[NAME OF THE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, YEAR]

Before

[NAME OF THE FORUM]

[PETITION / APPLICATION / CASE] NUMBER _______ / [YEAR]

FILED UNDER [PROVISION NUMBER] OF

[NAME OF THE STATUTE]

IN THE CASE CONCERNING [SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE CASE]

AND

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:

[NAME OF THE PETITIONER] [PETITIONER]

versus

[NAME OF THE RESPONDENT] [RESPONDENT]

MEMORIAL for [PETITIONER / RESPONDENT]

 [NAME OF THE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, YEAR]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS.........................................................................................................I

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES..................................................................................................II

INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS.............................................................................................V

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION...................................................................................VI

STATEMENT OF FACTS..................................................................................................VII

ISSUES RAISED...................................................................................................................IX

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS............................................................................................X

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED..................................................................................................1

I. THE HON’BLE COURT HAS THE JURISDICTION OVER THE INSTANT

CASE.....................................................................................................................................1

A. It is the constitutional duty of the High Court to interpret and declare the law as
unconstitutional..................................................................................................................1

B. It is Constitutional right of the petitioner to move to the High Court for enforcement
of Fundamental rights........................................................................................................2

C. The High Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal under s.374 Cr.P.C.....................2

II. THE NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT,

1985 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.......................................................................................3

A. Section 8(C) Violates the Principles Natural Justice...................................................3

B. Element of intent and motive missing in section 8(c).................................................3

C. Section 27 Is in Contravention of Articles 13, 20 Of Constitution.............................4

PAGE | I
MEMORIAL for [PETITIONER] TABLE OF CONTENTS
 [NAME OF THE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, YEAR]

D. Section 35 Which Attaches a Presumption Of Culpability and Section 54 Which

Places Burden Of Proof On The Accused As Regar To The Possession Of Illicit
Articles, Of The NDPS Act, 1985 Is Ultra Vires The Constitution Of India....................5

III. THE 2015 AMENDMENT TO THE JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT IS ILLEGAL

5

A. The Act is against the international treaties and conventions.....................................7

IV. THE PETITIONER NO. 2 IS BEING WRONGLY TRIED BY THE SPECIAL

COURT.................................................................................................................................8

A. The circumstantial evidences are inconclusive in nature............................................8

B. The prosecution has produced interested witness.......................................................8

C. Statements of independent witness was not recorded.................................................9

D. The respondent fails to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt..........................9

PRAYER FOR RELIEF........................................................................................................10

PAGE | II
MEMORIAL for [PETITIONER] TABLE OF CONTENTS
 [NAME OF THE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, YEAR]

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Ashok Kumar Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, AIR 2008 SC 2436...............................................8

Badri v. State of Rajasthan, (2000) 10 SCC 246.......................................................................2

Balaka Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 1962.................................................................8

Bodhisattwa v. Subhra Chakraborty AIR 1996 SC 922............................................................2

Collector of Madura v. Mooto Ramalinga, (1868) 12 M.I.A. 397.............................................3

Dalbir Kauur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 472..................................................................8

Golaknath V. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1967 1643.......................................................................7

Joginder Nath v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 511.............................................................5

K Naga Subba Reddy v. Public Prosecutor, A.P. High Court, AIR 2000 SC 3480...................9

Keshvanand Bharti V State of Kerala, A.I.R. 1973 4 S.C.C. 225..............................................7

Kishori Mohan v. State of West Bengal, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 1749...............................................4

L.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab AIR 1967 SC 1643............................................................1

M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, A.I.R. 2007 S.C. 71...................................................................5

MadhuLimaye v. Supdt. Tihar Jail Delhi, A.I.R. 1975 1505.....................................................6

Mahendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2009) 11 SCC 334....................................8

Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 2012.............................................................................................6

National Legal Service Authority v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 438..................................7

Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai, (2003) 12 SCC 395.....................................................................9

Salil Bali v. Union of India, A.I.R. 2013...................................................................................6

Sanaboina Satyanarayan v. Govt. of A.P., A.I.R. 2003 S.C.R. 874...........................................6

Sardul Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 2002 SC 3642..............................................................9

Sarvan Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1957 SC 637...............................................................5

PAGE | III
MEMORIAL for [PETITIONER] INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
 [NAME OF THE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, YEAR]

