TEAM CODE: L

Dr. AMBEDKAR GLOBAL LAW INSTITUTE, TIRUPATI

INTERNAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023.

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPEAL NO._________ OF 2022 Arising in S.L.P. No. _______ OF 2022

(SPECIAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ALONG WITH THE JURISDICTION UNDER

ARTICLE 139-A)

RENUKA SHENOY & OTHERS ...APPELLANTS

V.

MR. SIMON & OTHERS …RESPONDENTS

MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS

Page 1 of 26
MEMORIA L FOR THE R ESPONDENT S
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS....................................................................................................4
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES......................................................................................................5
I. BOOKS AND COMMENTARIES REFERRED: .................................................................5
II.STATUTES REFERRED: ................................................................................................5
III.TABLE OF CASES:........................................................................................................5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION..........................................................................................7
STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................................8
ISSUES RAISED.....................................................................................................................10
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.............................................................................................11
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED .................................................................................................13
1. (A) THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER UNDER ARTICLE 139A OF THE
CONSTITUTION IN TRANSFERRING AND CLUBBING THE WRIT PETITION
UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND THE PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C.,
IS VALID..........................................................................................................................13
(B) WHETHER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS ARE MAINTAINABLE?.........13
B1. The appeal under art 136 before this Hon’ble SC is not Maintainable………...…..13
B1.1 Irrespective of the locus standi of the Appellants, the Petition for
Special Leave is not maintainable………………………………...…………..13
B1.2. Grounds of rejection …………………………………………………..14
B2. The petition filed by Mr. Simon under art 226 of COI is Maintainable…………...14
B3. The petition filed by Mr. Simon under section 482 of CrPC is Maintainable……..15
2. THE RIGHT TO RELIGION IS ENTITLED TO PRIMACY OVER RIGHT TO
HEALTH AND MEDICAL CARE AND RIGHT TO LIFE……………………….…15
2.1. Scope of Article 25………………………………………………………………..…15
2.2. Scope of Article 21…………………………………………………………………..16
2.3. What is religion?..........................................................................................................16
3. THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE RESPONDENT CAN BE
QUASHED........................................................................................................................12
3.1 Meaning of Quash………………………………………………………………...….17
3.2 Legal Provisions for Quashing of Criminal Proceedings…………………………..…18
3.3 Rules Governing the Petitions Which Pray for Quashing of Criminal Proceedings…..18
3.4 Who are Jehovah’s witness?.........................................................................................18
3.5 Scope of section 304 of IPC………………………………………………………..…19
4. THE RESPONDENT IS SOLE DECISION MAKE WITH RESPECT TO HIS
DAUGHTER………….…………………………………………………………...….…20
4.1 The provision related to the rights and responsibilities of parents…………………….21

Page 2 of 26
MEMORIA L FOR THE R ESPONDENT S
5. THE PRINCIPAL IS LIABLE TO BE PROSECUTED FOR CORPORAL
PUNISHMENT……...………………………………………………………………..…22
5.1. Corporal punishment…………………………………………………………….…..22
5.2 The principal act is Punishable………………………………………………………..22
5.3 Responsibilities of residential school……………………………..…………………..24
PRAYER……………………………………………………………………………….……26

Page 3 of 26
MEMORIA L FOR THE R ESPONDENT S
 LIST OF ABBREVATION
1. & And
2. AIR All India Reporter
3. All Allahabad
4. Anr Another
5. Art Article
6. CWC Child Welfare Committee
7. CrPC Code of Criminal Procedure
8. COI Constitution of India
9. CrLJ Criminal Law Journal
10. Crl.MC Criminal Miscellaneous
11. Del or DLT Delhi
12. HC High Court
13. Hon’ble Honourable
14. Hyd Hyderabad
15. IPC Indian Penal Code
16. JW Jehovah's witnesses
17. JJ Juvenile Justice
18. KAR Karnataka
19. Mad Madras
20. MLJ Madras Law Journal
21. NCT National Capital Territory
22. No Number
23. Ors Others
24. P&H Punjab and Haryana
25. RC Roman Catholic
26. SLP Special Leave Petition
27. SMW Suo Moto Writ
28. SC Supreme Court
29. SCC Supreme Court Cases
30. Utt Uttarakhand
31. WP Writ Petition

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Page 4 of 26
MEMORIA L FOR THE R ESPONDENT S
I. BOOKS AND COMMENTARIES REFERRED:
1. Constitution of India , VN Shukla’s, 13th Edition, 2021.
2. Indian Penal Code 1860, Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, 36th Edition, 2021.
3. Criminal Procedure Code 1973, RV Kelkar’s, 7th Edition, 2022.
4. Criminal Procedure Code 1973, Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, 23rd Edition, 2022.
5. Shaw’s Textbook of Gynaecology, Howkins & Bourne, 17th Edition.

II. STATUTES REFERRED:

1. Constitution of India, 1950.

2. Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
4. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
5. Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.

