Moot Petitioner 2019 S

XIV INTRA_ MOOT COMPETITION 2019
BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF KONOHA
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF KONOHA
TIPENDRA GADA AND

OTHERS……………………..……………….…PETITIONER
V.
UNION OF KONOHA
….……......................................................................RESPONDENT
BEFORE SUBMISSION TO HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS

COMPANION JUDGES OF
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF KONOHA

1
Page
MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONERS

TABLE OF
TABLE OFCONTENTS
CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS:
......................................................................................................................................................4
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
.....................................................................................................................................................5-6
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION:
………………………………………………………………………………………………...7
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
…………………………………………………………………………………………………8-9
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
......................................................................................................................................................10
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
..................................................................................................................................................11-12
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
..................................................................................................................................................13-34
ISSUE 1
..................................................................................................................................................13-19
WHETHER PROHIBITION OF PORNOGRAPHY ACT 2019 IS VIOLATIVE OF
ARTICLE 14, 19 AND 21 ?
ISSUE 2
................................................................................................................................................20-26
WHETHER THE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT AMOUNTED TO JUDICIAL
LEGISLATION ?
2
Page

ISSUE 3
................................................................................................................................................26-29
WHETHER JJ BOARD HAS ERRED IN SENDING TIPENDRA TO CHILDREN’S
OURT AND CAN BE HELD LIABLE UNDER 376 IPC ABD SECTION 3 OF POCSO
ACT ?
ISSUE 4
............................................................................................................................................29-34
WHETHER THE PROHOBITION OF PORNOGRAPHY ACT IS VIOLATIVE OF
ARTICLE 14, 19 AND 21 OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION?
PRAYER
……………………………………………………………………………………………35
3
Page

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATIONS EXPANSIONS
AIR All India Reporter

& And
Anr. Another
Art. Article
CrPC Code of Criminal Procedure
Ed. Edition
HC High Court
IPC Indian Penal Code
JJA Juvenile Justice Act
JJB Juvenile Justice board
NCRB National Crime Records Bureau
Ors. Others
POCSO Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences
Act, 2012
Sec. Section
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCJ Supreme Court Journal
SCR Supreme Court Reporter
UOI Union Of India
UP Uttar Pradesh
V. Verses
NGO Non Governmental Organization
4
Page

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATUTES:
The Constitution of India, 1950

Indian Penal Code, 1860
Protection of Children and Women from sexual offences Act,
Juvenile Justice Act, 2015
BOOKS:
Commentary on Constitution of India (ARVIND P DATAR)
WEBSITES:
www.scconline.in
www.indiankannon.com
www.legalservice.in
www.lawctopus.com
CASE LAWS:
Harbans Lal Sahnia V. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (2003) 2 SCC 107
KK Kouchunni V State of Madras (1959) SC 725
The Janta Dal V. H.S. Chowdary (1992) (4) SCC 305
Kamlesh Vaswani V. Union of India
AK gopalan V. Union of India 1950 SCR 88
Maneka Gandhi V. Union of India 1978 SCR (2) 621
Romesh Thappar V. Union of India 1950 SCR 594
Bennet and Coleman & Co. V. Union of India (1973) 2 SCR 757
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay)P. Ltd V. Union of India (‘86) A.SC. 515
5
Mumtaz Ahmed Nasir Khan V. State of Maharashtra (2018) Crl. 1153

Page

Swami V. Raju (2014) 8 SCC 390

Salil Bali v. Union of India (2013) 7 SCC 705
H.P. V. Desh raj (2017) SCC 1481
Sabrinath V. The Inspector of Police 2008 WP(Crl.) 196
6
Page

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
In the matter of,
TIPENDRA AND OTHERS V. UNION OF KONOHA
The respondent hereby submits this Memorandum before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India,
invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Konoha Constitution.
7
Page

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The Republic of Konoha is a developing country with 35% of iths population falling
within age group of 16-18. An act was passed in 2019 banning all forms of
pornographic and obscene material.(Prohobition of pornography act 2019)
2. Mrs Z. a biology teacher in School of Uchihas believed that youngsters should learn
to respect the bodily and individual autonomy of both genders and should endeavour
to mutually exhist with each other. She had apprehensions regarding the limited sex
education in the society.She brought plastic models of humans, diagrams and
videographic material containing active human reproduction and explained about
human reproduction and sex education.This was done to make students understand
human reproduction and provide safe sex education and answer all their
questions.She was charged under Sec.3 of POPA 2019.She filed a writ as this act is in
violation of A14, A19, A21 of Constitution of India.
3. Tipendra and Sonali worked together at their homes after school hours for the debate
competition on the topic sex education: A Taboo or necessity for konoha
teenagers.they won the competition and were so happy that tipendra confessed his
feelings to which sonali reciprocated and both of them shared some private moments
with each other. In the middle of the ceremony sonali fainted and collapsed on the
floor. After the media examination doctors declared her pregnant and a FIR was filed
against Tipendra under S.376 for rape of a Minor girl. (Age of sonali at that time was
17 years 2 months.)
4. As per Section 15 of JJ Act as Tipendra was able to understand the consequences of

the the act commited, he was sent to children’s court to be tried as an adult.He was
convicted under Section 376 IPC and Section 3 of POCSO Act for penetrative Sexual
Assault.A writ was filed by Tipendra challenging section 15 of JJ Act as violation of
8
Fundamental Rights and he can’t be tried under IPC and POCSO.

