI NAZMA KHATOON AMIRULLAH RESPONDENT

98 SINGH CHANDRAKALA SATYANARAYAN PETITIONER
99 SINGH RAVINDER KUMAR SHIVPRATAP RESPONDENT
100 SINGH SHUBHAM HARIKESH BAHADUR PETITIONER
101 SOLKAR BARKATALI ABDUL LATIF RESPONDENT
102 SURVE SANJANA BALKRISHNA PETITIONER
103 THORAT ROHIT DILIP RESPONDENT
104 TIWARI AKANSHA KANHAIYALAL PETITIONER
105 DASH CHOUDHURY RITU AJIT KUMAR RESPONDENT
106 TIWARI SARITA JATASHANKAR PETITIONER
107 UPADHYAY RAJENDRA KUMAR RAMAPATI RESPONDENT
108 UPADHYAY SUJIT KUMAR RAJESH PETITIONER
109 UTEKAR AARYA SHAILESH RESPONDENT
110 VANARCHE VIJAY RAMAKRISHNA PETITIONER
111 VARMA KAPIL MANOHAR RESPONDENT
112 VARMA SARITA RAMMURAT PETITIONER
113 VERMA SANTOSH KUMAR RESPONDENT
114 WAKHARKAR SANDEEP DEVRAO PETITIONER
115 WANDEKAR SHUBHAM ASHOK RESPONDENT
116 YADAV JAGRUTI RAMDULARE PETITIONER
117 VINOD SHUKLA RESPONDENT