III. TABLE OF CASES:

1. Sunil Rathee & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors 2020 SCC Online 597……………..13
2. A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2007 SC 1546 ……...14
3. Aero Traders Private Limited v. Ravider Kumar Suri, AIR 2005 SC 15 ………...…14
4. Baby kritika Haldar v. Union of India (2015) 8 SCC 1…………………………...…20
5. In Re: Exploitation of Children in Orphanages in the State of Tamil Nadu, (WP (C)
No. 465 of 1986)……………………………………………………………………..25
6. Jyoti Gupta v. State of Haryana AIR 2015 P&H 110………………………………..21
7. Kunhayammed and Others v. State of Kerala and Anr, (2000) 6 SCC 359 ………....14
8. Lalith Kumar v. Union of India 2018 SCC Online Utt 579……………………….…13
9. M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1991 SC 417………………………………24
10. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 4618 …………………………………14
11. Modern School v. Union of India (2004) 117 DLT 1……………………………23&24
12. Mohammad Abdul Azeem v. State of Telangana (2018 SCC Online Hyd 23)…….…22
13. Ms. X v. State of NCT of Delhi, (HC of Del W.P.(C) 10025/2010)………………….22
14. N. Suriyakala v. A. Mohandoss, (2007) 9 SCC 196 ……………………………..…..13
15. Nandakumar v. State of Kerala (2018) 3 SCC 534…………………………………..20
16. Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466…………………………….....18
17. Parbatbhai Ahir v. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641……………………………...18
18. Prashant Bharti v. State of NCT of Delhi (2013) 9 SCC 293………………………..18
19. Pritam Singh v. The State, AIR 1950 SC 169 …………………………………….…13

Page 5 of 26
MEMORIA L FOR THE R ESPONDENT S
20. Rajeev Kumar Sharma v. State of Haryana (2017 Not Reported)………………..….20
21. Sandeep Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 2016 P&H 247…………………………...….20
22. Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka & Ors AIR 2012 KAR 161……………….20
23. State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat (2005) 8 SCC 534 …..….15
24. Vinod Kumar v. State of Karnataka (HC of KAR Criminal Petition No.
3243/2019)…………………………………………………………………………...24
25. Vishaka and Others v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011……………………....23
26. Vishnu Kumar Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2016 SCC Online All 2423)……....24
27. Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2004 SC 3467 ……………..…..14

Page 6 of 26
MEMORIA L FOR THE R ESPONDENT S
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

SLP NO. /2023.

The counsel for the respondent, the appellant has approached this Hon’ble Supreme
Court under Article 136 of Constitution of India1. The respondent reserves the right to contest
the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Supreme Court to entertain this instant petition.

1
Article 136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to
appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any
court or tribunal in the territory of India.

(2) Nothing in clause ( 1 ) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order passed or made by any
court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.

Page 7 of 26
MEMORIA L FOR THE R ESPONDENT S
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Sarah is a girl of 14 years studying in the 9th standard in St. Mary's Residential Public
School. Her father Mr. Simon (respondent) is a chartered accountant in the nearby city and her
mother Ms. June is an Asst. Professor in a college.

2. Mr. Simon belongs to the religious sect of Jehovah's witnesses and Ms. June belongs to the
Roman Catholic faith. Even after their marriage, they continued their respective religious
beliefs. Sarah seems not particular to follow any faith, either Jehovah's witnesses or Roman
Catholic.

3. Though the school register shows that she belongs to Jehovah's witnesses, she used to attend
prayers in the boarding chapel run by catholic nuns. The parents choose to visit their daughter
every weekend at the school. School boarding and both are satisfied with education and
treatment she received there,

4. For two three weeks, the warden of the boarding school noticed certain changes in the
behaviour of Sarah. She appeared very tired and was not paying proper attention to her lessons
and homework. One day she even fainted during study time. On examination it was found that
she was anaemic. The Doctor prescribed medicines including iron tablets. Sarah asked the
Doctor whether it was essential to take medicines.

5. The Doctor required her to be strict with her diet and medications and her conditions were
reported to the principal and her parents. Three months later, the school was hoisting the inter-
school science for which Sarah was entrusted to do a project on flora and fauna by the principal.
But Sarah failed to submit the project in time. Infuriated by the irresponsible behaviour, Ms.
Dianna, the Principal shouted and slapped Sarah on her face and ordered her to stand outside
the principal’s room till the teacher in charge of Congress came there. Sarah stood there for
two hours and fell down unconsciously.

6. The Principal immediately took Sarah to Wellington Hospital. At the casualty, she was given
trip and some other preliminary medications. During intervals of consciousness, she uttered
‘feebly.... help me... save my life...’on examining her blood samples, the level of haemoglobin
was below seven and sodium level was below 25 and also her blood pressure was very low.

7. The Chief Physician Dr. Krishna prescribed urgent blood transfusion as Sarah was in a
critical stage and was transferred to ICU. When Sarah became partly conscious, she objected
to transfusion of blood. In the meantime, Sarah's parents, on reaching the hospital, were
informed of their daughter's critical condition. Finding that the blood transfusion was going

Page 8 of 26
MEMORIA L FOR THE R ESPONDENT S
on. Mr. Simon became agitated and pushed the duty doctors and insisted to stop the transfusion
immediately as it went against his faith. Ms. June pleaded the Doctor to save life of Sarah at
any cost. Even after the Doctor explained the consequences if the transfusion is stopped, Mr.
Simon insisted to stop the treatment immediately which was rejected by Dr. Krishna and
hospital authorities.

8. Simon then contacted the nearby Police Station, and due to their intervention Sarah was
discharged from the hospital. Later on, Simon lodged a complaint against the principal for
corporal punishment towards his daughter. But the police were not convinced of the matter and
did not proceed against his complaint. Subsequently, Simon filed a writ petition through Adv.
Harilal, who was also a Jehovah's witness seeking direction to police to investigate the matter
in detail.

9. Knowing these facts, Renuka Shenoy, President of Student's Parliament (Appellant)

approached a lawyer, Adv. Aysha B Sulaiman, filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High
Court of Andhra Pradesh seeking medical treatment to Sarah. However, the petition was
dismissed, she approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India which admitted the appeal.