Page

5. A NGO, Association for protection of rights of adolescents also filed a writ

application challenging the constitutional validity of POPA 2019, increase in
punishment of rape and violation of fundamental right of teenagers to have
consensual sex.the Honble Supreme Court decided to combine all the matters
(including petition filed by mrs z) and all the petitions are listed before the apex court
for the final hearing.
9
Page

STATEMENT OF ISSUES
ISSUE 1
WHETHER THE PETITIONS FILED BEFORE HON’BLE COURT IS

MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?
ISSUE 2
A)
WHETHER THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS UNDER JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT
DEALING WITH TRYING A JUVENILE AS AN ADULT AND THE RELEVANT
PROVISIONS UNDER INDIAN PENAL CODE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN
FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT DEALING WITH THE AGE OF CONSENT AND
PUNISHMENT THERETO, ARE VIOLATIVE OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OR
NOT?
ISSUE 3
WHETHER JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD HAS ERRED IN SENDING TIPENDRA TO

CHILDREN’S COURT AND CAN BE HELD LIABLE UNDER SECTION 376 IPC AND
SECTION 4 OF POCSO OR NOT ?
ISSUE 4

10

Page

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE 1
The petitions filed before hon’ble court are maintainable.
ISSUE 2
WHETHER THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS UNDER JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT
DEALING WITH TRYING A JUVENILE AS AN ADULT AND THE RELEVANT
PROVISIONS UNDER INDIAN PENAL CODE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN
FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT DEALING WITH THE AGE OF CONSENT AND
PUNISHMENT THERETO, ARE VIOLATIVE OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OR
NOT?
The relevant provisions under JJ Act dealing with trying of a juvenile as an adult and relevant
provisions under IPC and POCSO dealing with age of consent and Punishment are violative of
fundamental rights granted under schedule of Indian Constitution.
ISSUE 3
WHETHER JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD HAS ERRED IN SENDING TIPENDRA TO

CHILDREN’S COURT AND CAN BE HELD LIABLE UNDER SECTION 376 IPC AND
SECTION 4 OF POCSO OR NOT ?
The JJ board has erred in sending Tipendra to children’s Court to be tried as an adult.
11
Page

ISSUE 4

Prohibition on pornography act passed in 2019 is violative of the fundamental rights granted in
the Indian Constitution.
12
Page

ISSUE 1

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble Supreme Court of Konoha that the petitions filed
before the hon’ble court is maintainable.
Writ petition filed by Tipendra is maintainable before this hon’ble court of justice.
Tipendra Gada had filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the
section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 as it is violative of
his fundamental rights. The Jurisdiction under Article 32 can be invoked only when a
fundamental right has been violated.1 In the instant case section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act,
2015 provides special provisions for trying a juvenile as an adult. This section violates the
fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Article 14 of the
Constitution states that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal
protection of the laws within the territory of India. According to J.J. Act, 2015 a juvenile who
belongs to the age group of 16-18 years can be tried as an adult for committing a heinous offence
while a juvenile below 16 years of age committing the same offence will be tried as a juvenile by
Juvenile Justice Board. According to act juvenile means a child below the age of eighteen years.
This creates a distinction between juvenile offenders committing same offence on the basis of
age. Also the decision for trying a juvenile offender as an adult depends entirely on the Juvenile
Justice Board. J.J.B has to assess the juvenile that whether he is able to understand the
consequences of his acts. This is a very subjective process which creates scope for an
enormous amount of arbitrariness. Hence provisions of section 15 of Juvenile Justice Act
2015 violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under article 14 of the Constitution. It is also
violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under article 21 of the constitution. Article 21 of
13
Page
1
Durga Das Basu's Commentary on the Constitution of India, 3705 (Justice Y.V Chandrachud, Justice S.S

the constitution states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
according to procedure established by law. The courts in its various judgements has interpreted
that procedure established by law should be just and fair. Different procedure of trial for
committing same offence by same class of persons may fail this standard.
Alternate remedy is no bar to invoke jurisdiction under article 32 of the constitution.
When there is a allegation of infringement of fundamental rights the alternate remedy available
to the petitioner does not bar the supreme court from exercising its jurisdiction under article 32
of the constitution. The rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of alterative remedy
is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion and the court must consider the pros and cons of
the case and then may interfere if it comes to the conclusion that the writ seeks enforcement of
any of the fundamental rights.2 The legal remedy cannot be per se good and sufficient ground for
throwing out a petition under Art 32 if the existence of a Fundamental and a breach, actual or
threatened, of such rights is alleged is Prime Facie establish on the petition.3
Writ petition filed by NGO, Association for protection of rights of adolescents is not
maintainable.
The NGO filed a writ petition under article 32 of the constitution of konoha challenging the
relevant provisions of Juvenile Justice act 2015, IPC, POCSO and constitutional validity of the
prohibition of pornography act 2019. The expression 'litigation' means a legal action including
all proceedings therein initiated in a Court of law for the enforcement of right or seeking a
remedy. Therefore, lexically the expression "PIL" means the legal action initiated in a Court of
law for the enforcement of public interest or general interest in which the public or a class of the
community have pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are
affected.4 In the instant case the Ngo has filed a writ petition for the rights of the adolescents
which cover about 35% of the population of the konoha. Thus this petition is being filed for a
public interest and there is a locus standi. The provisions of J.J. Act 2015 is violative of the
2
In Harbans Lal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC 107
14
3
15 K.K kouchunni vs State of Madras AIR 1959 SC 725
Page
4
The Janta Dal v. H.S.Chowdhary [1992 (4) SCC 305]

