TEAM -5

ULL18605 – MOOT COURT

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH KEDAR

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISPUTE RELATING TO CONSTITUTIONALITY OF JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT
( CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN), 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN THE MATTER OF

People for the Education and protection of Children (PEPC)

….Petitioner
V.
State of Kedar
….Respondent

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH KEDAR

UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF KEDAR

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

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
GLR Gujarat law reporter
& And
JJ Juvanile Justice
Govt Government

3|Page
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES
 State (NCT of Delhi) v. Mukesh and Others (2013) 14 SCC 32
 Gopinath Ghosh v. State of West Bengal 1984 AIR 237
 M. Sudhakar v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2014) 4 SCC 776
 Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2017) 10 SCC 209
 Neha v. State of Gujarat (2017) 1 GLR 617
 Ashwini Kumar v. State of Rajasthan (2015) 6 SCC 289

STATUTES
 The Juvenile Justice (care and Protection of Children) Act,2015.
 The Juvenile Justice (care and Protection of Children) Rules,2007.
 The Constitution of Kedar,1949.
 Kedar’s National Policy for Children, 2013.

TREATIES

 The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile
Justice (Beijing Rules).
 United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty
(Havana Rules).
 The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC)

LEGAL DATABASES

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

4|Page
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioners have approached the Hon’ble High Court of South Kedar under Article 226
and 227 of Constitution of Kedar. The Petitioner humbly submits to the jurisdiction of this
Hon’ble Court.

5|Page
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1) Kedar, a country with laws similar to India, enacted legislation in 2012 aimed at
addressing increasing youth crime rates, particularly focusing on the protection of
vulnerable youth.

2) Four individuals, namely Amar, Ayan, Anthony, and Surjeet, formed a gang known as
the "Baccha Gang" in the Emiya district of South Kedar. They engaged in petty
crimes to support their drug habit, starting from their early teens.Sam, a 12-year-old
boy from a middle-class family experiencing parental divorce, became friends with
the "Baccha Gang" in early 2012. Initially seeking a sense of belonging, Sam
distanced himself from the gang upon realizing their involvement in criminal
activities.

3) On January 5, 2013, the gang met Sam at a local tea stall and went to the woods on
the outskirts of Emiya. The following morning, Sam was reported missing, and his
body was found two days later, displaying severe head trauma.Amar, Ayan, Anthony,
and Surjeet were arrested for Sam's murder. At the time of the crime, Amar was 18,
Ayan and Anthony were 17, and Surjeet was 16.

4) Amar was tried as an adult and sentenced to life imprisonment, while Ayan, Anthony,
and Surjeet were tried before the Juvenile Justice Board to determine if they should be
tried as adults. The Board deemed them capable of standing trial as adults, and they
were sentenced to 8 years of rigorous imprisonment each..A public interest litigation
was filed by People for the Education and Protection of Children (PEPC) alleging the
unconstitutionality of certain provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act and biased
decision-making by the Board, prompting the High Court of South Kedar to hear the
matter.

THE LAWS OF KEDAR ARE PARI MATERIA WITH THOSE OF INDIA

6|Page
 ISSUE RAISED

1. Whether the petition in the present case is maintainable before the Hon’ble
High Court is maintainable?

2. Whether it was justifiable for the Juvenile Justice Board to trial the defendants
as adults given their age at the time of the crime and their ability to understand the
Juvenile Justice Board's actions ?

3. Whether the provisions of Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act 2012 violate
Article 14 and Article 15 of the Constitution, and whether the classification of
juveniles under the Act is inconsistent with Article 20(1) of the Constitution and
international provisions.

7|Page
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether the petition in the present case is maintainable before the Hon’ble High
Court is maintainable?

PEPC contends that the petition challenging provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act
and the Board's decision is maintainable before the High Court. They argue that the Act's
provisions, when applied to serious crimes committed by juveniles, raise constitutional
concerns regarding fairness and protection of victims' rights. The Board's decision to try
Ayan, Anthony, and Surjeet as adults, despite their age, merits judicial review due to
potential bias and inconsistent application of the law. PEPC asserts that the High Court has
jurisdiction to address these issues in the interest of ensuring justice and safeguarding
children's welfare.