10. By the time, Sarah's condition became worse and she died after 6 days. Knowing the death
of Sarah, the Principal filed a complaint against Mr. Simon alleging negligence leading to the
death of Sarah. On investigation the police found Mr. Simon responsible for culpable homicide.
Meanwhile, Mr. Simon approached the High Court to quash the proceedings against him.
During the pendency of this petition, the Supreme Court, after hearing Adv. Aysha, decided
that the petitions pending before the High Court should also be heard together along with
appeal and issued notices to respective parties accordingly,

Page 9 of 26
MEMORIA L FOR THE R ESPONDENT S
 ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE NO.1.

(A) Whether the exercise of the power under Article 139A of the Constitution in
transferring and clubbing the writ petition under Article 226 and the petition under
Section 482 of CrPC is erroneous?

(B) Whether the following petitions are Maintainable?

B1. Whether the appeal under article 136 before this hon’ble supreme court is
not maintainable?
B2. Whether the petition filed by Mr. Simon under article 226 of COI is
maintainable?
B3. Whether the petition filed by Mr. Simon under section 482 of CrPC is
maintainable?

ISSUE NO.2.

Whether the right to religion is entitled to primacy over right to health and medical care
and right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution?

ISSUE NO.3.

Whether the criminal proceedings against the Respondent under Section 304 of the
Indian Penal Code can be quashed?

ISSUE NO.4.

Whether the Respondent is the sole decision make with respect to his daughter?

ISSUE NO.5.

Whether the Principal is liable to be prosecuted for corporal punishment?

Page 10 of 26
MEMORIA L FOR THE R ESPONDENT S
 SUMMARY ARGUMENT

ISSUE NO.1
A. THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER UNDER ARTICLE 139A OF THE
CONSTITUTION IN TRANSFERRING AND CLUBBING THE WRIT PETITION
UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND THE PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF CrPC IS
VALID.
It is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Supreme Court that the clubbing of those
petitions is essential for speedy trial. When there are questions of law involved in both the
cases are same or at least substantially similar and these questions are of substantial importance
so as to warrant a transfer. While hearing those petitions separately the decision might bring
conflict and delay.

B. WHETHER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS ARE MAINTAINABLE?

B1. THE APPEAL UNDER ARTICLE 136 BEFORE THIS HON’BLE SUPREME
COURT IS NOT MAINTAINABLE.
It is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Court that in the given factual matrix, there is
no necessity for the intervention of this Hon’ble Supreme Court and invoking its powers under
Article 136. As the Appellants have filed a writ petition under Article 226 of COI for seeking
medical treatment to Sarah in High Court of Andhra Pradesh, it was dismissed on merit.

B2. THE PETITION FILED BY MR. SIMON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF COI IS
MAINTAINABLE.
It is humbly submitted to this Hon'ble Supreme Court that; In this case Mr. Simon’s
fundamental rights were infringed. The petitioner approaching this court to direct the police
officer to investigate the matter in detail (the complaint lodged against the principal). Here the
Police Officers failed to do their duties.

B3. THE PETITION FILED BY MR. SIMON UNDER SECTION 482 OF CrPC IS
MAINTAINABLE.
It is humbly submitted to this Hon'ble Supreme Court that; Mr. Simon did not stop the
treatment of his daughter on his own wish, whereas he respected his daughter’s religious belief.
Here Mr. Simon has no Intention and Knowledge.

Page 11 of 26
MEMORIA L FOR THE R ESPONDENT S
ISSUE NO. 2
THE RIGHT TO RELIGION IS ENTITLED TO PRIMACY OVER RIGHT TO
HEALTH AND MEDICAL CARE AND RIGHT TO LIFE.
It is humbly submitted to this Hon'ble Supreme Court that; when there is any conflict
arise between right to religion and right to life, it is decided with utmost care and keeping in
mind that no-one’s religious sentiments are hurt and decided referring to the personal laws and
customs of that religion before coming to a final decision with respect to the matter. The
minority’s faith and practices should not be supressed merely because it was not being
practiced in India.

ISSUE NO.3
THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 304
OF IPC CAN BE QUASHED.
It is humbly submitted to this Hon'ble Supreme Court that; the ingredient of sec.304 of
IPC is knowledge or intention. Here Mr. Simon neither had intention to cause death nor had
the knowledge that it might lead to death of his daughter, if the treatment is stopped. Mr. Simon
did not stop the treatment of his daughter on his own wish, whereas he respected his daughter’s
religious belief.

ISSUE NO.4
THE RESPONDENT IS NOT SOLE DECISION MAKER WITH RESPECT OF HIS
DAUGHTER.
It is humbly submitted to this Hon'ble Supreme Court that; In case of any decision with
respect to medical treatment of a child, both parents have equal responsibilities to make
decision. Here both parents took the decision combinedly.

ISSUE NO.5
THE PRINCIPAL IS LIABLE TO BE PROSECUTED FOR CORPORAL
PUNISHMENT.
It is humbly submitted to this Hon'ble Supreme Court that; Despite the principal having
knowledge that Sarah is under a medication, Ms. Dianna punished Sarah which is a mala fide
act and it is punishable.