rights guaranteed under article 14 and 21 of the constitution. It is humbly submitted that the
petition filed by the NGO is maintainable.
Writ petition filed by Mrs.Z before this hon’ble court is not maintainable?
Article 32 of Indian Constitution provides right to constitutional remedies which means that a
person has right to move to Supreme Court ( and high courts also) for getting his fundamental
rights protected. While Supreme Court has power to issue writs under article 32 , High Courts
have been given same powers under Article 226.
Mrs. Z filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of
the Prohibition of Pornography Act 2019, as it is in violation of the Fundamental Rights of the
citizens and is arbitrary under article 14, 19 and 21.
Mrs Z in order to make her students understand human reproduction and provide safe sex
education and answer all their questions , she brought plastic models of humans , diagrams and
videographic material containing active human reproduction and explained all about human
reproduction and sex education. She was charged with section 3 of Prohibition of Pornography
Act 2019 for showing indecent and obscene material in the class.
Section 67 of the IT act 2000 states Punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material
in electronic form.–Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted in
the electronic form, any material which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its
effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all
relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it, shall be
punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to three years and with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees and in the event of
second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to five years and also with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees.
67A. Punishment for publishing or transmitting of material containing sexually explicit act, etc.,
the electronic form any material which contains sexually explicit act or conduct shall be
15
Page
extend to five years and with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees and in the event of

extend to seven years and also with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupee
Provided that provisions of section 67, section 67A and this section does not extend to any book,
pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting representation or figure in electronic form– (i) the
publication of which is proved to be justified as being for the public good on the ground that
such book, pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting representation or figure is the interest of
science, literature, art or learning or other objects of general concern; or (ii) which is kept or used
for bona fide heritage or religious purposes. Explanation–For the purposes of this section,
―children‖ means a person who has not completed the age of 18 years.
In 2013, Kamlesh Vaswani5 ,a lawyer, filed Public Interest Litigation before the Supreme Court
ultimatum for a separate law to piloting online pornography content and the PIL also sought a
ban on access to such websites. “Nothing can more efficiently destroy a person, fizzle their mind,
evaporate their future, eliminate their potential or destroy society like pornography”. The
Supreme Court rejected his demand for introducing a ban on pornography with Supreme Court
Chief Justice H.L. Dattu stating that, “Adults in India had the right to peruse pornographic
material if they wanted to as long as they did it within the four walls of their homes. He further
rightly said that such a ban would be a violation of Article 21 which safeguards a person’s right
to personal liberty.”[6]
The vague and ambiguous order by the government was clearly an intrusive move against one’s
right to privacy and an unwarranted attempt at moral policing the country that is the fourth
largest consumer of pornographic content, preceded by the United States, Britain and Canada
respectively
This act also violates Article 19 of The Konoha constitution that grants freedom of speech and
expression to every citizen of the country. It grants Protection of certain rights regarding freedom
of speech etc
(1) All citizens shall have the right
(a) to freedom of speech and expression;
16
Page
5
Kamlesh vaswani v Union of India 2019 SCR

(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;

(c) to form associations or unions;
(d) to move freely throughout the territory of India;
(e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and
(f) omitted
(g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business
(2) Nothing in sub clause (a) of clause ( 1 ) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or
prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on
the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause in the interests of the sovereignty and
integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order,
decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence
(3) Nothing in sub clause (b) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so
far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the
sovereignty and integrity of India or public order, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the
right conferred by the said sub clause
(4) Nothing in sub clause (c) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so
sovereignty and integrity of India or public order or morality, reasonable restrictions on the
exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause
(5) Nothing in sub clauses (d) and (e) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing
law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, reasonable
restrictions on the exercise of any of the rights conferred by the said sub clauses either in the
interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe
(6) Nothing in sub clause (g) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so
general public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub
clause, and, in particular, nothing in the said sub clause shall affect the operation of any existing
law in so far as it relates to, or prevent the State from making any law relating to,
17
(i) the professional or technical qualifications necessary for practising any profession or carrying
Page
on any occupation, trade or business, or

(ii) the carrying on by the State, or by a corporation owned or controlled by the State, of any
trade, business, industry or service, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of citizens or
otherwise
In the name of imposing reasonable restrictions by the state this is that such orders must fall
within the purview of Art. 19(2) and orders ultra vires the scope of Art. 19(2) cannot find shelter
under section 79(3)(b). This leads to the understanding that for the government’s ban to hold
water, what must be seen is that whether such a ban is justified as a “reasonable restriction” as
under Art. 19(2).
in A.K. Gopalan6 case, observed, “man as a rational being desires to do many things, but in a civil
society his desires will have to be controlled with the exercise of similar desires by other
individuals”
In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India7, BHAGWATI J., has emphasized on the significance of
the freedom of speech & expression in these words:
“Democracy is based essentially on free debate and open discussion, for that is the only
corrective of government action in a democratic set up. If democracy means government of the
people by the people, it is obvious that every citizen must be entitled to participate in the
democratic process and in order to enable him to intelligently exercise his rights of making a
choice, free & general discussion of public matters is absolutely essential.”
In Romesh Thappar v Union of India8, Justice Patanjali has rightfully held that 19(1)(g) is the
very basis and essence of the constitution and our democracy. Reasonable restrictions, however,
he noted, should be such that others’ rights should not be hindered or affected by the acts of one
man, in the case of Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India.
6
1950 SCR 88
7
1978 SCR (2) 621
18
Page
8
1950 SCR 594

