TEAM CODE: The Legal Trio

BEFORE THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL)

UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

NGO

(Petitioner) V.

JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD

(RESPONDENTS)

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF THE JUVENILE
JUSTICE BOARD

Page | 1

-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-

 MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TEAM CODE: ...........................................................................................................................

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..2

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

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………….…………………………………………………………………………..4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………………………………………………………………………………………5

STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….6

ISSUES RAISED…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….7

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ………………………………………………………………………………………………….8

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED …………………………………………………………………………………………………9-16

PRAYER………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………17

Page | 2

-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-

 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
1. &: And

2. AIR: All India Reporter

3. Bom : Bombay

4. Edn.: Edition

5. Hon’ble: Honourable

6. SC : Supreme Court

7. No: Number

8. Ors: Others

9. p: Page

10. pp: Pages

11. Pvt.: Private

12. SC: Supreme Court

13. SCC : Supreme Court Cases

14. SCR : Supreme Court Reports

15. Sec. : Section

16. Ss. : Sections

17. V. : Versus

18. vol.: Volume

Page | 3

-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

1. STATUTES REFERRED:
1. Constitution of India

2. Juvenile Justice Act

2. TABLE OF CASES: Cases

1. Sahil Bali v. UOI & Anr.

2. Subramanian Swamy & ors. V. Raju

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Page | 4

-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-

THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS, VISHAKHA WAGHMARE, HEREBY

HUMBLY SUBMIT TO THIS HON’BLE COURT OF UNION OF INDIA.

THE RESPONDENT WOULD LIKE TO HUMBLY SUBMIT THAT THIS PETITION

FOR FILING A PIL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

 ➢ India is a diverse country where rich and poor live side-by-side, the former in their
bungalows and the latter in slums. More than 6 million of India`s population
comprises slum dwellers who hardly earn their daily livelihood. There are more than
1,00,000 slums in the country that serve as dwelling houses for these poor people.

 ➢ Erik is a 15-year-old boy living with his mother in a slum in Mumbai, Maharashtra.
After his father’s death, Erik and his mother moved to the slum where living is
cheaper and more sustainable. His mother works as a maid doing household chores in
many houses in nearby bungalows and apartments and the money earned from the
work is spent on their food and shelter.
 Due to this, Erik had to leave his education a year ago and now he spends most of his
time with 3 of his friends, Nate, Cal and Ali, all of whom are 15 years old. The boys
used to hang around in nearby parks or assisted Cal`s father who was a fisherman and
spent time talking to each other. They spent the entire day thinking of how to arrange
the money required to purchase all the essentials for the party. He suggested
kidnapping their arch-rival Tyler, a 12-year-old boy who lives with his parents in a

Page | 5

-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-

 bungalow nearby and often bullies them while crossing the streets. The boys started
playing the arch-rivals of Tyler because it had to be done before Erik’s birthday so
that money could be arranged in time.

 The boys prepared accordingly and carried a huge jute bag to cover Tyler, ropes to tie
him and clothes to keep his mouth shut. Tyler boards his school bus at the corner of
the street and walks for 15 minutes from his home to the bus stop. The boys covered
their faces with handkerchiefs and attacked Tyler as soon as he reached the lane of his
house. Tyler`s bungalow is the only house in that lane, and the entire lane remains
isolated throughout the day at 8 AM, even an animal could not be seen. They waited
for darkness to fall and then carried him towards the sea where Cal’s father worked as
a fisherman.
Nate called Tyler’s parents and informed them about their son`s kidnapping and asked
for Rs. 10,000/- as ransom in cash within an hour. Erik spent his entire birthday
planning a crime and then in the police station.

 The boys were charged with Kidnapping for ransom under Section 364A read with
Section 34 of the IPC, 1860 and the police sent the case for trial.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the Hon’ ble Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the present
petition.

2. Whether Sections 15, 18 and all ancillary provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act,
2015 are violative of Article 14.

Page | 6

-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-

 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. Whether the Hon’ ble Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the
present petition.

PILs have been subject to a lot of criticism in recent times. One of the main criticisms is that
by entertaining PILs and exercising Judicial Activism, Courts are trying to usurp the
functions of the Legislature and Executive. Justice Bhagwati, in the judgement of Bandu
Mukti Morcha v. Union of India [AIR 1984 SC 802] had observed that the courts by
performing the aforementioned actions are merely assisting in the realisation of the
constitutional objectives of the Judiciary and not usurping the functions of the Legislature and
Executive.