State of Madras v. V G. Row AIR 1952 SC 196........................................................................1

State of Punjab v. Bhajan Singh, AIR 1975 SC 258..................................................................9

State of Punjab v. Karnal Singh, AIR 2003 SC 3609................................................................9

State of U.P. v. Ram Swarup, AIR 1988 SC 1028.....................................................................9

Subramanian Swamy v. Raju, A.I.R. 2014 8 S.C.C. 390...........................................................6

Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 13 SCC 657......................8

STATUTES

The Code of Criminal Procedure, No. 2 of 1974, § 374 (2)......................................................2

The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, No. 61, Acts of Parliament,
1985........................................................................................................................................3

The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, No. 61 of 1985, § 36 (b)....................2

The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, No. 37 of 1967, § 28.............................................2

OTHER AUTHORITIES

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 24...............................................7

United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice Rule 7. .7

RULES

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules,2007 Rule 3 Clause X Chapter II....6

United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty 1990 Rule 11
part 2......................................................................................................................................7

United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty 1990 Rule 4
part 1......................................................................................................................................7

PAGE | IV
MEMORIAL for [PETITIONER] INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
 [NAME OF THE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, YEAR]

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

Article 253, The Constitution of India.......................................................................................7

Constitution of India, 1950 Article 326.....................................................................................6

INDIA CONST. art. 13, cl. 2.....................................................................................................4

India Const. art. 19.....................................................................................................................7

INDIA CONST. art. 20, cl. 3.....................................................................................................4

INDIA CONST. art. 21..............................................................................................................4

The Constitution of India, Article 13(2)....................................................................................1

The Constitution of India, Article 32.........................................................................................2

BOOKS & REPORTS

Bonnie & Scott, “The Teenage Brain: Adolescent Research and the Law”, Current Directions
in Psychological Science, 22(2) 158–161 (2013), p.162.......................................................6

Parliamentary Standing Committee on Human Resource Development, 264th Report ¶ 3.21. 6

PAGE | V
MEMORIAL for [PETITIONER] INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
 [NAME OF THE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, YEAR]

INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATION FULL FORM

% PER CENT

& AND

¶ PARAGRAPH

AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

All ALLAHABAD

All ER ALL ENGLAND REPORTS

ALT ANDHRA LAW TIMES

Anr. ANOTHER

AP ANDHRA PRADESH

Bom BOMBAY

Cal CALCUTTA

Co. COMPANY

DLT DELHI LAW TIMES

Ed. EDITION

PAGE | VI
MEMORIAL for [PETITIONER] INDEX OF ABBREVIATIONS
 [NAME OF THE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, YEAR]

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioners humbly submit to the jurisdiction of Hon’ble High Court under the Article
226 of the Constitution.

PAGE | VII
MEMORIAL for [PETITIONER] STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
 [NAME OF THE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, YEAR]

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Winterfell is a country situated in the Northern kingdom of Westeros, in which about a

seventh of the world’s population resides. The most serious problem in Winterfell is increase
in violence due to drug addiction. Stark-Pradesh, one of the 29 states of Winterfell has
increasing addiction of drugs among the youth and the new generation. It was alleged that
Republic of Meereen sponsored terrorism and drug-trade in Winterfell, especially in Stark-
Pradesh, as it borders Republic of Meereen.

Shaam Savera Angel (SSA), is a well-known God woman and leader of Manav Cult. She is
a young influential woman Millions of followers around the world out of which 8 million
reside within the state of Stark-Pradesh. She taught her followers to fight against drugs and
the alleged involvement of Republic of Meereen.

All the properties owned by Manav Cult were largely in control of their leader SSA. The cult
was also funding a research programme to cure cancer and other incurable diseases. Recently
it was heard that their pharmaceutical department was developing a medicine NZT-
CANCER, as an alternative to chemotherapy.

The ideas and campaigns of Manav Cult were vehemently opposed by a group named Adi-
Manav Cult, which believed that the ideas of SSA and her cult were propagating a pseudo-
science and she was befooling people by her antics.

Mr. Jendri Singh, driver of SSA came out infront of media and revealed that SSA had been
doing illegal activities in the veil of a spiritual activities. Due to media uproar, an FIR was
lodged against SSA for illicit activities with Republic of Meereen on 2nd January 2016.