In Bennet and Coleman & Co. V. Union of India9 and Indian Express Newspapers
(Bombay)P. Ltd V. Union of India10 constitutional validity of notifications issued by the
government was challenged by filling of a writ petition by the corporations. It was held that
Right to freedom cannot be taken away with the object of placing restricitions on the business
activities of citizens.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS HAVING GREAT SIGNIFICANCE IN INDIAN CONSTITUTION , BY THE

VERY FACT THAT fact that preamble of constitution itself ensures to all citizens inter alia, liberty of
thought, expression, belief, faith and worship
To definite the term ‘obscenity’ is quite hard. But India is a land of morals, ethics, culture, where
people find dignity more important than education. However, the generic definition of obscenity
refers to an act or speech or item that is likely to corrupt the morality of the general public
because of its indecency or lewdness in content or form. The grey area that prevails in India as of
legality or illegality of pornographic website should be regulated and special laws shall be
provided in order to uplift the culture in India and the child pornographic website should be
prevented and stringent measures shall be given in order to provide safety to young children and
help, even them to live with dignity and uplift Article.21 of the Indian Constitution at large
instead of violating it in the name of reasonable restrictions.
It Implies that Child pornography is banned in Konoha as per section section 67 B of Information
Technology act 2000 but banning all forms of pornographic material is a violation of right to
privacy under article 21 of Indian Constitution as you cant stop an adult to watch pornographic
material within four walls of his room and moreover there are over 40 million pornographic
websites running in the country.
Banning all forms of pornographic materials covers all the videographic material used for the
purpose of teaching sex education and students would remain unaware of the consequences of
their act and it will also result in the increase of the sexual offences againt women in the country.
9
(1973) 2 SCR 757
19
Page
10
(‘86) A.SC. 515

Instead of banning it a proper system should be established to provide safe sex education in the
schools and they should be made to understand the consequences of their act.
ISSUE 2
WHETHER THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS UNDER JUVENILE

JUSTICE ACT DEALING WITH TRYING A JUVENILE AS AN ADULT
AND THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS UNDER INDIAN PENAL CODE
AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT
DEALING WITH THE AGE OF CONSENT AND PUNISHMENT
THERETO, ARE VIOLATIVE OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OR NOT?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Konoha that relevant provisions of
Juvenile Justice Act which deals with trying a juvenile as an adult is violative of article 14 of
Indian Constitution as it gives the right to the Juvenile Justice board to try a juvenile between the
age of 16-18 years as an adult in case he commits any heinious crime. It is violative of article 14
because it distinguishes between juvenile whose age is less than 16 years and those whose age
are between 16-18 years.
Section 15 of juvenile justice act states as follows:-
15. Preliminary assessment into heinous offences by Board.
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,
20
and may pass an order in accordance with the provisions of subsection (3) of section 18:
Page

Provided that for such an assessment, the Board may take the assistance of experienced
psychologists or psycho-social workers or other experts.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, it is clarified that preliminary assessment is not a
trial, but is to assess the capacity of such child to commit and understand the consequences of the
alleged offence.
2. Where the Board is satisfied on preliminary assessment that the matter should be disposed of
by the Board, then the Board shall follow the procedure, as far as may be, for trial in summons
case under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
Provided that the order of the Board to dispose of the matter shall be appealable under sub-
section (2) of section 101:
Provided further that the assessment under this section shall be completed within the period
specified in section 14.
Section 15 of this act gives full authority to the board to decide whether or not to try a juvenile as
an adult. The Constitution guarantees fundamental rights to every Indian. Under Articles 14 and
15(3) of the Constitution, every individual is guaranteed equality before law, prohibiting
discrimination in any form. The 2015 amendments to the Juvenile Justice Act has created a
group of individuals who will be discriminated against because though they are minors before
the law they will, if found guilty, be punished as adults. The Supreme Court of India in Swamy
vs Raju (2014)11 and Salil Bali vs Union of India (2013)12, observed that, “There are, of
course, exceptions where a child in the age-group of 16 to 18 may have developed criminal
propensities, but such examples are not of such proportions as to warrant any change in thinking,
since it is probably better to try and re-integrate children into mainstream society rather than to
allow them to develop into hardened criminals.”
Maharukh Adenwalla, a lawyer and member of the Mumbai Working Group on Juvenile Justice
Said “The government is arguing that we now have a generation of children who are more
11
(2014) 8 SCC 390
21
Page
12
(2013) 7 SCC 705

mature and can actually premeditate crime and hence they should be tried as adults in cases of
heinous crimes. However, there is no move to reduce the age of voting or the age of consent or
the age of marriage so on what basis can you claim that someone is mature enough to commit a
crime? There is no way one can measure brain maturity to declare someone an adult and law
does not allow for a case by case basis for changing of criteria.”
This law also contravenes the United Nation’s Convention on the Rights of a Child (UNCRC)
which says that any person under the age of eighteen is considered a minor. India signed and
ratified the UNCRC in 1992. Besides drawing global condemnation this law may also be
challenged in the International Court of Justice.
Section 375 of IPC defines rape:-
A man is said to commit “rape” if he-—
penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a woman or makes
her to do so with him or any other person; or
inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the
urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or
manipulates any part of the body of a woman so as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra,
anus or any ~ of body of such woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or
applies his mouth to the vagina, anus, urethra of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any
other person, under the circumstances falling under any of the following seven descriptions:—
First.—Against her will.
Secondly.—Without her consent.
Thirdly.—With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in
whom she is interested, in fear of death or of hurt.
Fourthly.—With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband and that her
22
consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to
Page
be lawfully married.