Another criticism is the major dilution of the principle of locus standi. It has been argued that
such dilution has opened up the floodgates for frivolous cases that either involves the
litigant’s private interests, or for seeking publicity rather than seeking justice, or to stage their
political objectives. In such cases, the petitions have been dismissed and heavy costs have
been imposed by the courts. This acts as a deterrent to people from filing such PILs in future.

2. Whether Sections 15, 18 and all ancillary provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act,
2015 are violative of Article 14.

INTRODUCTION

According to JJ Act, 2015, a child above 16 years committing a heinous offence will be
examined by Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) comprising a magistrate and two social workers of
whom at least one shall be a woman. The social worker to be appointed in the board should

Page | 7

-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-

have at least seven-year experience in the field of health, education or welfare activities
pertaining to children or should be a practising professional with a degree in child
psychology, psychiatry, sociology or law. JJB will decide on the physical and mental capacity
of the child to commit the offence, his ability to understand the consequence of the offence

Page | 8

-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-

and the circumstances in which he committed the offence. In case the preliminary
enquiry accesses the child to be physically and mentally capable, he would have to
undergo the rigours of trial under the legal regime like an adult and will be
punished accordingly.

THUS, THE APPELLANTS DID NOT HAVE A GOOD CLAIM.

-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-

 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. Whether the Hon’ble Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the
present petition

Public Interest Litigation differs from ordinary litigation. It does not involve the
enforcement of the rights of one person against another. Rather, this type of
litigation is filed to provide justice to the deprived sections of the society. It is a
collaborative effort that encompasses the petitioner, the court and the government.
It is commendable to see that courts have taken all possible measures to allow
access to public spirited persons and even NGOs to file petitions on behalf of those
who cannot approach the court.

India has the distinction of having the largest child population of in the world, with
approximately 450 million population under the age of 18. This unique obligation
was acknowledged by India in the year 1986, through the landmark Juvenile Justice
(Care and
Protection) Act (hereinafter JJ Act) to govern the ‘Children in Conflict with Law’
(hereinafter CCL) and “Children in need of Care and Protection of Law”. To this
day, Act has been amended four times in 2000, 2002, 2006 and 2015 for the
purpose of bringing together all aspects of the interaction between juveniles and the
legal system. Sadly, the 2015 amendment was a kneejerk reaction to public outrage
created after the 2012 Delhi gangrape case and was made without sufficient
deliberations over the issues. Consequently, it has dismantled the settled principles
and conventions of the justice delivery system.
Criticisms of PIL
PILs have been subject to a lot of criticism in recent times. One of the main
criticisms is that by entertaining PILs and exercising Judicial Activism, Courts are
trying to usurp the functions of the Legislature and Executive. Justice Bhagwati, in
the judgement of Bandu Mukti Morcha v. Union of India [AIR 1984 SC 802] had
observed that the courts by performing the aforementioned actions are merely
assisting in the realisation of the constitutional objectives of the Judiciary and not
usurping the functions of the Legislature and Executive.
Another criticism is the major dilution of the principle of locus standi. It has been
argued that such dilution has opened up the floodgates for frivolous cases that either
involves the

Page | 8

10

-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-

 Page |

litigant’s private interests, or for seeking publicity rather than seeking justice, or to
stage their political objectives. In such cases, the petitions have been dismissed and
heavy costs have been imposed by the courts. This acts as a deterrent to people from
filing such PILs in future

 Former Attorney General Soli Sorabji opinions 3 basic rules for

regulating abuse of PIL

(a) Reject dubious PIL at the threshold and in appropriate case with exemplary
costs.

(b) In cases where important project or socio economic regulations are

challenged after gross delay, such petitions should be thrown out the very threshold
on the ground of latches. Just because a petition is termed as PIL does not mean that
ordinary principles applicable to litigation will not apply.

(c) PIL petitioners should be in strict terms such as providing indemnity or giving
an adequate undertaking to the court to make good the damage, if PIL is ultimately
dismissed.

2. Whether Sections 15, 18 and all ancillary provisions of the

Juvenile Justice
Act, 2015 are violative of Article 14.

-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-

JUVENILES: WHO ARE THEY?

A “Juvenile” or “Child” means a person who has not completed eighteen years of
age.

According to International Law, a ‘Child’ means every human being below the age
of 18 years. Today this is a universally accepted definition of a child which comes
from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).

Under the Indian Laws,

Page | 9

Page |

12

-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-

 Section 2 (k) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,2000 defines “juvenile”
or

-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-

“Child” as a person who has not completed eighteenth year of age.

Definitions of Juvenile/Child under various national legislations:

Child Labor (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986.

Section 2 (ii), “Child” means a person who has not completed the age of 14 years.

Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929.

Section 2 (a), “Child” means a person who, if a male, has not completed twenty one years of age, and
if a female, has not completed eighteen years of age.

INTRODUCTION of Juvenile Justice Act

India has the distinction of having the largest child population of in the world, with approximately 450
million population under the age of 18. This unique obligation was acknowledged by India in the year
1986, through the landmark Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection) Act (hereinafter JJ Act) to govern the ‘Children in Conflict with Law’ (hereinafter CCL)
and
“Children in need of Care and Protection of Law”. To this day, Act has been amended four times in
2000, 2002, 2006 and 2015 for the purpose of bringing together all aspects of the interaction between
juveniles and the legal system. Sadly, the 2015 amendment was a kneejerk reaction to public outrage
created after the 2012 Delhi gangrape case and was made without sufficient deliberations over the
issues.
Consequently, it has dismantled the settled principles and conventions of the justice delivery system.

WHAT SECTION 15, JJ ACT SAYS?

Section 15 of the JJ Act, 2000 adhered to the reformative theory of punishment which was clearly
reflected in the form of punishments provided under it (ranging from a mere admonition to maximum
3 years of institutionalization in a Special Home). However, the 2015 amendment has tampered the
reformative structure of section 15. After the amendment, two types of classifications have been made:

-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-

 Page | 14

-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-

offences – on the basis of punishment, the offences have been divided into three types: petty,
serious and heinous

juveniles – on the basis of age, juveniles have been divided into two categories – 16 years of age
has been decided as the dividing line.

According to JJ Act, 2015, a child above 16 years committing a heinous offence will be
examined by Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) comprising a magistrate and two social workers of
whom at least one shall be a woman. The social worker to be appointed in the board should
have at least seven-year experience in the field of health, education or welfare activities
pertaining to children or should be a practising professional with a degree in child
psychology, psychiatry, sociology or law. JJB will decide on the physical and mental
capacity of the child to commit the offence, his ability to understand the consequence of the
offence and the circumstances in which he committed the offence. In case the preliminary
enquiry accesses the child to be physically and mentally capable, he would have to undergo
the rigours of trial under the legal regime like an adult and will be punished accordingly.

BACKGROUND OF THE AMENDMENT:

On the infamous date of 16th of December 2012, a young lady was raped and tormented in
the most gruesome manner possible. As if rising from a deep slumber, widespread protests
were held throughout the country to bring perpetrators to book and obtain justice for
“Nirbhaya”.

With the unfolding of events, Indian media came into action. One of the accused is a 17-
yearold juvenile was widely telecasted. There were uncorroborated rumours that the dastardly
act of inserting objects into the private parts of ‘Nirbhaya’ was committed by him. The entire
picture was painted as if the Indian legal system has no hardship for the juvenile offenders
notwithstanding the grave consequences of their unwarranted acts.

This fomented into a large section of the society demanding to lower the age for juvenility.
Under the mounting public pressure, the government appointed J.S. Verma committee to
recommend changes in the criminal law for the expeditious and effective trial of the accused
involved in sexual crimes against women. Although, the learned committee did consider the
issue of lowering the age for juveniles it recommended that the age of juveniles be better not
lowered from 18. Observation of the committee was in furtherance of the reformative theory

-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-

Page | 15
of punishment and relied upon reputed scientific reports. Dismissing the petitions filed for
lowering the age for juveniles the Apex court corroborated findings of the committee in the
cases of Salil Bali v. Union of India and Dr Subramanian Swamy v. Raju, through Member,
Juvenile Justice Board.

The reasoning presented by Verma Committee or Supreme Court could satiate public fury
leading to an insurmountable pressure over the government of the day and this yielded in the
amendment of section 15 JJ Act

It is therefore prayed to this honourable court that no claim of the violation of Art. 14 by
section 15 in this case

Page | 16

-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-

 PRAYER
Therefore, 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. There is no expediency to invoke the jurisdiction of this court in the instant case;

2. Neither of the Secc. is violative of Article 14 of Indian Constitution.

3. The Appellants do not have a good claim at the petition to be filed.

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

Place: Delhi

Date: 11/08/2022
(Counsel on behalf of the Respondents)

-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS- Page | 17

-MEMORIAL FOR THE RESPONDENTS-