Page 12 of 26
MEMORIA L FOR THE R ESPONDENT S
 ADVANCE ARGUMENT

ISSUE NO.1
A. THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER UNDER ARTICLE 139A OF THE
CONSTITUTION IN TRANSFERRING AND CLUBBING THE WRIT PETITION
UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND THE PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF CrPC IS
VALID.
1.1 It is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Supreme Court that, Article 139A of the
Constitution of India,1950 deals with Transfer of certain cases. - Where cases involving the
same or substantially the same questions of law are pending before the Supreme Court and one
or more High Courts or before two or more High Courts and the Supreme Court is satisfied on
its own motion or an application made by the Attorney General of India or by a party to any
such case that such questions are substantial questions of general importance, the Supreme
Court may withdraw the case or cases pending before the High Court or the High Courts and
dispose of all the cases itself.

1.2 Here the Hon’ble SC invoked Article 139A of COI, 1950 to bring forth the petitions
filed under HC which is seeking direction to investigate the matters against the principal and
to quash the criminal proceedings against Mr. Simon. In the case of Sunil Rathee & Ors. v.
State of Haryana & Ors,2 the SC held that, the questions of law involved in both the cases are
same or at least substantially similar and these questions are of substantial importance so as to
warrant a transfer. While hearing those petitions separately the decision might bring conflict
and delay. Therefore, clubbing those petitions are essential for speedy trial. In the case of Lalith
Kumar v. Union of India3 the SC held that Access to speedy justice is a fundamental right
under Art.21 of COI and to pass a decisive judgement.

[B] WHETHER THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS ARE MAINTAINABLE?

B1. THE APPEAL UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF COI BEFORE THIS HON’BLE
SUPREME COURT IS NOT MAINTAINABLE.

B1.1 Irrespective of the locus standi of the Appellants, the Petition for Special
Leave is not maintainable:

B1.1.1 Article 136 does not confer a Right of Appeal, but merely, a discretionary power
to the Supreme Court to be exercised for satisfying the demands of justice under exceptional
circumstances4. In Pritam Singh v. The State5, the SC held that the power under Article 136

2
Sunil Rathee & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors 2020 SCC Online 597
3
Lalith Kumar v. Union of India 2018 SCC Online Utt 579
4
N. Suriyakala v. A. Mohandoss, (2007) 9 SCC 196
5
Pritam Singh v. The State, AIR 1950 SC 169
Page 13 of 26
MEMORIA L FOR THE R ESPONDENT S
is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases only. In concluding the discussion on
Article 136 in the same case, it was held by the Supreme Court that ‘Generally speaking, this
court will not grant Special Leave, unless it is shown that exceptional and special circumstances
exist, that substantial and grave injustice has been done and that the case in question presents
features of sufficient gravity to warrant a review of the decision appealed against.’

B1.1.2 Although the power has been held to be plenary, limitless6, adjunctive, and
unassailable7, in M. C. Mehta v. Union of India8 and Aero Traders Private Limited v. Ravider
Kumar Suri9, it was held that the powers under Article 136 should be exercised with caution
and in accordance with law and set legal principles.

B1.1.3 Hence, it is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Supreme Court that by reason of
lack of any specific matter that requires the intervention of this Hon’ble Supreme Court, the
Court need not entertain the matter; however, if this Hon’ble Supreme Court does decide to
accept the Petition for Special Leave, it is humbly submitted that this Hon’ble Supreme Court
only adjudicate upon the order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, i.e., not to hear this Appeal
on merits, but merely, on the right place of suing.
B1.2. Grounds of rejection:
In the case of Kunhayammed and Others v. State of Kerala and Anr10, it was held that
a petition seeking grant of special leave to appeal may be rejected for several reasons The
question raised by the petitioner for consideration by this Court being not fit for consideration
or deserving being dealt with by the Apex Court; it is humbly submitted that there is no ground
for invoking this Hon’ble Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article 136 of COI.
B2. THE PETITION FILED BY MR. SIMON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF COI IS
MAINTAINABLE.
It is humbly submitted to this Hon'ble Supreme Court that; the writ petition should be
maintainable because the fundamental rights of the constitutional remedies guaranteed under
part III of COI where by any citizen can approach any competent Court for enforcement of his
fundamental rights. A writ of Mandamus should be issued by the court for relief. The petitioner
approaching this court to direct the police officer to investigate the matter in detail (the
complaint lodged against the principal). Here the Police Officers failed to do their duties.

6
A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2007 SC 1546
7
Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2004 SC 3467
8
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 4618
9
Aero Traders Private Limited v. Ravider Kumar Suri, AIR 2005 SC 15
10
Kunhayammed and Others v. State of Kerala and Anr, (2000) 6 SCC 359
Page 14 of 26
MEMORIA L FOR THE R ESPONDENT S
B3. THE PETITION FILED BY MR. SIMON UNDER SECTION 482 OF CrPC IS
MAINTAINABLE.
It is humbly submitted to this Hon'ble Supreme Court that; Mr. Simon did not stop the
treatment of his daughter on his own wish, whereas he respected his daughter’s religious belief.
Due to this the Police Officer charged Mr. Simon under Section 304 of IPC. The ingredient to
convict a person under section 304 of IPC is Intention and Knowledge. Here Mr. Simon has
no Intention and Knowledge. Further it is discussed in detail the subsequent Issues.

ISSUE NO. 2
THE RIGHT TO RELIGION IS ENTITLED TO PRIMACY OVER RIGHT TO
HEALTH AND MEDICAL CARE AND RIGHT TO LIFE.
It is humbly submitted to before this Hon'ble Supreme Court that India is a democratic
country that strictly follows the principle of secularism. The Constitution of India was drafted
keeping in mind the pros and cons of other democratic countries in mind and giving utmost
importance to the rights of the citizens. A secular country represents no specific religion and
India does not associate itself with any specific religion nor does it support any religion nor
does it differentiate amongst citizens on the basis of religion. When any question arises with
respect to religion, it is decided with utmost care and keeping in mind that no-one’s religious
sentiments are hurt and decided referring to the personal laws and customs of that religion
before coming to a final decision with respect to the matter.