Fifthly.—With her consent when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness
of mind or intoxication or the administration by him personally or through another of any
stupefying or unwholesome Substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences
of that to which she gives consent.
Sixthly.—With or without her consent, when she is under eighteen years of age.
Seventhly.—When she is unable to communicate consent.
Explanation I.—For the purposes of this section, “vagina” shall also include labia majora.
Explanation 2.—Consent means an unequivocal voluntary agreement when the woman by

words, gestures or any form of verbal or non-verbal communication, communicates willingness
to participate in the specific sexual act:
Provided that a woman who does not physically resist to the act of penetration shall not by the
reason only of that fact, be regarded as consenting to the sexual activity.
Exception I.—A medical procedure or intervention shall not constitute rape.
Exception 2.—Sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife, the wife not being
under fifteen years of age, is not rape.
SECTION 3 OF PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT

STATES AS FOLLOWS:-
Penetrative sexual assault.-
A person is said to commit "penetrative sexual assault" if-
a. he penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a child or
makes the child to do so with him or any other person; or
b. he inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina,
the urethra or anus of the child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person; or
23
Page

c. he manipulates any part of the body of the child so as to cause penetration into the vagina,
urethra, anus or any part of body of the child or makes the child to do so with him or any other
person; or
d. he applies his mouth to the penis, vagina, anus, urethra of the child or makes the child to do so
to such person or any other person.
13
In state of H.P. vs. Desh Raj the court While deciding a criminal appeal filed by the State, a
Single Judge Bench of Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. held that the statement of the victim is of
great importance in cases under the POCSO Act. The victim (a girl, student of 8th standard and
belonging to SC category) filed a complaint against the accused (a shop keeper) alleging that he
molested her physically and asked for sexual favour. Learned trial court acquitted the accused.
Learned Advocate General argued that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. He further argued that the statement of the victim and her classmates showed
that the accused committed a serious crime.
The High Court perused the statement of the victim and the witnesses and held that in cases of
such like nature, statement of victim is of great importance.
In a Delhi case, the girl stated before the court that she had willingly gone away with the
accused, after which they had got married in a temple and had been living together since then.
Holding that in this case, though the girl was below 18 years of age, consensual sex would not
amount to an offence, Additional sessions judge Dharmesh Sharma said: “In my opinion, it
would neither serve the object of present enactment (POCSO Act) nor the purpose of criminal
laws to hold the accused guilty on the ground that he had sexual intercourse with the girl below
18 years". The court rejected the prosecution plea that POCSO Act mandates there must be total
prohibition upon teenagers or adolescents from having any kind of sexual relationship, and
noted: “I am afraid, if that interpretation is allowed, it would mean that the human body of every
individual under 18 years is the property of state and no individual below 18 years can be
allowed to have the pleasures associated with one’s body.”
24
Page
13
2017 SCC OnLine HP 1481

The Madras High Court in Sabarinathan vs The Inspector of Police14 suggested that
consensual sex, physical contact or allied acts after the age of 16 be excluded from the ambit of
POCSO Act and the definition of “child” under Section 2(d) of the Act be amended and reduced
to 16 instead of 18 years. “On a profound consideration of the ground realities, the definition of
‘Child’ under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act can be redefined as 16 instead of 18. Any
consensual sex after the age of 16 or bodily contact or allied acts can be excluded from the
rigorous provisions of the POCSO Act,” Justice V. Parthiban said. As per Section 2(d) of the
POCSO Act, “child” means any person below the age of 18 years. Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa
expressed his agreement with the observation of the Madras High Court on the need to amend
the definition of “child” and reducing the age of consent from 18 to 16 years.
As from the above provisions of Indian Penal Code and Protection of children from sexual
Offences act and different cases and opinions of judges it is clearly proved that section 375 of
IPC is violative of article 14 of Indian Constitution because clause 6 of section 375 provides that
sexual intercourse with a minor below 18 years of age with or without her consent will constitute
rape and on the other hand exception 2 provides that sexual intercourse by a husband with his
minor wife, the wife not being under the age of 15 years will not constitute as rape. There is a
clear distinction between a married and a non married girl. If a girl is not married then sexual
intercourse with her will constitute as rape and if the girl is married then suddenly she is not a
minor anymore and sexual intercourse with her by her husband will not constitute as rape. So
this section of IPC is clearly violating article 14 and of Indian constitution.
Section 15 of Juvenile Justice Act is violating article 14 and 15(3) of Indian Constitution in two
ways.
Firstly this provision distinguishes between different age group of teenagers. Teenagers between
16-18 years of age can be tried as adult if they commit any heinious crime while teenagers below
the age of 16 years cannot be tried as adult whether or not they commit any heinious crime.
14
2008 WP(Crl.) 196
25
Page

Secondly, Juvenile Justice Boards decision that Tipendra Gada was able to understand the
consequences of his acts so a charge of rape is imposed on him and it is decided to try him as an
adult, while he is only 17 years of age. On the other hand, Sonali Bhide who is 17 years and 2
months old, is believed to be a minor and unable to understand the consequences of her acts so
she is unable to give her consent for the sexual intercourse. So this section of Juvenile Justice
Act is violative of fundamental rights because it is distinguishing between the male and female
minor. Both the minors are of the same age but the girl is believed to be unable to give her
consent as she is a minor of 17 years of age and unable to understand the consequences of her act
but on the other hand the boy who is also 17 years of age is sent by the Juvenile Justice Board to
be tried as an adult because he is able the understand the consequences of his acts. So Tipendra
Gada should not be tried as an adult because he is a minor of 17 years of age and section 15 of
Juvenile Justice Act is violative of his fundamental rights because it is distinguishing between
minors who is below 16 years of age and minors who is above 16 years of age. And also if
according to section 375 of Indian Penal Code, Sonali Bhide is considered as a minor and is
believed that she is unable to give consent because she is unable to understand the consequences
of her acts, then even Tipendra Gada is a minor so according to section 15 of JJ Act he should
not be tried as a major because like Sonali he is also a minor and is not able to understand the
consequences of his acts.
ISSUE 3
WHETHER JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD HAS ERRED IN SENDING

