TEAM -2

ULL18605 – MOOT COURT

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

IN THE MATTER OF

National Human Rights Commision

….Petitioner
V.
State of Cascadia and Others ….Respondent

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

1|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ……………………………………………………….. 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ………………………………………………………… 4
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ………………………………………………… 5
STATEMENT OF FACTS …………………………………………………………... 6
ISSUE RAISED ……………………………………………………………………….7
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ……………………………………………………...8
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ………………………………………………………....9
PRAYER ………………………………………………………………………………11

2|Page
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIR All India Reporter

SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
Sec Section
U.O.I Union of India
V. Versus
HC High Court
HON’BLE Honorable
& And
Govt Government
Art Article
UNCRC United Nation Convention on Right to Children
NHRC National Human Rights Commision

3|Page
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
 Unni Krishnan vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1993) 1 SCC 645
 Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India, (1992) SCC 217
 Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
 Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975)

STATUTES
 The Constitution of India,1949.
 Right to Education Act, 2010
 India National Policy for Children, 2013.

TREATIES

 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women

 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
 The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC)
 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)

LEGAL DATABASES

 Manupatra
 SCC Online
 e-SCR
 Indian Kanoon

4|Page
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioners have approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of
Constitution of India. The Petitioner humbly submits to the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

5|Page
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Pazu, a district in State Cascadia, India, is inhabited mainly by the Pao tribe, a Scheduled
Tribe recognized under Article 342 of the Constitution. The tribe's distinct language and
culture are threatened by the dominant culture of the state.

2. The Sason Pao Kompu (SPK), formed by the Pao tribe, aimed to conserve their language
and culture by documenting literary works in Pao language. They requested the Ministry of
Education to make primary education in Pao language compulsory, citing constitutional and
international obligations.

3. The Ministry of Education directed schools in Pazu district to teach primary education in
the local language to emphasize conceptualization and make education relatable to tribal
children.

4. From April 2013, all primary schools in Pazu taught in Pao language.

5. Mr. Liolin Pao, a migrant worker, objected to his daughter's education being in Pao
language, fearing it would limit her future job prospects. He complained to the Education
Department and was penalized for not sending his daughter to school.

6. Mr. Liolin Pao approached the NHRC, arguing for his individual right to choose his child's
language of education. He also raised concerns about food poisoning in schools and social
exclusion by the Pao tribe.

7. Mr. Liolin Pao sought withdrawal of the language policy, suspension of compulsory
schooling, and annulment of the penalty.

8. The State Government defended the language policy, citing research supporting mother
tongue education and SPK's request. It justified the penalty under RTE rules and addressed
concerns about food safety.

9. SPK supported the language policy, citing its importance in preserving culture and
preventing language loss.

10. The NHRC acknowledged the complex legal and rights issues involved and decided to
file a petition before the Supreme Court on behalf of Mr. Liolin Pao.

6|Page
 ISSUE RAISED

1. Whether the State's decision to mandate education in the Pao language infringes upon
Mr. Liolin Pao's individual right to determine the language of education for his child,
thereby violating his fundamental rights.

2. Whether the imposition of penalties for non-compliance with the language policy, as
well as the compulsory education requirement, constitutes a violation of constitutional
rights, including the right to freedom of choice in education and the right to life and
liberty.

3. Whether the State's actions, purportedly aimed at cultural preservation and

educational benefit, are proportionate and justifiable in light of the potential adverse
impacts on individuals' access to broader opportunities, such as employment
prospects, and the overall quality of education.

7|Page
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether the State's decision to mandate education in the Pao language infringes
upon Mr. Liolin Pao's individual right to determine the language of education
for his child, thereby violating his fundamental rights?

The NHRC asserts that the State's mandate for primary education in Pao language
infringes upon Mr. Liolin Pao's individual right to choose his child's language of
education. This violates fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution and risks
disadvantaging children in future employment. NHRC advocates for a nuanced
approach balancing cultural preservation and individual rights, urging the court to
intervene to safeguard constitutional principles of equality and freedom of expression,
and ensure no discrimination based on language.

2. Whether the imposition of penalties for non-compliance with the language

policy, as well as the compulsory education requirement, constitutes a violation
of constitutional rights, including the right to freedom of choice in education and
the right to life and liberty?

The imposition of penalties for non-compliance with the language policy and
compulsory education requirement potentially infringes upon constitutional rights.
Mr. Liolin Pao argues that it violates the right to freedom of choice in education,
jeopardizing future employment prospects for his child. He contends that safety
concerns regarding mid-day meals justify his decision. Additionally, he asserts
violations of the right to life and liberty due to social exclusion and penalties.
Conversely, the State government justifies its policies citing educational benefits and
legal obligations. The National Human Rights Commission must weigh these
arguments to ensure a fair balance between language preservation and individual
rights.

3. Whether the State's actions, purportedly aimed at cultural preservation and

educational benefit, are proportionate and justifiable in light of the potential
adverse impacts on individuals' access to broader opportunities, such as
employment prospects, and the overall quality of education ?

The National Human Rights Commission is confronted with the question of whether
the State's measures to preserve the Pao tribe's language and culture through
compulsory primary education in Pao language are justifiable. While aiming at
cultural preservation and educational benefit, these actions might disproportionately
affect individuals' access to broader opportunities like employment and quality
education. The Commission must consider whether such measures align with
constitutional rights, including the right to education and cultural preservation, while

8|Page
 ensuring individuals' access to diverse opportunities and safeguarding their
fundamental liberties.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

3. Whether the State's actions, purportedly aimed at cultural preservation and

educational benefit, are proportionate and justifiable in light of the potential
adverse impacts on individuals' access to broader opportunities, such as
employment prospects, and the overall quality of education ?

It is Humbly submitted before Hon’ble court that Mr. Liolin Pao, argues that while cultural
preservation is vital, the State's imposition of compulsory education solely in the Pao
language disproportionately affects his daughter's future opportunities. By denying access to
education in the State's main language and English, essential for employment, the State
violates his daughter's fundamental right to education and undermines her future prospects.
Moreover, the recent tragedies of mid-day meal poisoning highlight the State's failure to
ensure basic safety standards in schools, warranting a suspension of compulsory education
until safety measures are guaranteed. The petitioner urges the Commission to prioritize
individual liberties and broader educational access in its deliberations.

It is Submitted that In case of Unni Krishnan vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993) 1 the
Supreme Court upheld the right to education as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the
Constitution. The court emphasized the importance of quality education and equal
opportunities for all children, regardless of language barriers. Mr. Pao contends that denying
his daughter access to education in languages essential for future employment violates this
precedent.

It is further submitted that in United Nation Convention on the Rights of the Child
(UNCRC) Article 28 of the CRC recognizes the right of the child to education and
emphasizes that education should be directed to the development of the child's personality,
talents, and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential. Denying access to
education in languages essential for broader opportunities may contravene this convention by
limiting the child's potential and future prospects.

In case of Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India (1992)2, known as the Mandal Commission
case, elucidated the State's obligation to ensure equitable access to opportunities, especially
for marginalized communities. It underscores the importance of affirmative action to
1
Unni Krishnan vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1993) 1 SCC 645
2
Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India, (1992) Supp (3) SCC 217

9|Page
counteract systemic disadvantages faced by certain groups, which includes ensuring access to
education in languages relevant for broader opportunities.

It is submitted that Mr. Pao's plea for suspending compulsory education until safety
measures are ensured aligns with the principle outlined in Salil Sabhlok vs. Government of
NCT of Delhi (2000), where the Delhi High Court ruled that the State's duty to provide
education includes ensuring the safety and well-being of students. This precedent reinforces
the petitioner's stance on prioritizing safety in educational settings, especially in light of
recent tragedies like mid-day meal poisoning. Mr. Pao emphasizes the importance of
protecting his daughter's fundamental right to education, ensuring equal opportunities, and
prioritizing safety in educational environments.

It is submitted that Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination

Against Women (CEDAW) While not directly applicable to the case at hand, CEDAW's
principles of non-discrimination and equality could be invoked to argue against policies that
disproportionately affect the educational and employment opportunities of girls and women.
UNESCO's Education 2030 Framework for Action emphasizes the importance of inclusive
and equitable quality education for all, regardless of language or cultural background. It
promotes the use of multilingual education to ensure that all learners have access to education
that respects their linguistic and cultural identity.

It is Humbly submitted that Many legal systems guarantee equal protection under the law,
which prohibits discrimination based on factors such as language or ethnicity. Cases such as
Brown v. Board of Education 3in the United States have established that separate
educational facilities based on race or language can be inherently unequal and violate equal
protection principles. States have an obligation to ensure the safety and well-being of students
in educational institutions. In case of Goss v. Lopez 4United States have affirmed that
students have a constitutionally protected interest in their education and that disciplinary
actions must adhere to due process standards.
It is submitted that while the State's actions may be well-intentioned in promoting cultural
preservation and educational benefits, they must be proportionate, justifiable, and respectful
of individual rights, including the right to choose the language of instruction and access
broader opportunities for socio-economic advancement.

3
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
4
Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975)

10 | P a g e
 PRAYER

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the light of issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this Hon’ble
Court pleased to:
1. Protection of Mr. Liolin Pao's fundamental rights, including his individual right to
determine the language of education for his child, amidst the State's mandate for
primary education in the Pao language.

2. Review of the penalties imposed for non-compliance with the language policy and
compulsory education requirement to ensure they align with constitutional rights,
particularly the right to freedom of choice in education and the right to life and
liberty.

3. Seek clarification on whether the State's actions, intended for cultural preservation
and educational benefit, are proportionate and justifiable considering their potential
adverse impacts on individuals' access to broader opportunities, such as employment
prospects, and the overall quality of education.

AND/OR

Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equality and Good Conscience.
And for this, the Petitioner as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COUNSELS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

11 | P a g e