2.1. Scope of Article 25

2.1.1 Article 25 of COI deals with Freedom of conscience and free profession,
practice and propagation of religion. It says all persons are equally entitled to freedom of
conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion subject to public
order, morality. Practicing religion or the act of propagating it should not, however, affect the
public order, morality.
2.1.2 The Article doesn't put any restriction on the government when it comes to making
any law to regulate "economic, financial, political or other secular" activities, which may be
associated with religious practice. In the case of State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi
Kassab Jamat11 the SC of India held that the right to follow one's own religion is a fundamental
right guaranteed under the Indian Constitution. The court held that any interference with the
religious practices of a person must be based on reasonable grounds and cannot be arbitrary or
discriminatory.

11
State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat (2005) 8 SCC 534
Page 15 of 26
MEMORIA L FOR THE R ESPONDENT S
2.2. Scope of Article 21
• According to Article 21: “Protection of Life and Personal Liberty: No person shall
be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by
law.”
• This fundamental right is available to every person, citizens and foreigners alike.
• Article 21 provides two rights: Right to life and right to personal liberty
• The fundamental right provided by Article 21 is one of the most important rights that
the Constitution guarantees.
• The Supreme Court of India has described this right as the ‘heart of fundamental rights’
• The right to life is not just about the right to survive. It also entails being able to live a
complete life of dignity and meaning.

2.3. What is religion?

2.3.1 The constitution does not define the term ‘religion’ and ‘matters of religion.’ The
German philosopher Immanuel Kant defined religion as “Religion is the recognition of all our
duties as divine commands”.
Milton Yinger, an American sociologist defined religion as “a system of beliefs and
practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human
life”.
2.3.2 In India the total population is about 140.76 crores. According to the 2011 census
conducted by the Government of India, the major religions in India are:
1. Hinduism: 79.8%
2. Islam: 14.2%
3. Christianity: 2.3%
4. Sikhism: 1.7%
5. Buddhism: 0.7%
6. Jainism: 0.4%
7. Other religions: 0.7%
8. Religion not stated: 0.2%
Among 2.3% of Christians there are only about 33,000 JW in India, approximately
0.002%. So, the Jehovah witnesses are one among the minorities.
2.3.3 The rituals and religious belief of majority communities are strongly respected
and followed throughout the country. There was no objection so far related to their practices
and belief, likewise the belief of the minority communities should also be respected. Every
religion has their own rights to follow any religious practice irrespective of its consequences.

Page 16 of 26
MEMORIA L FOR THE R ESPONDENT S
There are number of scaring and unbelievable practices happening in the majority community
in India. For instance:
1. Theemithi, Tamil Nadu - walking on fire.
2. Thaipusam, Tamil Nadu - body piercings.
3. Garudan Thookkam, Kerala - hanging on hooks like an eagle.
4. Lath Mar Holi, Barsana, Uttar Pradesh - beating up men with sticks.

2.3.4 For instance, practicing fire rituals includes number of cases where the person
doing this gets severely injured and, in some cases, it even leads to death. On April 22,
Basavanna (a devotee) sustained severe burns after he fell onto the burning coal embers that
he was walking on at festivities at the Kalikamba Temple in Mandya district. Basavanna had
reportedly done this four times in the past, without any mishap. He sustained 70% burns and
died a few days later.12
2.3.5 Chandra (a devotee) of Thirumalai Nagar, Kavangarai attended the festival at
Vettuduyar Kaliamman temple in Kannapasamy Nagar, Puzhal after falling into a pit of
burning charcoal while performing ‘fire-walk’ during a temple festival died13.
2.3.6 When these practices weren’t restricted even though it risks people’s lives, the
religious belief of the JW should also be valued. The minorities do have their own values and
beliefs. It is the belief of every religion that “God Will Save Them”. Those ritual practices were
not questioned and no cases has been filed against these practices. And if we don’t allow
minorities to follow their religion, it will result in discrimination and it would destroy our
secularism. Therefore, the counsel humbly submitting before this Hon’ble SC that there should
not be any restrictions on practising their own belief. It will affect the secularism of India as
everyone has the right to choose their religious faith and belief.

ISSUE NO.3
THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 304
OF IPC CAN BE QUASHED.

It is humbly submitted to this Hon'ble Supreme Court that; the principal lodged a
complaint against Mr. Simon. On investigating the matter in detail, the police found that Mr.
Simon is liable for culpable homicide u/s 304 of IPC. Mr. Simon approached the Hon’ble High
Court u/s 482 of CrPC praying to quash the criminal proceedings against him.
3.1 Meaning of Quash:

12
The News Minute reported on 4th May, 2015.
13
The Times of India reported on 17th May, 2022.
Page 17 of 26
MEMORIA L FOR THE R ESPONDENT S
 Black's law dictionary defines Quash as to overthrow / to abate / to vacate / to annul /
to make void. In simplest terms, quashing of criminal proceedings would mean ceasing the
legal machinery which had been set in motion. This is usually done after a First Information
Report is filed, before the chargesheet-filing stage. Still, proceedings can be revoked even after
the chargesheet has been filed.
3.2 Legal Provisions for Quashing of Criminal Proceedings:
3.2.1 Section 482 of CrPC says, Saving of inherent powers of High Court— Nothing
in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make
such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse
of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
3.2.2 The decisions of High Court in this regard, ought to be guided by following twin
objectives, as laid down in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab14
1. Prevent abuse of the process of court.
2. Secure the ends of justice.
3.3 Rules Governing the Petitions Which Pray for Quashing of Criminal Proceedings:
3.3.1 Section 482 of CrPC, deals with the power of court to quash criminal proceedings,
hasn’t given the details of what exactly constitutes the inherent power of the court. In that
sense, the Code is very vague as it doesn’t lay out the grounds on which the foundations of the
inherent power of court lay.
3.3.2 Furthermore, there has been consistent inconsistency in the judgments of the
Supreme Court of India with regard to the application of Section 482 of CrPC. Consequently,
the application of section 482 of CrPC is a very agitated issue in litigation along with being a
strongly debated concept in the legal academic circles.
3.3.3 In the case of Prashant Bharti v. State of NCT of Delhi15 and Parbatbhai Ahir
v. State of Gujarat16. The Hon’ble SC of India issued certain guidelines to quash the criminal
proceedings.
3.4 Who are Jehovah’s Witnesses?
3.4.1 Jehovah's Witnesses have been present in India since 1905. A National office was
established in 1926, and a charitable trust was registered in 1978 to represent the Witnesses
legal interests. At present, there are over 33,000 Jehovah's Witnesses in India who worship in
more than 400 congregations. There are over eight million Jehovah's Witnesses in 240

14
Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466
15
Prashant Bharti v. State of NCT of Delhi (2013) 9 SCC 293
16
Parbatbhai Ahir v. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641
Page 18 of 26
MEMORIA L FOR THE R ESPONDENT S
countries worldwide who belong to The Old Testament and they don’t believe in idol worship.
According to them there is only one almighty “God the father.”
3.4.2 In case of any medical treatment, they usually won’t take any foreign object into
their blood like blood transfusion. The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures is the
bible that being followed through out Jehovah’s witnesses. Acts of Apostles 15:29 says “to
keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from
sexual immorality If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good
health to you!” Because of this belief they don’t undergo blood transfusion.
3.4.3 In this instance Mr. Simon stopped the blood transfusion of his daughter because
she had faith in JW. Initially, when Sarah was unconscious, she begged to save her life but later
when she became partly conscious, she objected to blood transfusion because it is against her
religious belief.
3.4.4 Mr. Simon and his wife used to visit their daughter every weekend that shows
their responsibility, love and care towards their daughter (during one of these weekend Simon
might have known about his daughter’s religious belief). Mr. Simon had knowledge that his
daughter Sarah having faith in JW. In fact, his wife belongs to religious sect of RC. Even after
their marriage Mr. Simon neither tried to impose his religious faith upon his wife nor on his
daughter. But Sarah used to attend the prayers in the boarding chapel run by Catholic nuns. She
attended, merely because it is mandatory to attend the prayers of the school irrespective of the
person’s belief.
3.4.5 Even after getting discharged from the hospital, Sarah was alive for 6 days. During
this interval of 6 days, she was with her mother. If Sarah would have asked her mother to
continue the medical treatment, her treatment could have been continued. However, Sarah did
not have any interest in taking any further treatment. Her parents left to her choice because they
respected her religious faith and so they didn’t force her to continue any medical treatment.
3.5 Scope of section 304 of IPC.
3.5.1 The part 2 of this section clarifies that; If the act is done with knowledge that it is
likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely
to cause death, the punishment is imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to 10 years, or with fine, or with both under the second part of section 304 of IPC.
Knowledge is a strong word and imports a certainty and not merely a probability. The element
of knowledge is mandatory in the case for applicability of the second part of section 304 of
IPC.
3.5.2 The ingredient of sec.304 of IPC is knowledge or intention. Here Mr. Simon
neither had intention to cause death nor had the knowledge that it might lead to death of his
Page 19 of 26
MEMORIA L FOR THE R ESPONDENT S
daughter, if the treatment is stopped. As Mr. Simon believed in the faith of his daughter and he
thought that “God would save her”.
3.5.3 In this case, the Karnataka HC quashed the FIR filed against Som Mittal, a former
Managing Director of Hewlett-Packard India, charged under Section 304 IPC, on the grounds
that there was no material to show that the accused had committed any act with the intention
of causing death or with knowledge that such act was likely to cause death.17
3.5.4 In the case of Sandeep Singh v. State of Punjab18 the Punjab and Haryana High
Court quashed an FIR under Section 304 IPC on the grounds that the allegations made in the
FIR did not disclose the commission of any offence, and that there was no material to show
that the accused had committed any act with the intention of causing death or with knowledge
that such act was likely to cause death.
3.5.5 In the case of Rajeev Kumar Sharma v. State of Haryana19 the Punjab and
Haryana HC quashed an FIR under Section 304 IPC on the ground that there was no material
to show that the accused had committed any act with the intention of causing death or with
knowledge that such act was likely to cause death.
It is humbly submitted to this Hon'ble Supreme Court that; from the above facts Mr.
Simon is not liable to be prosecuted u/sec.304 IPC and here by the criminal proceedings may
be quashed.

ISSUE NO.4
THE RESPONDENT IS NOT SOLE DECISION MAKER WITH RESPECT OF HIS
DAUGHTER.
It is humbly submitted to this Hon'ble Supreme Court that; both parents have equal
rights to decide with respect to their child’s interest. In the case of Baby kritika Haldar v.
Union of India20 the Orissa HC held that the parents of a child have the right to make medical
decisions on behalf of their child, including consenting to or refusing medical treatment.
However, if the parents' decision is not in the best interests of the child, the court may intervene
to protect the child's welfare.
In the case of Nandakumar v. State of Kerala21 the Kerala High Court held that the
welfare of the child is of paramount consideration when making decisions about medical
treatment and that both parents have equal rights and responsibilities in this regard.

17
Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka & Ors AIR 2012 KAR 161
18
Sandeep Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 2016 P&H 247
19
Rajeev Kumar Sharma v. State of Haryana (2017 Not Reported)
20
Baby kritika Haldar v. Union of India (2015) 8 SCC 1
21
Nandakumar v. State of Kerala (2018) 3 SCC 534
Page 20 of 26
MEMORIA L FOR THE R ESPONDENT S
 It is humbly submitted to this Hon'ble Supreme Court that; legal decision-making
authority over a minor child is shared by both parents, unless a court order or agreement gives
one parent sole decision-making authority. This means that in most cases, both parents have
equal rights and responsibilities when it comes to making important decisions about their
child's upbringing, such as education, medical care, and religious upbringing.
The father does not have sole decision-making authority with respect to the medical
treatment of their child. In some cases, a court may award sole decision-making authority to
one parent if the other parent is deemed unfit or unable to make decisions.
4.1 The provision related to the rights and responsibilities of parents:
The provision related to the rights and responsibilities of parents with respect to their
minor children in India is contained in The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.
4.1.1 Section 24 of GW Act 1890 deals with Duties of guardian of the person. —A
guardian of the person of a ward is charged with the custody of the ward and must look to his
support, health and education, and such other matters as the law to which the ward is subject
requires.
4.1.2 In the case of Jyoti Gupta v. State of Haryana22 the Punjab and Haryana HC held
that both parents have equal rights and responsibilities with respect to the medical treatment of
their child and that the father does not have an absolute right to make decisions in this regard.

4.1.3 In the instance, initially it doesn’t seem to be a consent drawn from both parents
regarding the medical treatment of their daughter. Rather, the decision is taken only by the
respondent. But as we discussed in issue no 3. As a matter of fact, Ms. June did not oppose to
the decision taken by Mr. Simon. But it was supported by Ms. June through her conduct (by
not taking any steps in the course of 6 days to proceed further with treatment of Sarah).

4.1.4 It is humbly submitted to this Hon'ble Supreme Court that; here Mr. Simon is the
only person to know about his daughter religious faith. So, he is the only one who can protect
the best interest of his daughter. But after discharging Sarah, Ms. June neither approached any
court nor raised any complaint against Mr. Simon for the purpose of medical treatment. So, we
can conclude that Ms. June also made a decision with respect to her daughter’s medical
treatment. On listening to Sarah’s opinion both parents together took the decision. So, we can’t
say that the respondent is the only one who made decision. It is Sarah’s interest and it is
supported by her father and mother.

22
Jyoti Gupta v. State of Haryana AIR 2015 P&H 110
Page 21 of 26
MEMORIA L FOR THE R ESPONDENT S
ISSUE NO.5
THE PRINCIPAL IS LIABLE TO BE PROSECUTED FOR CORPORAL
PUNISHMENT.
It is humbly submitted to this Hon'ble Supreme Court that; Simon lodged a complaint
against the principal for corporal punishment towards his daughter. But the police were not
convinced of the matter and did not proceed against his complaint. Subsequently, Simon filed
a writ petition seeking direction to police to investigate the matter in detail.
5.1. Corporal punishment:
5.1.1 According to Juvenil Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 Section
2 (12) deals with “child” means a person who has not completed eighteen years of age,
5.1.2 Section 2 (24) deals with “Corporal punishment” means the subjecting of a child
by any person to physical punishment that involves the deliberate infliction of pain as
retribution for an offence, or for the purpose of disciplining or reforming the child
5.1.3 Section 82 deals with “Corporal punishment” - Any person in-charge of or
employed in a child care institution, who subjects a child to corporal punishment with the aim
of disciplining the child, shall be liable, on the first conviction, to a fine of ten thousand rupees
and for every subsequent offence, shall be liable for imprisonment which may extend to three
months or fine or with both. In the case of Mohammad Abdul Azeem v. State of Telangana23
the Hyderabad High Court held that a teacher who uses corporal punishment against a child
can be held liable under the Juvenile Justice Act and may face imprisonment and fines.
24
In the case of Ms. X v. State of NCT of Delhi that the use of corporal punishment on
a child by a teacher in a school is a violation of the child's right to education and constitutes a
criminal offense. The court ordered that the teacher be charged under the Indian Penal Code
for causing hurt and for the use of criminal force.

5.2 The principal act is Punishable:

5.2.1 According to Section 88 of IPC Act not intended to cause death, done by
consent in good faith for person’s benefit.—Nothing which is not intended to cause death,
is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause,
or be known by the doer to be likely to cause, to any person for whose benefit it is done in
good faith, and who has given a consent, whether express or implied, to suffer that harm,
or to take the risk of that harm.