TIPENDRA TO CHILDREN’S COURT AND CAN BE HELD LIABLE
UNDER SECTION 376 IPC AND SECTION 4 OF POCSO OR NOT ?
It is humbly submitted before the honourable supreme court of Konoha that juvenile justice
board has erred in sending tipendra to the children’s court and he cannot be held liable under
26
section 376 IPC and section 4 of POCSO.

Page

According to the section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
(herein after referred as J.J. Act, 2015) if a juvenile who is between the age group of 16-18 years
and has committed a heinous offence (defined under section 2(33) of the act) the juvenile justice
board can transfer the case to children’s court (i.e. court of sessions) after conducting a
preliminary assessment. This means a juvenile will be tried as an adult and will have a regular
trial. However, a juvenile offender can only be tried as an adult under the J.J. Act, after the board
has assessed in its preliminary assessment the following:
a) his mental or physical capacity to commit the offence

b) ability to understand the consequences of his act
c) circumstances in which the alleged offence has been committed
Section 15 of the J.J. Act 2015 is reproduced below
“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 circumustances in which he allegedly committed the
offence, and may pass an order in accordance with the provisions of subsection (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.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, it is clarified that preliminary assessment is not a
trial, but is to assess the capacity of such child to commit and understand the consequences of the
alleged offence.
(2) Where the Board is satisfied on preliminary assessment that the matter should be disposed of
by the Board, then the Board shall follow the procedure, as far as may be, for trial in summons
case under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
Provided that the order of the Board to dispose of the matter shall be appealable under sub-
section (2) of section 101:
27
Page

Provided further that the assessment under this section shall be completed within the period
specified in section 14.”
In the instant case Juvenile Justice Board has conducted a preliminary assessment and concluded
that Tipendra knew the consequences of his act. According to the rule 10(4) of the model rules of
2016 Juvenile Justice Board have to assign the reasons for order of declaration that the juvenile
can be tried as an adult.
Juvenile Justice Board passed an order saying that Tipendra knowingly had had sexual
intercourse with the minor girl and that he is able to understand the consequences of his acts
therefore, the board sent him to children’s court.
JJ Board has not provided the reasons for such order. According to the facts of the case 35% of
Konoha’s population was within the age group of 16-18 but there is no proper sex education
provided to the teenagers of Konoha. To protect the youngsters of Konoha, the parliament of
Konoha passed an act to ban all forms of pornographic and obscene material. Because of this
children of Konoha were not able to receive any sex education. They did not have any
knowledge about human reproduction and safe sex education. Mrs Z, the biology teacher in order
to make her students understand human reproduction and provide safe sex education and answer
all their questions she brought plastic models of humans , diagrams and video graphic materials
containing active human reproduction and explain all about human reproduction and sex
education but she got arrested and was charged under section 3 of the Prohibition Of
Pornography Act, 2019 which is also violative of section 67A of the Information Technology
Act, 2000 as it states that if any pornographic or obscene material is used in the interest of
science , literature , art, learning or other objects of general concern then they will be exempted
from the punishment granted for publishing of porno graphic material under section 67A of
Information technology 2000. Hence the teenagers did not receive any knowledge about the
sexual intercourse and the consequences of the same. The question here arises that on what basis
did jj board found in the preliminary assessment that tipendra was able to understand the
consequences of his act. According to section 15 if juvenile justice board in its preliminary
assessment assesses that the offender was able to understand the consequences of his act then the
28
children falling within the age of 16-18 years should be tried as an adult in the children’s court.
Page
Since they did not get any education from school regarding safe sex education and as all other

sources were banned due to POPA 2019 Tipendra did not have any knowledge of the
consequences of his act. Hence juvenile justice board has erred in sending tipendra to the
children’s court.
The main objective of juvenile justice act is to provide for rehabilitation and reintegration of
children in conflict with law in the mainstream society. If children are sent to the jail where other
adult criminals are kept they will also become hardened criminals. Merely on the premise that
the offence is heinous and that it lends to the societal volatility of indignation, we are bracing for
juvenile recidivism. Retributive approach vis-à-vis juveniles needs to be shunned unless there are
exceptional circumstances, involving gross moral turpitude and irredeemable proclivity for the
crime.15 The petitioner here did not forcibly had sexual intercourse with the respondent. Sonali in
her statement confessed her feelings for tipendra and said that she wanted to marry him. Through
this statement we can say she had given her consent to the sexual intercourse. If tipendra can be
treated as an adult to be tried in court of sessions why not sonali can be treated as an adult to give
her consent. Juvenile justice act is reformative in nature and retributive. The whole endeavour of
the JJ Act is to save the child in conflict with the law from the path of self-destruction and being
a menace to the society. It is reformative, not retributive. Section 15, I believe, must be read and
understood keeping in view the objective that permeates the whole Act and the spirit it is imbued
with.16
Since the jj board has erred in sending tipendra to childrens court, he cannot be made liable
under the provisions of section 376 IPC and section 4 of POCSO. As per the juvenile justice act
2015, board can direct the child to be sent to a special home, for such period, not exceeding three
years, as it thinks fit, for providing reformative services including education, skill development,
counselling, behaviour modification therapy, and psychiatric support during the period of stay in
the special home.17 This means maximum punishment for a juvenile offender can be for 3 years.
While the provisions of IPC and POCSO provides for minimum imprisonment of 7 years or
more. Section 18(1) of jj act says that notwithstanding anything contrary contained in any other
15
Mumtaz ahmed nasir khan v. State of Maharashtra (2018) Crl 1153
16
Supra Mumtaz ahmed nasir khan v. State of maharashtra
29
Page
17
Jj act section 18(1)(g)