Investigating officer, Mr. Jamie Sharma raided Manav Cult properties on 28th January
2016. However, the search teams could not find anything incriminating. SSA made a public
statement on 29th January 2016 where she said it was an attempt by her political enemies and
drug mafias to defame her, and weaken her fight against drugs. She also said that Mr. Jamie
Sharma was sponsored by Republic of Meereen.

Mr. Jamie Sharma raided without warrants on the night of 9th February 2016 around 11.25
p.m. on the pharmaceutical research unit of NZT-CANCER. The team seized 90 kilograms of
Cannabis in the factory’s entrance courtyard in a truck. It was alleged that drugs were
trafficked from Republic of Meereen by a declared Terrorist group, Winterfell Liberators.
PAGE | VIII
MEMORIAL for [PETITIONER] STATEMENT OF FACTS
 [NAME OF THE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, YEAR]

The panchnama was made around 5:15 a.m. in the morning, the two witnesses were Mr.
Peter Bailesh and Mr. Ashok Solemon. Within two kilometres the other two facilities of
NZT-Cancer Units were also raided on the same night and 50 kilograms of cannabis were
seized at each facility.

On the same night search raids were done to arrest SSA, however, she absconded and could
not be arrested that night. During this period, videos showing SSA talking to members of
Winterfell Liberators surfaced over media channels and were primarily shown by Winterfell
Samachar. On February 26, 2016, Mr. Birpaal Singh, Adi-Manav Cult’s chief, lodged
another FIR against SSA for carrying out racket of illegal drugs and aiding terrorists and
threatening the security and integrity of Winterfell.

On 3rd March 2016, SSA was arrested by National Investigation Agency near the border of
Meereen and Winterfell with 20 million Winterfellian dollar. It was found by the authorities
that she was a juvenile, and that she was born on 20th June 1999.

She was brought to trial under the charges for various crimes under sections 20, 21, 23 and 25
of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, section 121 of Winterfellian Penal
Code, 1860 and sections 20, 39 and 40 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 before
the Special Court. She was found in “conflict with law” by the Special Court on all the above
mentioned counts. Though during the examination of witnesses, the fourth witness (Khal
Singh) to the panchnamas went hostile and said that he was not shown any seized drug and
was coerced to an extent by the officers.

SSA has now approached the Hon’ble High Court of Stark-Pradesh by way of Appeal against
the decision of the Special Court. An NGO, Ajeevan Medical Research Trust, which was
researching the medicinal benefits of the cannabis and happened to be a supporter of Manav
Cult’s ideology, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Hon’ble High Court of
Stark-Pradesh challenging the constitutional validity of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985.

The matter is listed for final hearing on 24th Feburary 2018 before the Hon’ble High Court of
Stark-Pradesh.

PAGE | IX
MEMORIAL for [PETITIONER] STATEMENT OF FACTS
 [NAME OF THE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, YEAR]

ISSUES RAISED

I.

WHETHER THE HON’BLE COURT HAS THE JURISDICTION OVER THE INSTANT CASE?

II.

WHETHER THE NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985 IS

UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

III.

WHETHER THE 2015 AMENDMENT TO THE JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT IS ILLEGAL?

IV.

WHETHER THE PETITIONER NO. 2 IS BEING WRONGLY TRIED BY THE SPECIAL COURT?

PAGE | X
MEMORIAL for [PETITIONER] ISSUES RAISED
 [NAME OF THE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, YEAR]

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE I: WHETHER THE HON’BLE COURT HAS THE JURISDICTION OVER THE INSTANT
CASE?

It is submitted that the Hon’ble court has the jurisdiction on the grounds that; it is the
constitutional duty of the High Court to interpret and declare the law as unconstitutional since
it is Constitutional right of the petitioner to move to the High Court for enforcement of
Fundamental rights and that the High Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal under s.374
Cr.P.C.(C).

ISSUE II. WHETHER THE NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985
IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble High Court that Section 8(c) of the NDPS act
suffers from many constitutional infirmities. It is not according to the principles of Natural
Justice as the said section puts restriction on the freedom to the individuals which does not
even disturb public peace and order. The said section does not take into count the intention
and motive behind the acts, whether they are in good faith or bad faith.

ISSUE III. WHETHER THE 2015 AMENDMENT TO THE JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT IS
ILLEGAL?

It is humbly pleaded before the Hon’ble court that 16-18 years is an extremely sensitive and
critical age requiring greater protection. Hence, there is no need to subject them to deterrent
or adult judicial system as it will go against provisions of the Constitution. As stated by the
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Human Resource Development. Therefore the act
should be held void as it affects the rights guaranteed to the children by the part three of the
constitution of Republic of Indiana and is ultra vires to the provisions of the constitution

ISSUE IV. WHETHER THE PETITIONER NO. 2 IS BEING WRONGLY TRIED BY THE
SPECIAL COURT?

It is submitted that, the lower court has wrongly charged the Petitioner No. 2 under sections
20, 21, 23 and 25 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, section 121 of
Winterfellian Penal Code, 1860 and sections 20, 39 and 40 of Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967 as; the circumstantial evidences are inconclusive in nature

PAGE | XI
MEMORIAL for [PETITIONER] SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
 [NAME OF THE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, YEAR]

PAGE | XII
MEMORIAL for [PETITIONER] SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
 [NAME OF THE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, YEAR]

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

The Ajeevan Medical Research Trust (hereinafter referred as petitioner no. 1) has
approached the Hon’ble court challenging the constitutional validity of the law passed by the
legislator (herein referred as Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, NDPS
Act). Additionally, SSA (hereinafter referred as petitioner no. 2) has now approached the
Hon’ble High Court of Stark-Pradesh by way of appeal against the decision of the Special
Court on the grounds that, The Hon’ble Court has the Jurisdiction over the instant case (I),
The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is unconstitutional (II), the 2015
Amendment to the Juvenile Justice Act is illegal (III), and the Petitioner No. 2 is being
wrongly tried by the Special Court (IV).

I. THE HON’BLE COURT HAS THE JURISDICTION OVER THE INSTANT CASE

It is submitted that the Hon’ble court has the jurisdiction on the grounds that; it is the
constitutional duty of the High Court to interpret and declare the law as unconstitutional (A),
It is Constitutional right of the petitioner to move to the High Court for enforcement of
Fundamental rights (B), the High Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal under s.374
Cr.P.C.(C).

II. IT IS THE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY OF THE HIGH COURT TO INTERPRET AND

DECLARE THE LAW AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

In the case State of Madras v. V G. Row 1it was held by the Hon’ble High Court that the
framers of the Constitution have firmly rooted with explicit sanctions the doctrine of Judicial
Review through Art. 32,131- 136,143,226 and 246 of the Constitution, which makes it
obligatory for the judiciary to interpret the law and declare them unconstitutional if needed.
Furthermore, the Hon’ble High Court in the case of L.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab 2laid
that the constitutional amendments are within the purview of the judicial review of the
judiciary. Article 13(2) 3states that the State shall not make any law which takes away or
abridges the rights conferred by the constitution and any law in contravention of this clause
shall to extent of the contravention, be void. The courts in India are thus under a

1
State of Madras v. V G. Row AIR 1952 SC 196.
2
L.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab AIR 1967 SC 1643.
3
The Constitution of India, Article 13(2).
PAGE | 1
MEMORIAL for [PETITIONER] ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 [NAME OF THE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, YEAR]

constitutional duty to interpret and declare the law as unconstitutional.

Hence, it is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, passed by the legislature being a law enacted by the
parliament falls within the purview of the judicial review and being discriminatory law shall
be scrutinized by the court on the constitutional lines.

III. IT IS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF THE PETITIONER TO MOVE TO THE HIGH COURT

FOR ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.

The High Court has the absolute power and jurisdiction to decide and issue directions or
orders or writs whichever maybe appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights
conferred by the constitution. 4
It was also eluded by the High Court in the case of
Bodhisattwa v. Subhra Chakraborty 5 that right of access to High Court under Article 32 for
enforcement of fundamental rights is in itself a fundamental right. 6

In the petition, the petitioner has contended before the court challenging the infringement of
the fundamental rights by the state action which include right under Article 13,14, 19 and 21
of the constitution.

IV. THE HIGH COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE APPEAL UNDER S.374 CR.P.C.

It is humbly submitted that an appeal is indisputably a statutory right and an Accused who
has been convicted is entitled to avail this right which is provided under s.374 of the Cr.P.C. 7
S. 374 (2), states that, if a trial is held by the Sessions Judge in which a sentence of
imprisonment of more than seven years has been passed, an appeal would lie to the High
Court.8 Further as per the s. 36 (b) 9 of the NDPS act & 3810 of the UAPA Act, the High Court
may exercise, all the powers conferred by Chapters XXIX and XXX of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) on a High Court, as if a Special Court within the local limits of
the jurisdiction of the High Court were a Court of Session trying cases within the local limits
of the jurisdiction of the High Court.

4
The Constitution of India, Article 32
5
Bodhisattwa v. Subhra Chakraborty AIR 1996 SC 922
6
Ibid
7
Badri v. State of Rajasthan, (2000) 10 SCC 246
8
The Code of Criminal Procedure, No. 2 of 1974, § 374 (2).
9
The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, No. 61 of 1985, § 36 (b).
10
The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, No. 37 of 1967, § 28.
PAGE | 2
MEMORIAL for [PETITIONER] ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 [NAME OF THE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, YEAR]

In the present case, Petitioner No. 2 has framed by the special court under the sections 20, 21,
23 and 25 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, section 121 of
Winterfellian Penal Code, 1860 and sections 20, 39 and 40 of Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967. Therefore, u/s 374 of Cr.P.C, the Accused has the right to appeal
before the High Court against the impugned order passed by the Session court.

V. THE NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985 IS

UNCONSTITUTIONAL

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble High Court that Section 8(c) of the NDPS act
suffers from many constitutional infirmities. It is not according to the principles of Natural
Justice as the said section puts restriction on the freedom to the individuals which does not
even disturb public peace and order. The said section does not take into count the intention
and motive behind the acts, whether they are in good faith or bad faith.

A. SECTION 8(C) VIOLATES THE PRINCIPLES NATURAL JUSTICE

Section 8 (c)- Prohibition of certain operations- No person shall, (c) produce, manufacture,
possess, sell, purchase, transport, warehouse, use, consume, import inter-State, export inter-
State, import into India, export from India or tranship any narcotic drug or psychotropic
substance.11 The commentators of Smritis made it clear that on matters not covered by
Smritis, customs would supplement the law. Thus customs formed a part of the law. This
contention finds support in the Privy Council decision in Collector of Madura v. Mooto
Ramalinga12 wherein it was held that under the Hindu system of law, clear proof of usage will
outweigh the written text of the law. Section 8(c) of NDPS act is against the principle of
natural justice, as it is contrary to the law of the nature. Personal use and possession of
narcotic substances which are not against public peace and order should not have any
restriction whereas section 8(c) restricts the same. The law of the nature demands freedom to
the individuals which does not disturbs public peace and order.

B. ELEMENT OF INTENT AND MOTIVE MISSING IN SECTION 8(C)

“Intent” is very important in Law. Often, two similar “Acts” can result in different
punishments if there is difference in “Intent”. It may be reiterated that a man is held liable not

11
The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, No. 61, Acts of Parliament, 1985.
12
Collector of Madura v. Mooto Ramalinga, (1868) 12 M.I.A. 397.
PAGE | 3
MEMORIAL for [PETITIONER] ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 [NAME OF THE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, YEAR]

for his act alone but if it is also accompanied with mens rea or guilty mind with which he
does it. Thus, mens rea refers to the mental element necessary for the particular crime and
this element may either be intention to do the act or recklessness (or negligence) as to the
consequences of that act. Motive is an idea, belief, or emotion that impels a person to act in
accordance with that state of mind. Motive is usually used to explain why a person acted or
refused to act in a certain way. Mere intention or will to commit does not constitute an
offence if it is not followed by an external overt act. Every act of an individual can be
analysed in two stages, namely, the ultimate purpose of it and the immediate intention of
doing it. The former is called the motive which is different from intention of committing an
offence.13

C. SECTION 27 IS IN CONTRAVENTION OF ARTICLES 13, 20 OF CONSTITUTION

The said provision is ultra vires inasmuch as it is in contravention of provisions of Article 13

read with Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that the said
Explanation to Section 27 of N.D.P.S. Act is in contravention of Article 13 read with Article
20, Clause (3) of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as it compels the accused to prove that
the small quantity possessed was intended for personal consumption and not for sale or
distribution. Clause (2) of Article 13 contemplates that “the State shall not make any law
which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any law made in
contravention of this Clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void.” 14 Clause (3) of
Article 20 of the Constitution provides that “no person accused of any offence shall be
compelled to be a witness against himself.”15 Explanation of Section 27 casts burden on the
accused to prove that small quantity possessed was intended for personal consumption and
not for sale or distribution. To prove this fact, accused has to examine himself as witness and
the same is in contravention of Clause (3) of Article 20 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the
said Explanation of Section 27 of N.D.P.S. Act is ultra vires Article 20(3) read with Article
13(2) of the Constitution of India. It is also in contravention of Article 21 16 of the
Constitution as it does not take into count the life and personal liberty of a person which
includes Right to Privacy as well. It criminalises personal consumption of Narcotic Substance
within the private space of a person even if it is for the religious purpose or is an essential
practice to profess a particular religion, which does not affect any other individual
13
Kishori Mohan v. State of West Bengal, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 1749.
14
INDIA CONST. art. 13, cl. 2.
15
INDIA CONST. art. 20, cl. 3.
16
INDIA CONST. art. 21.
PAGE | 4
MEMORIAL for [PETITIONER] ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 [NAME OF THE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, YEAR]

whatsoever, which also does disturb any public peace and order.

VI. SECTION 35 WHICH ATTACHES A PRESUMPTION OF CULPABILITY AND SECTION

54 WHICH PLACES BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE ACCUSED AS REGAR TO THE
POSSESSION OF ILLICIT ARTICLES, OF THE NDPS ACT, 1985 IS ULTRA VIRES THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble High Court that the provisions of Sections 35 and
54 of the Act being draconian in nature imposing reverse burden on an accused and, thus,
being contrary to Article 14(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
providing for `an accused to be innocent until proved guilty' must be held to be ultra vires
Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. In criminal cases, the presumption is that the
accused is innocent until contrary is established. It is often said that it is better that ten guilty
men should escape than that one innocent man should suffer. A mere suspicion however,
strong cannot take place the evidence.17 Article 14(2) of the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights providing for “an accused to be innocent until proved guilty”. The right
to the presumption of innocence is one of the guarantees in relation to legal proceedings
contained in Article 14.

VII. THE 2015 AMENDMENT TO THE JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT IS ILLEGAL

It is humbly submitted that the provisions which treat juveniles as adults treat two distinct
categories equally. This strikes at the very core of Article 14. The High Court has repeatedly
endorsed as part of the Article 14 mandate that the principle that injustice arises not only
when equals are treated unequally,18 but also when unequal are treated equally.19 Juveniles are
more amenable to reform and are prone to rehabilitative interventions because of the
plasticity of their brains. The teenager‟s barins aren‟t completely developed and they are
incapable of fully understanding the consequences of their action. The neuro-scientific data
shows that frontal lobe, especially the pre frontal lobe is the last part in human brain to
develop. Emotions and moody nature of teens comes from the limbic system, which
processes emotions but is still developing.20 Juvenile Justice rules 2007 ensures principles of
equality and non-discrimination in Juveniles in conflict with law on the basis of age and that
17
Sarvan Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1957 SC 637.
18
Joginder Nath v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 511.
19
M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, A.I.R. 2007 S.C. 71.
20
Bonnie & Scott, “The Teenage Brain: Adolescent Research and the Law”, Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 22(2) 158–161 (2013), p.162
PAGE | 5
MEMORIAL for [PETITIONER] ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 [NAME OF THE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, YEAR]

there should be equality in treatment under the Act.21

As stated in an amicus brief for the American Psychological Association, the American
Psychiatric Association, and the National Association of Social Workers before the High
Court of the United States. “Juveniles typically outgrow their antisocial behaviour as the
impetuousness and recklessness of youth subside in adulthood”. 22 The provisions of universal
adult franchise have been inspired by the same analogy where the person attains sufficient
maturity to formulate correct opinions after he becomes a major that‟s why in the same vein
the constitution of Republic of Indiana guarantees right to vote to every citizen above the age
of eighteen years.23 The High Court held that the provisions of previous JJ act 2000 were
valid24 and the constitutional validity of these provisions were upheld and it was stated that
there is noneed to treat juveniles below the age of 18 years as major criminals.25

The juveniles tried for heinous offence suffer disqualification under section 20 of the act for
evaluation of reformative changes, which discriminates among juveniles in term of stay and
is violative of article 14 as they should be treated equally.26 In the provisions of section 24(2)
the right to life guaranteed under article 21 of such Juveniles is violated as the right to life
entails the right to livelihood as well as a life of dignity. This stand compromised through the
retention of the record of conviction and the withdrawal of protection from disqualification.
This also means affecting of “reformation” and the ability to make a positive contribution to
society based on another arbitrary assessment proposed under Section 21 will be rendered
meaningless, as the conviction will be held against the child for life.

It is humbly pleaded before the Hon’ble court that 16-18 years is an extremely sensitive and
critical age requiring greater protection. Hence, there is no need to subject them to deterrent
or adult judicial system as it will go against provisions of the Constitution. As stated by the
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Human Resource Development. 27 Therefore the act
should be held void as it affects the rights guaranteed to the children by the part three of the
constitution28 of Republic of Indiana and is ultra vires to the provisions of the constitution.29
21
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules,2007 Rule 3 Clause X Chapter II
22
Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 2012.
23
Constitution of India, 1950 Article 326.
24
Subramanian Swamy v. Raju, A.I.R. 2014 8 S.C.C. 390
25
Salil Bali v. Union of India, A.I.R. 2013.
26
MadhuLimaye v. Supdt. Tihar Jail Delhi, A.I.R. 1975 1505; Sanaboina Satyanarayan v. Govt. of A.P., A.I.R.
2003 S.C.R. 874.
27
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Human Resource Development, 264th Report ¶ 3.21
28
Golaknath V. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1967 1643.
29
Keshvanand Bharti V State of Kerala, A.I.R. 1973 4 S.C.C. 225.
PAGE | 6
MEMORIAL for [PETITIONER] ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 [NAME OF THE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, YEAR]

A. THE ACT IS AGAINST THE INTERNATIONAL TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS

The United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty prohibits
discrimination on the basis of age for implementation of laws for juveniles 30 and defines
every person below the age of 18 years as juvenile. 31 The UN convention on civil and
political rights prohibits deprivation of any person from protections to be provided by virtue
of his status as a minor.32

Section 15 of the JJ Act is in gross Violation of the presumption of innocence under Article
40(2) (b)(i) of the UNCRC. Presumption of innocence as the basic procedure safeguards that
are to be ensured for juveniles under trail.33 The section 15 requires the Juvenile Justice
Board to assess, along with the circumstances in which the child has allegedly committed the
heinous offence, whether he or she had the physical and mental capacity to commit it. This
assessment, the basis for transferring a child to the Children’s Court, which is a designated
Sessions Court, operates on the assumption that the child has indeed committed the offence
and thus violates the cardinal principle of presumption of innocence under Article 40(2)(b)(i).
Such arbitrary assessments will invariably prejudice the trial before the Children’s Court.

I. The constitution mandates adherence of international treaties and conventions.

As per the Article 5134 of the Constitution, the state shall endeavour to foster respect for
international laws and treaty obligation to ensure settlement of international disputes. In the
case of National Legal Service Authority v. Union of India35, the High Court held that in
absence of contrary legislation, the court in India must respect and adhere to the international
law and treaties under Article 51 R/W Article 25336 of The Constitution.

Therefore, it is humbly pleaded before the Hon’ble court that the provisions classifying
among on the basis age are immaterial and violative of constitutional provisions and
international norms. The juvenile justice system should seek to rehabilitate children, rather
than punish them for Juvenile criminal behavior. They are regressive and arbitrary in nature
and should held void.

30
United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty 1990 Rule 4 part 1.
31
United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty 1990 Rule 11 part 2.
32
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 24.
33
United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice Rule 7
34
India Const. art. 19.
35
National Legal Service Authority v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 438.
36
Article 253, The Constitution of India.
PAGE | 7
MEMORIAL for [PETITIONER] ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 [NAME OF THE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, YEAR]

VIII. THE PETITIONER NO. 2 IS BEING WRONGLY TRIED BY THE SPECIAL COURT

It is submitted that, the lower court has wrongly charged the Petitioner No. 2 under sections
20, 21, 23 and 25 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, section 121 of
Winterfellian Penal Code, 1860 and sections 20, 39 and 40 of Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967 as; the circumstantial evidences are inconclusive in nature

A. THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCES ARE INCONCLUSIVE IN NATURE

Discrepancies in evidence of eyewitnesses become a ground for disbelieving and discrediting

their testimony, if their testimony is found to be in conflict and contradiction with other
evidences or with statements already recorded. Such contradiction in case of witnesses may
not inspire confidence and it cannot be held that prosecution proved its case beyond
reasonable doubt.37 Further, where ocular evidence is of shaky nature and where eyewitness
having not actually witnessed the occurrence, and the benefit of doubt has to be given in such
cases to the Accused.38

In the instant case, during the examination of witnesses, the fourth witness (Khal Singh) to
the panchnamas went hostile and said that he was not shown any seized drug and was coerced
to an extent by the officers. There exists a conflict and contradiction with other evidences or
with statements already recorded. Therefore, the circumstantial evidence are inconclusive in
nature.

B. THE PROSECUTION HAS PRODUCED INTERESTED WITNESS.

Interested Witness means that the person concerned must have some direct interest in seeing
that Accused person is somehow convicted because he had some animus towards the
Accused.39 Courts have a duty to undertake a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all
vital features of the entire evidence with reference to the broad and reasonable probabilities
of the case in their attempt to find out proof beyond reasonable doubt. 40 Moreover, testimony
of Interested Witness must be accepted with caution.41

37
Mahendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2009) 11 SCC 334. Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta v.
State of Maharashtra, (2010) 13 SCC 657
38
Balaka Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 1962
39
Dalbir Kauur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 472; Ashok Kumar Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, AIR 2008 SC
2436
40
Sardul Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 2002 SC 3642
41
State of U.P. v. Ram Swarup, AIR 1988 SC 1028
PAGE | 8
MEMORIAL for [PETITIONER] ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 [NAME OF THE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, YEAR]

In the instant case, the two witnesses who signed the seizure memo were Mr. Peter Bailesh
and Mr. Ashok Solemon, (considered staunch supporters of Adi-Manav Cult), as they were
the incharge of the adjacent Adi-Manav Cult headquarters in the vicinity of NZT unit. The
feud and rivalry between the two witnesses and the Petitioner no.2 makes them interested
witness and hence their testimony cannot be relied upon by the court.

C. STATEMENTS OF INDEPENDENT WITNESS WAS NOT RECORDED.

A witness is said to be independent witness unless he or she springs from sources which are
likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity
against the Accused, to which to implicate falsely. 42 The evidence of an independent witness
who is neither connected with the Accused nor to any witness, cannot be doubted. 43 When
there were certain independent eyewitness who were not examined by the I.O., non–
examination of such eyewitnesses shall lead to the benefit of doubt towards the Accused and
not prosecution. 44

D. THE RESPONDENT FAILS TO ESTABLISH THE CASE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

It is submitted that, to prove a case “beyond reasonable doubt”, there must be a fair doubt
based upon reason and common sense arising out of the evidence of the case.45 If there exists
a gap or lacuna in the story or evidence of the prosecution and the link is not well connected
to convict the Accused beyond reasonable doubt, the benefit of doubt must go to the
Accused.46

42
State of Punjab v. Karnal Singh, AIR 2003 SC 3609
43
K Naga Subba Reddy v. Public Prosecutor, A.P. High Court, AIR 2000 SC 3480
44
Supra note 7.
45
Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai, (2003) 12 SCC 395
46
State of Punjab v. Bhajan Singh, AIR 1975 SC 258
PAGE | 9
MEMORIAL for [PETITIONER] ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
 [NAME OF THE MOOT COURT COMPETITION, YEAR]

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

In the light of the facts stated, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is most humbly
prayed and implored before the Hon’ble High Court that it may be pleased to:

 The Hon’ble Court has the Jurisdiction of the instant case.

 The NDPS Act is Unconstitutional

 The Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 is illegal

 The Petitioner No. 2 was wrongly charged by the Special Court

Also, pass any other order that it may deem fit in favor of the Petitioners in the light of

equity, justice and good conscience.

For this act of kindness, the Petitioners shall duty bound forever pray.

Place: …….. S/d

Dated……. Counsel for Petitioner

PAGE | 10
MEMORIAL for [PETITIONER ] PRAYER FOR RELIEF