2. Whether it was justifiable for the Juvenile Justice Board to trial the defendants as
adults given their age at the time of the crime and their ability to understand the
Juvenile Justice Board's actions?
People for the Education and Protection of Children (PEPC) argue that trying Ayan,
Anthony, and Surjeet as adults was unjustifiable. PEPC contend that the defendants' ages at
the time of the crime (between 16 and 17) warrant special consideration under the Juvenile
Justice Act. PEPC asserts that the Board's decision undermines the rehabilitative purpose of
juvenile justice, neglecting the defendants' developmental immaturity and susceptibility to
external influences. PEPC advocate for a more nuanced approach, emphasizing rehabilitation
over punitive measures, to address the root causes of youth crime and protect vulnerable
adolescents from harsh adult sentencing.

3. Whether the provisions of Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act 2012 violate Article 14
and Article 15 of the Constitution, and whether the classification of juveniles under the
Act is inconsistent with Article 20(1) of the Constitution and international provisions?
PEPC argues that Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act 2012 violates Article 14 and
Article 15 of the Constitution by discriminating against juveniles based solely on age. The
classification of juveniles under the Act, allowing them to be tried as adults, is inconsistent
with Article 20(1) and international standards of juvenile justice, undermining rehabilitation
efforts. The Board's biased decision-making exacerbates the injustice. These violations
compromise the constitutional rights and well-being of vulnerable youth, necessitating a
review of the Act's provisions to ensure fair treatment and protection.

8|Page
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

2. Whether it was justifiable for the Juvenile Justice Board to trial the defendants
as adults given their age at the time of the crime and their ability to understand the
Juvenile Justice Board's actions ?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble High court of Kedar that PEPC's argument
revolves around the delicate balance between justice and rehabilitation, especially when dealing
with youthful offenders. Firstly, it's imperative to acknowledge the tragic circumstances under
which the defendants, particularly Amar, Ayan, Anthony, and Surjeet, grew up. Their environments
were rife with adversity, including absent or abusive parental figures, poverty, and lack of
educational opportunities.

Further It is humbly submitted that, their upbringing, while explaining their involvement
in criminal activities, should also serve as a mitigating factor in their treatment by the justice
system. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2012, which mirrors its Indian
counterpart, recognizes the importance of rehabilitation and reintegration into society for juvenile
offenders. This approach prioritizes the best interests of the child while holding them accountable
for their actions.

Further S.15(1) 1of JJ Act, 2015 says about to conduct a Preliminary test where the
following matters should be considered before considering them as adults Mental and physical
capacity to commit the offense, Ability to understand the consequences of the offense,
Circumstances in which the offense was allegedly committed. As a result, these youngsters come
from adversity-filled backgrounds, including missing or abusive parental figures, poverty, and a
lack of educational chances. The High Court should reexamine this ruling in light of the
defendants.

It is humbly submitted that in the case of the defendants, their ages at the time of the
crime are crucial. Amar, the oldest, was 18 years and 12 days old, while the others were still
1
S.15 (1) In case of a heinous offence alleged to have been committed by a child, who has completed or is
above the age of sixteen years, the Board shall conduct a preliminary assessment with regard to his mental
and physical capacity to commit such offence, ability to understand the consequences of the offence and the
circumstances in which he allegedly committed the offence, and may pass an order in accordance with the
provisions of sub-section (3) of section 18:
Provided that for such an assessment, the Board may take the assistance of experienced psychologists or
psycho-social workers or other experts.

9|Page
minors, aged between 16 and 17. Despite their involvement in criminal behavior, their youthfulness
and the extenuating circumstances of their upbringing must be taken into account.

The decision of the Juvenile Justice Board to try them as adults raises questions about
the application of the law and the principles it embodies. The Board's decision should have been
guided not only by the severity of the crime but also by the defendants' capacity for rehabilitation
and their developmental stage at the time of the offense.

It is Submitted that In support of this argument, PEPC cite relevant cases from India
where similar issues were addressed. For instance, the case of "Jyoti Singh Pandey"2 highlighted
the need for a nuanced approach to juvenile justice, considering factors such as socio-economic
background, mental health, and vulnerability to influence.

Furthermore, the alignment of Kedar's legal framework with that of India provides an
opportunity to draw on precedents from Indian courts. Cases such as "Gopinath Ghosh v.
State of West Bengal3" underscore the importance of individualized assessments of juvenile
offenders and the need to prioritize rehabilitation over punitive measures.

It is Humbly submitted that In the case of M. Sudhakar v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2014)
4
the Supreme Court reiterated the principles of proportionality and fairness in sentencing
juvenile offenders. The court emphasized the need for specialized treatment and rehabilitation
programs tailored to the individual needs of juvenile offenders to ensure their successful
reintegration into society. This underscores contention for a rehabilitative rather than punitive
approach towards juvenile offenders.

In the Case of Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2017) 5Allahabad High Court emphasized
the need for individualized assessments of juvenile offenders' circumstances and culpability.
The court held that blanket approaches to treating juvenile offenders as adults without
considering their specific backgrounds and vulnerabilities are unjust and contrary to the
principles of juvenile justice. Similarly, in the present case, the defendants' traumatic
upbringing and lack of proper guidance should have been taken into account before
subjecting them to adult trials and punishments.

In Kedar’s National Policy for Children, 2013, reaffirms the government's commitment to
safeguarding the rights and well-being of children, including those entangled in the criminal
justice system. The policy emphasizes the promotion of child-friendly justice mechanisms,
2
State (NCT of Delhi) v. Mukesh and Others (2013) 14 SCC 32
3
Gopinath Ghosh v. State of West Bengal 1984 AIR 237
4
M. Sudhakar v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2014) 4 SCC 776
5
Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2017) 10 SCC 209

10 | P a g e
diversion programs, and community-based alternatives to detention. By aligning with this
policy framework, the court can uphold the rights of the defendants while ensuring their
rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

It is further Humbly submitted that The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the
Administration of Juvenile Justice (Beijing Rules) and the United Nations Rules for the
Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty (Havana Rules) advocate for non-
custodial measures, educational opportunities, and vocational training for juvenile offenders.
By adhering to these standards, the court can take into account before subjecting them to
adult trials and punishments.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) was ratified by
Kedar in 1992, this underscore the country's commitment to protecting the rights and welfare
of children. The UNCRC emphasizes the importance of rehabilitation and reintegration while
ensuring that children are treated with dignity and respect throughout legal proceedings.
In the case of Neha v. State of Gujarat (2017), 6the Gujarat High Court held that the primary
objective of juvenile justice should be the rehabilitation and reintegration of young offenders
into society.
It is Humbly submitted that In the case of Ashwini Kumar v. State of Rajasthan (2015)
7
Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of juveniles in conflict with the law. The
Supreme Court examined the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act and relevant precedents. It emphasized the need for special treatment of
juveniles in the criminal justice system and highlighted the principle of reformative justice.
The Court considered various factors, including the appellant's age, background, and the
circumstances of the offense. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled that the appellant should
be treated as a juvenile and be subjected to the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act. The
Court emphasized the importance of rehabilitation and reintegration of juveniles into society
and ordered appropriate measures for the appellant's rehabilitation.

It is Humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that while the crime committed by the
defendants is undeniably grave, their age at the time of the offense and the circumstances of
their upbringing necessitate a thoughtful and compassionate approach to justice. The Juvenile
Justice Board's decision to try them as adults may have been well-intentioned, but it
overlooks the fundamental principles of juvenile justice and the potential for rehabilitation.
PEPC urges the High Court to reconsider this decision in light of the defendants' youth and
the principles enshrined in the Juvenile Justice Act.

6
Neha v. State of Gujarat (2017) 1 GLR 617
7
Ashwini Kumar v. State of Rajasthan (2015) 6 SCC 289

11 | P a g e
 PRAYER

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the light of issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this Hon’ble
Court pleased to:
1. Consider the maintainability of the petition before the High Court, ensuring that
justice is accessible to all, especially the vulnerable youth involved in this case.

2. Honorable Court's discernment in evaluating the justifiability of the Juvenile Justice

Board's decision to try the defendants as adults, taking into account their age at the
time of the crime and their ability to comprehend the legal proceedings.

3. Delve deeply into the provisions of Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act 2012,
examining whether they violate the fundamental rights enshrined in Article 14 and
Article 15 of the Constitution. We implore the court to assess the consistency of the
Act's classification of juveniles with Article 20(1) of the Constitution and
international legal norms.

4. Uphold the principles of equality, fairness, and the best interests of the child, ensuring
that the rights of the juveniles involved in this case are safeguarded and protected.

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

12 | P a g e
13 | P a g e