law for the time being in force the jj board as it thinks fit can pass certain orders under clause (a)
to (g) of this section. As stated above clause (g) of this section provides maximum punishment
for a juvenile which is 3 years in a special home. Due to this section the relevant provisions of
IPC and POCSO are not applicable on tipendra
ISSUE 4
WHETHER PROHIBITION OF PORNOGRAPHY ACT 2019 IS

VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14, 19 AND 21 ?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Konoha that Prohibition of
Pornography act 2019 is violative of fundamental rights of the Citizens.
In this case Mrs Z in order to make her students understand human reproduction and provide safe
sex education and answer all their questions , she brought plastic models of humans , diagrams
and videographic material containing active human reproduction and explained all about human
reproduction and sex education. She was charged with section 3 of Prohibition of Pornography
Act 2019 for showing indecent and obscene material in the class.
Section 67 of the IT act 2000 states Punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material
the electronic form, any material which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its
effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all
relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it, shall be
extend to three years and with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees and in the event of
extend to five years and also with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees.
67A. Punishment for publishing or transmitting of material containing sexually explicit act, etc.,
30

the electronic form any material which contains sexually explicit act or conduct shall be
Page

extend to five years and with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees and in the event of
extend to seven years and also with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupee
Provided that provisions of section 67, section 67A and this section does not extend to any book,
pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting representation or figure in electronic form– (i) the
publication of which is proved to be justified as being for the public good on the ground that
such book, pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting representation or figure is the interest of
science, literature, art or learning or other objects of general concern; or (ii) which is kept or used
for bona fide heritage or religious purposes. Explanation–For the purposes of this section,
―children‖ means a person who has not completed the age of 18 years.
In 2013, Kamlesh Vaswani18 ,a lawyer, filed Public Interest Litigation before the Supreme Court
ultimatum for a separate law to piloting online pornography content and the PIL also sought a
ban on access to such websites. “Nothing can more efficiently destroy a person, fizzle their mind,
evaporate their future, eliminate their potential or destroy society like pornography”. The
Supreme Court rejected his demand for introducing a ban on pornography with Supreme Court
Chief Justice H.L. Dattu stating that, “Adults in India had the right to peruse pornographic
material if they wanted to as long as they did it within the four walls of their homes. He further
rightly said that such a ban would be a violation of Article 21 which safeguards a person’s right
to personal liberty.”[6]
The vague and ambiguous order by the government was clearly an intrusive move against one’s
right to privacy and an unwarranted attempt at moral policing the country that is the fourth
largest consumer of pornographic content, preceded by the United States, Britain and Canada
respectively
This act also violates Article 19 of The Konoha constitution that grants freedom of speech and
expression to every citizen of the country. It grants Protection of certain rights regarding freedom
of speech etc
31
Page
18
Kamlesh vaswani v Union of India 2019 SCR

(1) All citizens shall have the right

(a) to freedom of speech and expression;
(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;
(c) to form associations or unions;
(d) to move freely throughout the territory of India;
(e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and
(f) omitted
(g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business
(2) Nothing in sub clause (a) of clause ( 1 ) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or
prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on
the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause in the interests of the sovereignty and
integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order,
decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence
(3) Nothing in sub clause (b) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so
sovereignty and integrity of India or public order, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the
right conferred by the said sub clause
(4) Nothing in sub clause (c) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so
sovereignty and integrity of India or public order or morality, reasonable restrictions on the
exercise of the right conferred by the said sub clause
(5) Nothing in sub clauses (d) and (e) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing
law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, reasonable
restrictions on the exercise of any of the rights conferred by the said sub clauses either in the
interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe
(6) Nothing in sub clause (g) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so
general public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub
32
clause, and, in particular, nothing in the said sub clause shall affect the operation of any existing
Page
law in so far as it relates to, or prevent the State from making any law relating to,

(i) the professional or technical qualifications necessary for practising any profession or carrying
on any occupation, trade or business, or
(ii) the carrying on by the State, or by a corporation owned or controlled by the State, of any
trade, business, industry or service, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of citizens or
otherwise
In the name of imposing reasonable restrictions by the state this is that such orders must fall
within the purview of Art. 19(2) and orders ultra vires the scope of Art. 19(2) cannot find shelter
under section 79(3)(b). This leads to the understanding that for the government’s ban to hold
water, what must be seen is that whether such a ban is justified as a “reasonable restriction” as
under Art. 19(2).
in A.K. Gopalan19 case, observed, “man as a rational being desires to do many things, but in a civil
society his desires will have to be controlled with the exercise of similar desires by other individuals”
In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India20, BHAGWATI J., has emphasized on the significance of
the freedom of speech & expression in these words:
“Democracy is based essentially on free debate and open discussion, for that is the only
corrective of government action in a democratic set up. If democracy means government of the
people by the people, it is obvious that every citizen must be entitled to participate in the
democratic process and in order to enable him to intelligently exercise his rights of making a
choice, free & general discussion of public matters is absolutely essential.”
In Romesh Thappar v Union of India21, Justice Patanjali has rightfully held that 19(1)(g) is the
very basis and essence of the constitution and our democracy. Reasonable restrictions, however,
he noted, should be such that others’ rights should not be hindered or affected by the acts of one
man, in the case of Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India.
19
1950 SCR 88
33
20
1978 SCR (2) 621
Page
21
1950 SCR 594