23
Mohammad Abdul Azeem v. State of Telangana (2018 SCC Online Hyd 23)
24
Ms. X v. State of NCT of Delhi, (HC of Del W.P.(C) 10025/2010).
Page 22 of 26
MEMORIA L FOR THE R ESPONDENT S
 5.2.2 The two provisions (Sec.82 of JJ Act and Sec.88 of IPC) contradict with each
other. The maxim “Generalia specialibus non derogant” means that general laws do not
prevail over special laws or, the special law always prevail over general law.
5.2.3 It is humbly submitted to this Hon'ble Supreme Court that; Sarah studied in a
residential school. So, she stayed in the hostel. Her parents used to visit her only on the
weekends. In India we consider the school as a second home25 and the teacher as the second
parent. Sarah fainted once during study hours and on examination by the doctor she was found
anaemic, also she was prescribed with medicines including iron tablets by the doctor. To be
noted that, here, the doctor prescribed “iron tablets” to Sarah. In case of women, iron tablets
are prescribed only for patients whose haemoglobin level falls between 10-9 mg/dl. From this
we come to know that Sarah is suffering from iron deficiency anaemia. The doctor reported
her conditions to the principal and her parents.
5.2.4 In the instance, the principal had the knowledge about her condition. When Sarah
fainted again, she was admitted in the Hospital and directed for blood transfusion. Blood
transfusion is directed only when the haemoglobin level falls below 7 mg/dl. The patients who
have less haemoglobin level will appear tired and weak. Their face looks yellowish. It is easily
identifiable by anyone. Despite knowing her condition, the principal slapped on her face and
ordered her to stand outside the principal room for 2hrs straight. Here, Mr. Simon believed that
the school management will look after Sarah with due care. In the case of Modern School v.
Union of India26 The court held that, the role of teachers as caretakers for students and held
that teachers should use positive reinforcement and non-violent disciplinary measures to
maintain discipline in schools.
5.2.5 We cannot tell that the principal forgotten that Sarah was under medication.
Because immediately after Sarah fainted, the principal took her to the hospital located outside
the school rather to the school dispensary. From this conduct we understand that the principal
knew the condition was serious and had knowledge that Sarah is anaemic. The management is
responsible to look after their students, here Sarah did not take medicines for 3 months which
shows the negligence of the management towards their students. If the management would
have noticed this sooner Sarah might have survived.

5.2.6 It is hence humbly submitted to this Hon'ble Supreme Court that; it is important
for teachers to adopt positive and non-violent methods of discipline, such as constructive
feedback, dialogue, and counselling, to manage students' behaviour and promote a safe and

25
Vishaka and Others v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011.
26
Modern School v. Union of India (2004) 117 DLT 1
Page 23 of 26
MEMORIA L FOR THE R ESPONDENT S
conducive learning environment. Hence, the school teachers do not have the right to exercise
corporal punishment towards students in India. Corporal punishment is prohibited in Indian
schools by law. In the case of Modern School v. Union of India27 and Vishnu Kumar Tiwari
v. State of Uttar Pradesh 28 the High Court held that the use of corporal punishment by a
teacher against a student is illegal and violates the child's right to education and dignity.
5.2.7 The Government should unhesitatingly introduce a legal provision not in rules
but in the main text of the law of A.P Education Act 1982 itself, prohibiting any form of
corporal punishment in the name of discipline or making them to do homework or some other
observation of code.
In 2019, the Karnataka High Court held in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of
Karnataka29 that the use of corporal punishment on a student by a teacher is not only illegal
but also immoral and unethical. The court ordered that the teacher be dismissed from service
and that appropriate action should be taken against him.

5.3 Responsibilities of residential school:

5.3.1 Residential schools in India are typically educational institutions where students
live on the premises and receive academic instruction, as well as vocational and life skills
training. The responsibilities of a residential school in India can vary depending on its specific
focus and the needs of its students, but typically include the following:
1. Providing a safe and supportive living environment for students who may come
from challenging backgrounds or difficult home situations.
2. Providing vocational and life skills training that can help students build valuable
skills and prepare for the workforce.
3. Offering counselling services and mental health support to students who may have
experienced trauma or emotional distress.
4. Ensuring that students have access to adequate healthcare and nutrition, and
promoting healthy habits and lifestyles. And etc…
Overall, the goal of a residential school in India is to provide a comprehensive education
that prepares students for success in their academic and professional lives, while also
promoting their overall health and well-being. In the case of M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil
Nadu30, the court held that the role of schools as a second home for students and also held that
schools should provide a safe and healthy life for students.

27
Modern School v. Union of India (2004) 117 DLT 1
28
Vishnu Kumar Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2016 SCC Online All 2423)
29
Vinod Kumar v. State of Karnataka (HC of KAR Criminal Petition No. 3243/2019)
30
M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1991 SC 417.
Page 24 of 26
MEMORIA L FOR THE R ESPONDENT S
 In 2000, the Supreme Court of India ruled in the case of In Re: Exploitation of
Children in Orphanages in the State of Tamil Nadu31, that the use of corporal punishment on
children in orphanages and other institutions is a violation of their rights and dignity. The court
ordered that appropriate measures should be taken to protect the children from such abuse.

It is hence humbly submitted to this Hon'ble Supreme Court that by virtue of the current
factual matrix that cannot fall within the exception of section 88 of IPC.

31
In Re: Exploitation of Children in Orphanages in the State of Tamil Nadu, (WP (C) No. 465 of 1986)
Page 25 of 26
MEMORIA L FOR THE R ESPONDENT S
 PRAYER

Wherefore, in light of the facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

Find that:

1. The petition filed by Mr. Simon under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure
may be allowed.

2. Directing the Police Officer to investigate the complaint against the principal in
detail and the writ petition may be allowed.

And pass any other order that it may deem fit in the ends of justice, equity, and good conscience.

All of which is humbly prayed,

TC. L,
Counsels for Respondents

Page 26 of 26
MEMORIA L FOR THE R ESPONDENT S