MOOT PROBLEM – 1

Ram Kumar was elected as a Ward Member of Ward no. 51of Jan nayak city. (A Ward Member
is a member of an elected body of a Municipality headed by a Chairperson.) Ram Kumar
belonged to a Scheduled Caste (SC) and the seat to which he was elected was reserved for SC.
The body was chaired by Shridhar who belonged to General Category. Once, Shridhar wanted
to meet Ram Kumar to discuss issues relating to cleanliness in Ward No. 51.
Therefore, on December 4, 2019 Shridhar sent him a message through WhatsApp, inviting him
for a personal meeting in his chamber at 11 AM. Ram Kumar was busy that day and, therefore,
he read the message at 11.30 AM. He immediately called Shridhar to inform him that he would
reach shortly. However, Shridhar started shouting at him for getting late. He made casteist
remarks and humiliated him. At that time, a clerk was also sitting in the chamber. Despite the
insult and humiliation, Ram Kumar went to the Municipality to attend the meeting. As soon as
he entered into the chamber, Shridhar got angry and abused him on the name of his caste. He
shouted at him saying: “Get lost from my office, otherwise I will make you clean the streets.”
At that time, there was no third person inside the chamber. Ram Kumar left the chamber as
Shridhar was not listening to him. He rushed to the Police Station to register an FIR against
Shridhar. At the initial stage of the case, the trial court found that a prima facie case had been
made out against Shridhar. Therefore, on February 4, 2020, the court framed charges under
Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989. The provisions read as below: Punishments for offences of atrocities:
Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,-
…..
(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste
or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;
(s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place
within public view;
Accused Shridhar challenged the order of framing of charges before the Allahabad High Court.
The High Court held that the casteist aspersions made telephonically or in the absence of a
third person did not constitute an offence within the meaning of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of
the Act, because the alleged remarks were not made “at a place within public view” as required
under these provisions. The court also said that the Act is a penal statute which must be strictly
construed. Thus, the High Court quashed the order of framing the charges on April 6, 2020.
The court also denied to provide the certificate to appeal before the Supreme Court under
Article 134A of the Constitution of India. Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, Ram
Kumar filed a Special Leave to Appeal before the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the
Constitution and the same was admitted for hearing by the court.
Memorial is required to be filed for only one party.
 MOOT PROBLEM – 2

Plaintiff SAMIR, an acclaimed scriptwriter, conceived a plot for a reality TV programme that
required competitors to survive in adverse geographical terrains for a period of three months.
The first month was to be spent in a mountain, the next month in a forest and lastly, in a desert.
The reality TV programme would centre around knowledge and skills required to survive in
adverse climatic conditions, quick decision making and action in case of any approaching
danger, food hunt, use of natural herbs for ailments etc. SAMIR, titled the work as ‘Back to
Nature’. He was sure that if the plot could be adapted into a reality television series, it would
be a major hit amongst audience. SAMIR, with no previous experience in the TV industry
sought assistance from his college friend Sanju, who had experience in the TV industry to
discuss the possibility of meeting producers for adaptation of the work. The meeting with Sanju
turned out to be a disappointment as Sanju suggested that although the plot was exciting but it
was unrealistic for the modern human to fend all alone in adverse geographical terrain. Sanju
suggested that the plot needs major changes and that he would help him make these changes.
After the meeting, SAMIR, emailed the outline of the plot to Sanju and waited for his response.
Sanju, called after a few days and said that the plot was more unrealistic than it sounded in
their meeting and that SAMIR should drop the idea and work on something else. SAMIR did
not pursue the matter further with Sanju after this response. He decided to further the story
himself and approach other producers. After about eight weeks, SAMIR, came across a trailer
on a popular TV channel ‘X TV’ about a new programme titled ‘Man and Nature’ produced by
a famous production company ‘ABC Ltd.’ that would be broadcast soon thereafter. The show
would be a reality TV series and the auditions would be held for couples who would be
challenged to spend three months in two adverse geographical terrains, forty-five days in a
jungle and forty-five days in a mountain with no human habitation close-by. The uncanny
similarity to his work forced SAMIR to enquire about the show and his investigation revealed
that ABC Ltd. bought the script from Sanju. Feeling aggrieved, he tried to contact Sanju but to
no avail. The district court did not grant any relief to SAMIR stating that there can be no
copyright in a plot as much as there can be no copyright in an idea. SAMIR then made an
appeal to the High Court citing that it was not merely an idea as an idea is something vague.
His plot was real, and he even emailed the outline of the plot to Sanju.
Memorial is required to be filed for only one party.
 MOOT PROBLEM- 3

Mr. Rahul Sen and Mrs. Susmita Sen were married in 2017 and were residents of Kolkata in
the State of West Bengal and they were working there in a US based Multi National company.

After 3 years of their happy marital life, Mrs. Susmita Sen became aware that she cannot give
birth to a healthy child. She came to know about this fact by reading medical reports kept
secretly by her husband. As per that report Mr. Rahul suffered from some serious congenital
medical problem that may pass on to their child.

Then they had quite a big fight in this regard that he never told her about his health problem
either prior to her marriage or thereafter but kept the information secret. She remained in her
in-laws house under their care, as her husband went for employment training program to Pune
for two months.
After some time Mr. Rahul learnt that his wife, desirous of having a healthy child, developed
an extra marital relationship with her office colleague, Mr. Vaidya. However, he did not object
to the same.
Mr. Vaidya however, confessed to his wife that he had an illicit relationship with Mrs. Susmita.
Mrs. Madhu, wife of Mr. Vaidya, furious about the matter, filed a complaint against her husband
as ‘main accused,’ Mrs. Susmita Sen as ‘second accused’ and Mr. Rahul Sen as ‘an abettor’ as
he, through his silence and acquiescence facilitated, rather, to put it bluntly, encouraged Mrs.
Susmita Sen and Mr. Vaidya to indulge in ‘adultery’ thereby ruining her marital life. She
pleaded that she too shall be recognized as ‘aggrieved person’ as her matrimonial life was
disturbed with these developments.
Meanwhile, an NGO filed a Public Interest Limitation in the Supreme Court with a plea that
Section 497 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 shall be struck down as it violates Articles 14, 15 and
21 of Indian Constitution on the ground that the relevant section of Indian Penal Code, 1860
gives ‘immunity only to adulteress but not to men’ when both are equally guilty. As a matter of
principle of ‘public policy’, gender neutrality shall be observed in criminal law.
Mrs. Madhu also impleaded herself challenging the constitutional validity of sec. 497 in the
Supreme Court as it violates different Articles of Indian Constitution. She also submits that such
‘total immunity cannot be given to Mrs. Susmita, the adulteress.
She submits that S. 198 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is also unconstitutional for it
‘discriminates on the basis of sex’ which is prohibited under Article 15 (1) of Indian
Constitution.

Mrs. Madhu also filed a petition in the Family Court for ‘divorce’ from her husband under The
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Mr. Rahul also applied for divorce from his wife under The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Mrs.
Susmita Sen objected that ‘it is strange that he, instead of she, filed for divorce when ‘in reality
non-disclosure of his serious health problem has brought forth this state of affairs’.

The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against all the accused persons ‘declaring
that Sec. 497 does not violate any of the provisions of the Indian Constitution.
 MOOT PROBLEM - 4

Republic of Indus is a country which has various cultural and historical glories to its name and
was often nicknamed as the “Land of Culture”. People from various backgrounds lived in
harmony and abided by the laws of the land. In Republic of Indus, the majority of the population
worshipped deities in the personification of women as a symbol of Strength and Fearlessness.
Shankra is a State of Republic of Indus with the highest literacy rate among all other States of
Republic of Indus and the people believed in the Equality between Men and Women in all
spheres of life.
Jagruti was a young Advocate who had just passed her college and started practicing. She was
very ambitious about her work and always worked for the poor and needy people free of cost.
She was always the last one to leave her workplace and often took her personal vehicle to travel
home from workplace. One such night, on 17-01-2020 around 9:30 P.M. she was returning from
workplace on her scooty, where she noticed four men desperately asking for help beside the
highway. Out of generosity, she stopped her scooty and two men told her that they are tourists
and one of their friends is laying injured at a distance. While she got down from her scooty, two
of them accompanied her to a distant secluded place.
On her way, she realized that her phone was inside the scooty, so she returned for taking the
same and on return, she found that her two-wheeler tyre was punctured. Jagruti called her
younger sister Nancy at 9.35 p.m. to inform that her scooter had broken down and she was alone
on the road. All of a sudden, the two men, who had asked for help accompanied by two other
men came towards her and started touching her in a wrong way. She got scared and slapped one
of them, to which the men became angry and then dragged the girl to a distant place and raped
her one by one. In the fear of not getting caught, the four men put petroleum in her body and
burnt her alive till she was dead and ran away towards the nearby village.
On 18-01-2020 the partially burnt body was found at an underpass on the Shankra-Bendakal
national highway by a farmer around 6 a.m. He informed the village sarpanch, who alerted the
local police. After confirming that the victim was a female, the local police verified the recent
women missing cases and then, with the help of the handbag and the scarf, the family members
were able to recognise her.
The Police started various investigation procedures and discovered a CCTV footage which was
placed near the highway for traffic control. By looking at the CCTV footage, the Police saw
some faces where the recording timing showed around 10:00 P.M. based on which, they started
searching for the four men who had run towards the village and started the enquiry. On 23-01-
2020, based on its investigation, the Police arrested, Javed, Rajesh, Naveen and Keshav. In the
meantime, as soon as the news became viral, people all over the country started protesting and
the news became trending all over Social Media and people demanded Justice for Jagruti.
People from various political background as well as Film Rohit Roytry and Media houses
demanded speedy Justice and #KillTheRapists became viral all over the Country and the
Government took initiative for a speedy disposal of the case.
On 24-01-2020, the Police presented the four accused in front of the local Magistrate and
requested for a 7 days remand for further investigation. Amidst the remand period, the entire
Country protested with candle light marches and various High-Profile Personalities also got
involved in the protests. On 03-02-2020, the Media flashed the news that the four accused had
been shot dead by the Police while they were being taken to the Court. The Investigation In-
Charge in the Interview stated that Naveen and Keshav snatched the revolvers from the
Constables while they were being taken to the Court, jumped out of the Police Van and fired
two rounds in the air. Javed and Rajesh also followed them and tried to escape. The Police
claimed that they found no other ways and had to shoot down the four accused otherwise the
accused would have fled.
The killing of the accused in the alleged encounter was hailed by a section of people,
the families of the deceased and human rights groups alleged that the police took law
into its hands, terming this as extra-judicial killing. In the police press conference that
followed, questions as to how two of the four accused managed to get hold of the pistols
in the presence of 10 armed police officers went unasked.
The families of the Four Accused also alleged that the police officers have have framed the
murder scene as they had threatened them when they went to the police station. The families
informed the reporters that the police officers angrily made the statement to the families that
the accused stand no chance of being saved from death as the entire Nation was against their
act.
As soon as the News became viral, the entire Country rejoiced and supported the action of the
Police and the same was called an “Act of Bravery” by various Political Leaders. But, An NGO
named as “Saman Adhikar” filed a Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Shankra. The
Hon’ble High Court of Shankra after hearing all the arguments of the case held “The Police had
no other option but to shoot the four accused failing to which they would have fled and which
would have triggered mass and widespread agitation throughout the Nation and the Role of the
Police would have been in question. Therefore, the Court finds the Act of the Police as an Act
of Bravery and sudden reflex to counter the situation which arose in front of them.”
Families of the four accused who were gunned down by the police in an alleged
encounter, have approached the Supreme Court, seeking registration of murder case
against the police officers involved. Alleging that the youth were killed in a stage-
managed gunfight, the families filed a writ petition under the provisions of Article 32
of the Constitution that enables individuals to seek redressal for the violation of their
fundamental rights.
The NGO, after the Judgment by the Hon’ble High Court, approached the Hon’ble Supreme
Court on the contention of violation of Human Rights as well as the violation of Fundamental
Rights guaranteed under the Constitution of Republic of Indus. All the petitions have been
clubbed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Republic of Indus and stands pending before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of Republic of Indus.
Note:
The laws of the State of Republic of Indus are in pari materia with the laws of India.
 MOOT PROBLEM- 5

Vikram and Sanjay were long standing acquaintances who regularly had business dealings with
one another. On 1st November, 2012, Vikram, from his home address in Kolkata, wrote to
Sanjay at his address in Rewari, offering to sell him his customised Volkswagen Polo motor
car, (which he has long admired), for Rs 5,00,000 the offer to remain open until 5th November,
2012. On receiving the offer on 2nd November, Sanjay left Rewari on a business trip to
Lucknow. On the 2nd of November, Vikram sold the car to Kamal and posted to Sanjay a
revocation of his offer. This was delivered to Sanjay’s Rewari address on 3rd November. On
4th November, Sanjay posted an acceptance of the offer from Lucknow, addressed to Vikram
at his business address, (which was the address from which Vikram usually conducted dealings
with Sanjay) in Sholapur, Kolkata. It was delivered there on 5th November but as Vikram was
absent from his office on that day, it wasn’t read by him until 6th November. On 7th November,
Sanjay returned home and read the letter of revocation.

Sanjay filed a case in the civil court claiming that a contract had been formed between himself
and Vikram, in that he had accepted the offer either on 4th November through the application
of the postal, or on the 5th November when the letter was delivered to Vikram’s place of
business. Both events took place before the offer lapsed and before Vikram’s letter of
revocation was communicated to him. Hence, Vikram selling the car to Kamal was in breach
of the contract.