In Bennet and Coleman & Co. V. Union of India22 and Indian Express Newspapers
(Bombay)P. Ltd V. Union of India23 constitutional validity of notifications issued by the
government was challenged by filling of a writ petition by the corporations. It was held that
Right to freedom cannot be taken away with the object of placing restricitions on the business
activities of citizens.
Freedom of speech is having great significance by the very fact that preamble of constitution
itself ensures to all citizens inter alia, liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship
To definite the term ‘obscenity’ is quite hard. But India is a land of morals, ethics, culture, where
people find dignity more important than education. However, the generic definition of obscenity
refers to an act or speech or item that is likely to corrupt the morality of the general public
because of its indecency or lewdness in content or form. The grey area that prevails in India as of
legality or illegality of pornographic website should be regulated and special laws shall be
provided in order to uplift the culture in India and the child pornographic website should be
prevented and stringent measures shall be given in order to provide safety to young children and
help, even them to live with dignity and uplift Article.21 of the Indian Constitution at large
instead of violating it in the name of reasonable restrictions.
It Implies that Child pornography is banned in Konoha as per section 67B of Information
Technology act 2000 but banning all forms of pornographic material is a violation of right to
privacy under article 21 of Indian Constitution as you cant stop an adult to watch pornographic
material within four walls of his room and moreover there are over 40 million pornographic
websites running in the country.
Banning all forms of pornographic materials covers all the videographic material used for the
purpose of teaching sex education and students would remain unaware of the consequences of
their act and it will also result in the increase of the sexual offences againt women in the country.
Instead of banning it a proper system should be established to provide safe sex education in the
schools and they should be made to understand the consequences of their act
22
(1973) 2 SCR 757
34
Page
23
(‘86) A.SC. 515

PRAYER
In the light of arguments advanced and authorities cited, the petitioners humbly submits
that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:
1) The provisions of Juvenile Justice Act, Indian Penal Code and Protection of Children
From Sexual Offences Act are violative of Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Indian
Constitution.
2) The Juvenile Justice Board has erred in sending Tipendra to Children’s Court and he
should not be made liable under 376 of IPC and section 4 of POCSO.
3) The provisions of Pornography Act 2019, is violative of Fundamental rights and should
be held unconstitutional.
AND/OR
Any other just and equitable order as it deems fit in the interest of equity, justice and good
conscience.
For This Act of Kindness, the Petitioners Shall Duty Bound Forever.
35
Page

Moot Petitioner 2019 S

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Moot Petitioner 2019 S

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

XIV INTRA_ MOOT COMPETITION 2019

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF KONOHA

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE

TIPENDRA GADA AND

BEFORE SUBMISSION TO HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF KONOHA

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONERS

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONERS

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONERS

AIR All India Reporter

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONERS

The Constitution of India, 1950

Mumtaz Ahmed Nasir Khan V. State of Maharashtra (2018) Crl. 1153

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONERS

Swami V. Raju (2014) 8 SCC 390

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONERS

In the matter of,

TIPENDRA AND OTHERS V. UNION OF KONOHA

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONERS

4. As per Section 15 of JJ Act as Tipendra was able to understand the consequences of

Fundamental Rights and he can’t be tried under IPC and POCSO.

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONERS

5. A NGO, Association for protection of rights of adolescents also filed a writ

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONERS

WHETHER THE PETITIONS FILED BEFORE HON’BLE COURT IS

WHETHER JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD HAS ERRED IN SENDING TIPENDRA TO

WHETHER PROHIBITION OF PORNOGRAPHY ACT 2019 IS VIOLATIVE OF

ARTICLE 14, 19 AND 21 ?

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONERS

The petitions filed before hon’ble court are maintainable.

WHETHER JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD HAS ERRED IN SENDING TIPENDRA TO

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONERS

WHETHER PROHIBITION OF PORNOGRAPHY ACT 2019 IS VIOLATIVE OF

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONERS

WHETHER THE PETITIONS FILED BEFORE HON’BLE COURT IS

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONERS

Alternate remedy is no bar to invoke jurisdiction under article 32 of the constitution.

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONERS

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONERS

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONERS

(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;

on any occupation, trade or business, or

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONERS

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONERS

FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS HAVING GREAT SIGNIFICANCE IN INDIAN CONSTITUTION , BY THE

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONERS

WHETHER THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS UNDER JUVENILE

Section 15 of juvenile justice act states as follows:-

15. Preliminary assessment into heinous offences by Board.

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONERS

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONERS

Section 375 of IPC defines rape:-

A man is said to commit “rape” if he-—

First.—Against her will.

Secondly.—Without her consent.

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONERS

Seventhly.—When she is unable to communicate consent.

Explanation 2.—Consent means an unequivocal voluntary agreement when the woman by

Exception I.—A medical procedure or intervention shall not constitute rape.

SECTION 3 OF PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT

Penetrative sexual assault.-

A person is said to commit "penetrative sexual assault" if-

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONERS