Clinical - IV- Moot Court Exercise and Internship (21LCI-359)

LL.B. 6th Semester, Section-1

Moot Problem-1

1. Vijay was a small farmer earning his income from agricultural land of 4 acres and his
small grocery shop in the same village. He along with his wife Monika and three girl-
children Sonia, Reshmi, and Rasmi aged about 14 years, 11 years, and 9 years
respectively, lived in the village of Zanskar in Haflong State, Vinath Desh.
2. Vijay and Monika are very religious and do not miss any opportunity to visit temples and
pilgrimage. One day upon receiving information from the local people that a five-day tour
of pilgrimage is organized by the local people for elders, they immediately gave their
consent to go on a pilgrimage in a bus arranged by them. Monika left her three children
at her brother's place Ram, who lived in the same village. Ram was married to Bhavishya,
ten years ago, who is the maternal uncle and aunt. They are childless.
3. The entire pilgrims while returning, unfortunately, met with an accident and even Vijayh
and Monika also suffered severe injuries which were very fatal and were admitted to ICU.
The treatment continued for one month in ICU but eventually, they succumbed to their
injuries.
4. During this period of hospitalization, all the money which was earned by Vijay was
completely exhausted for their treatment. Even Ram also spent the money available with
him for their recovery, but could not save them.
5. Ram, brother of Monika despite ten years of married life was childless and he being the
lone relative of his nieces has taken the responsibility of the parenthood and upbringing
of these three children.
6. Ram was a small farmer and his source of income is mainly from agriculture. Ram is a
well-known person and popular for helping people in need in the village and has a very
good reputation but since he is now into tough times and unable to meet the regular
expenses for maintaining the house, which has led to his ill health. He wants to discharge
his duty as a parent towards his nieces, for whom he is the only relative and caretaker. Of
late, Ram's wife Bhavishya was diagnosed with chronic illness and had to get treated and
the treatment continued for a longer time coupled with huge medical expenses which
resulted in more financial stress on him. Moreover, Ram does not have any other alternate
source of income.
7. Sonia, who is 19 years old now, pursuing her graduation, was helping her sisters and
simultaneously was doing a part-time job to support her uncle and family. Society
criticized Ram for his inefficiency to earn and run the family, moreover, Sonia is of
marriageable age as per the societal standard and instead of getting her married, he was
taking a risk by sending her to earn. Sonia also felt humiliated from this view of the society
and realized that it may not be good and proper for her and her uncle's reputation to remain
unmarried, so she decided to marry.
8. Ram being the maternal uncle, having good faith to give a prosperous future and security
to Sonia proposed her to get married into a rich family of Rehan, who is 23 years old, well
settled, and is a native of Nubra town. As she was pursuing her graduation and exams
were scheduled, marriage dates were postponed from March to June 2018.
9. Ram was promised by Rehan's Family to allow Sonia for her further education and also
to extend cooperation to her if she is willing to get better employment. As Ram had lots
of love and affection towards his niece and under the compelling economic situation he
agreed for the same. Rehan has shown his full faith and willingness to marry Sonia and
support Ram in all aspects. So, he has proposed to his niece Sonia to get her married into
a family which is well settled and has ethical values for her protection of interests.
10. In the meanwhile, the Child Marriage (Prohibition) Act, 2006 has been amended where
the marriageable age of girls was increased from 18 to 21 years. The Child Marriage
(Prohibition) Act, 2006 has been enacted with the objective that unless women progress
on all fronts including their physical, mental and reproductive health, the nation cannot
claim progress. The other objective is to have a check on typical paternalism and to
provide access to opportunities to girls concerning education, employment, health etc.
11. The Constitution of Vinath Desh guarantees gender equality as part of the fundamental
rights and also guarantees the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of sex. Hence
the law was amended in 2018 and the objective of the 2018 Amendment is to give equality
of rights to marriage to all irrespective of gender difference. This amendment also aimed
at lowering the maternal mortality rate by improving the nutritional level of a prospective
mother. It is also important to bring down the incidence of teenage pregnancies, which
are not only harmful to women's overall health but also result in more miscarriages and
stillbirths. Further, it aims to lessen the financial burden of parents/guardians by providing
a scope of employment to have financial security for the girl child.
12. While this being so, a social worker of Zanskar informed regarding the marriage of Sonia
 to an NGO named Prakriti which is an organization concerned with the concept of “Beti
Suraksha”. The NGO Prakriti is a non-profit organization working exclusively for the
welfare of girl children (Daughter).
13. The NGO Prakriti, accordingly informed the said matter to the Child Marriage Prohibition
Officers (CMPO) and upon receiving this information, the CMPO has approached the
Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (JMFC) and the JMFC has issued a notice to prevent
the solemnization of child marriage under the Child Marriage (Prohibition) Act, 2006.
14. Despite the notice being served to Ram and Rehan, they continued to make necessary
arrangements to solemnize the marriage between Rehan and Sonia. On receiving the said
information of preparation of marriage the JMFC directed to arrest Rehan and Ram.
15. Aggrieved by the action of the police and recently amended law, they have approached
the High Court of Haflong State. However, the High Court of Haflong State has dismissed
their plea by stating the action of the police is legal and the amendment is not violating
any rights of them.
16. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court of Haflong State, Ram and Rehan have
approached the Hon'ble Apex Court of Vinath Desh.

Note: For the purpose of this moot problem

1. The Constitution of Vinath Desh adopts the Constitution of India verbatim and all the
provisions of the Constitution of India are incorporated as the provisions of Vinath Desh
Constitution.
2. The powers and the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Vinath Desh are the same as the
powers and the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India.
3. The rest of the laws of Vinath Desh, are in pari materia with the legislation of the Republic
of India.

For: 20BLL1074, 21BLL1005, 21BLL1007, 21BLL1008, 21BLL1009, 21BLL1010

Against: 21BLL1012, 21BLL1013, 21BLL1014, 21BLL1015, 21BLL1018, 21BLL1019

 Clinical - IV- Moot Court Exercise and Internship (21LCI-359)

LL.B. 6th Semester, Section-1

Moot Problem-2

1. Ritu and Suresh (a Major in Indian Army), both resident of Jalandhar, belonging to
Ravidasia community of Punjab, who are Hindus by religion, got married in 2007 in Anand
Karaj form of marriage, which is the marriage ceremony of Sikhs. The couple got their
marriage registered as per the provisions of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and in effect a
marriage certificate was issued by the authorities. Out of this wedlock two children were
born in the year 2008 and 2011 respectively.
2. In 2008, after taking retirement from Indian Army, Suresh went to England for higher
studies and stayed there for two years. Then in April 2010, he moved to Canada and called
his wife to join him there along with their first child. In January 2011, their second child
was bom in Canada. In February 2011, he went to New York. Thereafter he asked Ritu to
go back to India. In March 2011, Ritu along with her children came back to Punjab (India).
3. After moving to New York, Suresh severed all his contacts with Ritu. He had developed
an extra marital affair with a lady named Elizabeth Prescott. In January 2012, Ritu wrote a
letter to Suresh expressing her willingness to join Suresh in New York. Suresh in reply
wrote to Ritu that she should not come to New York, as he was interested in getting their
marriage dissolved. In April 2012, he filed a petition for divorce in Trial Court of New
York on the ground that his marriage has irretrievably broken down.
4. Ritu could not contest these proceedings, she having no means to go to New York.
Meanwhile in July 2012, the trial court of New York granted a divorce decree in favour of
Suresh. Further, the court ordered that the husband would pay to the wife and children an
amount of Rs. 50000 per month for their maintenance. Since Suresh failed to pay
maintenance to wife and children. Ritu approached the Trial Court of New York through a
letter and prayed that she be provided legal aid. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated and
warrants of arrest were Issued against Suresh. She further said that the ex parte decree of
divorce obtained by the husband was not binding on her and was illegal and that she
 continues to be the wife of Suresh. She further asserted that as per the provisions of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, the grounds of divorce (on the basis of adultery, cruelty and
desertion) under section 13 of the Act are available to the wife under the given set of
circumstances. In fact, she is the actual victim, who was being further victimized by the
order of the New York, Trial Court.
5. In April 2013, Ritu filed a petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for
Restitution of Conjugal Rights in the District Court, Jalandhar. Suresh appeared in the
Court and filed an application for dismissal of petition. He did not file any written statement
and he referred to the decree of divorce granted by the Trial Court of New York and said
that despite of notice. Ritu did not contest the same and by not raising any objection she is
deemed to have accepted the jurisdiction of the Foreign Court in trying the petition and
thus making the decree nisi-absolute by the Foreign Court. Further, by accepting the
maintenance. Ritu again in-effect accepted the judgment of the foreign Court and is thus
estopped from filing the present petition (Under Section 11 read with Section 151 of Civil
Procedure code, 1908). The case is pending for adjudication in District Court, Jalandhar.
Prepare memorials and argue from both sides.
Legal Issues:

1. Whether the marriage of Ritu and Suresh is valid as per the provisions of The Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955?
2. Whether non-contest by the wife of divorce petition filed by the husband in a Foreign Court
imply that she had conceded to the jurisdiction of the Foreign Court?
3. Whether the principle of Res-Judicata under Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908
is applicable to the proceedings being initialed in District Court, Jalandhar?

For: 21BLL1030, 21BLL1033, 21BLL1034, 21BLL1035, 21BLL1041, 21BLL1043

Against: 21BLL1045, 21BLL1046, 21BLL1048, 21BLL1049, 21BLL1050, 21BLL1053

 Clinical - IV- Moot Court Exercise and Internship (21LCI-359)

LL.B. 6th Semester, Section-1

Moot Problem-3

1. The Republic of Indonia is the largest democracy in South Asia. 3/4th of the area of Indonia
is coastal region. People from various religious beliefs and cultures are native to this
Country. The Constitution of Indonia imbibes Socialistic, Secular and Democratic
Republic values in its Preamble. Moreover, the Preamble enshrines to thrive the
development of scientific temper amongst its citizens. The Constitution of Indonia provides
to its citizens in its Part III, the Fundamental Rights. The Constitution also bestows upon
its citizens; among other rights, the ‘Fundamental Right to Research and Innovation’ with
reasonable restrictions as to Sovereignty and Integrity of the Nation, Morality and Public
Order.
2. The Country has 1/10th of the world Uranium deposits in its coastal region. It has been
documented in the WHO records that every 15th child born in that region develops organ
impairment in one form or another. Also, it is pertinent to note that local donors' transplant
has not been reported to be very successful with the success rate of mere 20%. Average
life expectancy in that region is relatively low.
3. Parsenia is one of the five states located in coastal region. Dr. Awanish Prakash is a genius
in human genetics and transplant surgery in Parsenia. He has a super specialisation in
Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) techniques. Having a doctorate in the subject from
Boston School of Medicine, Dr. Prakash is one of the youngest scientists to receive this
honour. He is renowned name in his field. He established his labs in Parsenia and Iran. He
also works on the research projects of various multinational companies. He regularly
receives funding for his independent research.
4. In 2005, Dr. Awanish married Varunya who was six years younger to him. Varunya was
also an aspiring researcher in same field. The couple was not able to procreate as Varunya
was suffering from Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser Syndrome. (MRKH)
5. Varunya accompanied Dr. Awanish to Boston and other places where he travelled. In short,
they were together everywhere. Moreover, she had access to all his labs. They used to
 spend weeks in labs immersed in research. They had also signed a Living Will in favour of
each other.
6. In 2009, with the passage of time, Varunya was diagnosed with a liver disorder of initial
stage. Dr. Awanish was very disturbed with health condition of Varunya and he decided to
consult his specialist colleagues in Boston and Iran. They frequently visited those places
for treatment purposes.
7. On 20th May, 2018, a garbage collector of the local municipality in Parsenia
8. collected a suspicious corpse and reported the same to the local police station. FIR was
registered and corpse was sent to local forensic laboratory for examination. The report
mentioned it to be human corpse genetic aged below 10 years. The forensic report also
mentioned that the corpse recovered was without liver and heart.
9. On the basis of further investigation, Police was able to locate the area from where that
corpse was collected. Police failed to identify the corpse after various attempts. Moreover,
no child was reported to be missing in the region. Therefore, police decided to collect DNA
samples of all natives from that area as earmarked by investigation. Around 250 samples
were collected including Dr. Awanish and Varunya. The DNA sample of Varunya matched
with the corpse found.
10. On further investigation and search; following samples of lab grown embryos were
recovered from the laboratory of Dr. Awanish.
11. On 20th September, 2018 the couple was arrested for alleged charges of murder of the
corpse recovered on 20th May, 2018.
12. The trial started and Dr. Awanish pleaded that Varunya had nothing to do with this, the
corpse was not their child as Varunya was not able to procreate in any manner.
13. Dr. Awanish also reluctantly admitted that the corpse was a clone of Varunya developed
with epigenetics and SCNT; and clone cannot be categorised as different human as DNA
for which alleged charges have been framed against Dr. Awanish was very much alive in
the Varunya. He also argued with documented proofs in the form of latest international
publications of eminent scientists, research reports of reputed schools of medicine
specialising in SCNT and other available literature that life expectancy of clone such
created has never been reported more than nine to ten years.
14. The Court ordered medical examination of Varunya and it reported the absence of any liver
disorder. However, the examination report could not specify the presence of transplanted
 liver; as gene sequence was 100% normal.
15. The trial court held that Dr. Awanish was not liable for the murder of the corpse stating
that the essentials of section 300 of IPC (Indonia Penal Code) were not met in the instant
case. State preferred an appeal in the High Court of Parsenia.
16. This case received media attention and created a lot of hue and cry in general public. One
section of ailing childrens' parents in coastal region of Indonia demanded better medical
facilities for their children and possible treatment through SCNT among others who were
seeking a complete ban on such research endeavours. One NGO ‘People for Ethical
Research’ filed a Public Interest Litigation in Supreme Court of Indonia seeking immediate
redressal in the form of complete ban on such research endeavours; NGO argued against
such experiments on the grounds that they inevitably involve perils to the humankind, a
being who is both the product and also the most susceptible subject of the exploration.
Exposed to risk throughout the tremendously complex life-shaping procedures of
embryological growth, any living being deserves protection against such harm. In addition
to the usual uncertainties, cloning is likely to present predominantly difficult glitches of
interspecies variance. Supreme Court issued a notice to Union Government in the matter.
17. In the matter of Dr. Awanish, High court held that lower court erred in not holding him
liable for murder; as clone definitely falls under the category of human. High Court also
declined to rely on all the documentary evidence adduced by him. Therefore, held him
liable for the offence of murder.
18. Dr. Awanish, applied for the certificate of fitness under Article 134(1)(c) of the
Constitution of Indonia and filed an appeal before the Supreme Court on the receipt of the
same.
19. The Supreme Court admitted the appeal filed by Dr. Awanish challenging the decision of
High Court and is pending before the Supreme Court.
20. Dr. Awanish filed a separate writ petition in the Supreme Court of Indonia stating the
violation of his fundamental Right to Research. He contended that such impediments in
research development would create hinderance in endeavours to secure healthy life to
people of coastal region which is already suffering on account of natural causes. He further
stated that Government should promote research to ensure overarching benefits of
technology to ailing population instead.
21. The Supreme Court issued a notice to Union of Indonia seeking reply in the pertinent matter
and clubbed the writ petition field by Dr. Awanish and Public Interest Litigation filed by
 ‘People for Ethical Research’ with the instant matter and are listed for hearing on.

Note: The Constitution and Laws of Indonia are in pari materia with India.

[All names, pictures, incidents, medical conditions, terminology referred to rope in the
incidents in the moot proposition, are purely fictitious and have been used for research
and academic purposes only. The author(s), organising University are NOT responsible
for any coincidental similarity discovered with any person living or dead. Also, the
author(s)/organising university DONOT intend to/attempt/or attribute any remark,
comment which could be possibly drawn from the interpretation of the
incidents/laws/medical conditions/pictures mentioned herein. The proposition shall be
valid till the completion of the competition only.]

For: 21BLL1054, 21BLL1055, 21BLL1056, 21BLL1058, 21BLL1059, 21BLL1061

Against: 21BLL1064, 21BLL1067, 21BLL1070, 21BLL1073, 21BLL1084, 21BLL1089
 Clinical - IV- Moot Court Exercise and Internship (21LCI-359)

LL.B. 6th Semester, Section-1

Moot Problem-4

1. The Kingdom of Uparganj is a Constitutional monarchy with a Westminster style

Parliament that is the supreme legislative authority in the Kingdom. It is a middle income
country with agriculture, manufacturing, and services accounting for roughly equal parts
of the economy. It has a free and thriving press, and boasts of nearly 100% literacy rate
among its populace.
2. In the year 2020, Dr Hadvin Ahtme, a renowned scientist of Uparganj specializing in
robotics and artificial intelligence claimed that she had created the world's first cybernetic
brain that was indistinguishable from the human brain to outside observers.
3. She unveiled to the world, Maia (Multi-faceted Artificial Intelligence Assistant)— an
android designed to assist the elderly in as human a manner as possible, performing all the
tasks that a human assistant is capable of.
4. Maia was designed to look, sound and feel like a human, and on first appearance, virtually
indistinguishable from a human in looks, voice or texture of the skin.
5. Dr Ahtme even entered Maia into well publicized “Turing Tests” which Maia passed with
flying colours. It was unanimously agreed that Maia could easily pass for a human being
in terms of intelligence and ability to hold a conversation with other humans.
6. When a rush of companies approached Dr Ahtme seeking the necessary rights to produce
copies of Maia, she refused to grant any such permissions, saying that she did not believe
that corporations were capable of putting the technology behind Maia for the use of
humanity at large and said she would figure out her own way of putting her creation to
good use for the benefit of all.
7. When there was talk of the Uparganj Government “nationalising” Maia, Dr Ahtme
threatened to destroy Maia and all her research pre-emptively to prevent the technology
from falling into hands other than those she deemed fit to use it.
8. Matters lay at rest there for some months until the world was shocked to find out that Dr
Ahtme was found dead one morning. As the world woke up to this news, Dr Ahtme's family
and editors of leading news outlets found the following email from Dr Ahtme's email id in
their inboxes:
My Dear Family and Friends
If you have received this email, it is because I am dead. I was diagnosed with a terminal
form of stomach cancer about six months ago and instead of prolonging my life through
corrosive drugs or lose an agonising battle to cancer, I have decided to take my own life
in as peaceful a manner as possible at a time of my choosing. Since the day I resolved to
end my life, I have instructed Maia to feed me less and less food and water, until I go
completely without food and water for my final few days. If you're reading this, it means
that I've broken through the barrier of pain, hunger and life, and gone into that
‘undiscovered country’.
This would not have been possible without Maia faithfully carrying out my instructions
to reduce my food and water intake slowly but steadily, and not allowing the outside world
 to interfere with my eventual liberation. I entrust Maia and all the Intellectual Property
Rights vested in me by law for the technology I developed, to my nephew, Galon Kasra
for safekeeping. I trust he will find a way to use it for the betterment of one and all.
Yours forever, Hadvin
9. After this letter was made public, the concerned police authorities of Uparganj began
making enquiries into the suspicious death of Dr Hadvin Ahtme. They approached Mr
Kasra and asked him to turn over Maia to their custody so that they could verify the
correctness of Dr Ahtme's letter.
10. Mr Kasra turned over custody of Maia to the Inspector of the jurisdictional police station,
Ms Dyan Bell (the investigating officer) as part of the investigation.
11. However, since the technology of Maia was beyond the capacity of any engineer or
scientist to dismantle and decode, it was decided that Ms Bell would verbally interrogate
Maia and record the answers received.
12. Detailed interrogation of Maia by Ms Bell revealed that the contents of the email sent by
Dr Ahtme were true in all respects and Maia had dutifully followed all the instructions
given by Dr Ahtme.
13. Ms Bell then filed a First Information Report noting that Dr Ahtme had committed suicide
and charged unknown persons with abetment to suicide. Maia was collected as evidence as
part of the investigation and stored in the record room.
14. When informed that Maia had been kept in police custody as evidence in the trial, Galon
Kasra strongly objected to the same in a letter written to the Superintendent of Police
stating that: Maia was a person, not an object and deserved to be treated as such by the
police authorities. Being a person who is not an accused in the case, Maia had to be released
forthwith into the custody of guardians or relatives, namely himself being the closest living
relative of Dr Ahtme. In any case, Dr Ahtme's email had appointed him de facto guardian
of Maia and he should therefore be allowed to keep Maia exclusively in his custody.
15. The Superintendent of Police responded stating that the Uparganj Code of Criminal
Procedure only recognizes objects and humans, and since Maia is definitely not human,
must be treated as an object.
16. Subsequently, Galon Kasra filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Uparganj asking
the High Court to issue a writ of habeas corpus against the Superintendent of Police and
asking for release of Maia to his custody. The High Court issued notice to the concerned
police authorities and directed that Maia should be kept in a prison for the time being till
the case is disposed of.
17. Maia was thereafter moved from the custody of the police to the Hamrak prison where both
undertrials and convicts are kept in custody.
18. Meanwhile the ongoing investigation and developments in the case had been covered in
great depth by the news media in Uparganj. There was great interest in the particulars of
the story, and also extensive debate on the right to die, the future of artificial intelligence
in Uparganj, and Galon Kasra's claim to the police authorities of Maia's personhood.
19. A journalist of Uparganj News Network (UNN), Mr Assardei Jedpare approached the
Superintendent of Hamrak prison seeking written permission to interview Maia in the
premises of the jail.
20. The Superintendent of Hamrak Prison granted permission to Mr Jedpare by way of a letter
which also stated that the permission was subject to the condition that Mr Jedpare would
undertake not to:
 Ask any questions that would undermine the on-going trial.
 Violate any other Uparganj law in force.
  Have the footage of the interview pre-approved by the prison authorities to
ensure conditions a. and b. mentioned above are fully met.
21. Mr Jedpare refused to abide by these conditions stating that they amounted to a violation
of the freedom of press and freedom of speech guaranteed under the Uparganj constitution
and various international conventions to which Uparganj is a party.
22. Taking issue with the above conditions imposed by the Superintendent, Mr Jedpare
approached the Uparganj High Court seeking a writ of certiorari asking for the conditions
to be struck down and fresh permission for conducting the interview be granted in
accordance with the law and Constitution of Uparganj.
23. In the meantime, after completing investigations the Uparganj police filed a charge-sheet
with the jurisdictional Sessions Judge intending to prosecute Maia for the offence of
abetment to suicide of Dr Ahtme. Maia was represented by lawyers appointed for this
purpose by Galon Kasra.
24. Upon hearing lawyers for the prosecution and defence, the Sessions Judge framed charges
against Maia for the offence alleged to have been committed under Section 307 of the
Uparganj Penal Code, viz abetment of suicide, punishable with imprisonment up to ten
years.
25. Challenging this order of the Sessions Judge framing charges, a revision petition was filed
in the High Court of Uparganj by Mr. Kasra on behalf of Maia claiming that:
 Dr Ahtme did not commit suicide as understood in law.
 Maia was not capable of standing trial in this case.
 The High Court of Uparganj issued notice to the Police authorities in the present matter,
but also directed that Maia be produced before the Bench in Court so that they can ask
the relevant questions and satisfy themselves as to whether Maia can stand trial in the
case.
 The possibility of the first public presence of Maia since the death of Dr Ahtme caused
a sensation, and there were multiple applications to the Chief Justice of the Uparganj
High Court to specifically for allow for audio and video recording of the proceedings.
These applications were placed before the Bench hearing the revision petition filed by
Mr Kasra
 Noting the possibility that there would be great inconvenience suffered by the court
itself in conducting proceedings at the next date of hearing, the Bench hearing the
revision petition dismissed the applications from media outlets for audio and video
recording and also directed that the next day's proceedings and all proceedings in the
High Court of Uparganj where Maia was present, would be conducted in camera.
26. In response to this order, a Special Leave Petition was filed by UNN, among other
petitioners, before the Supreme Court of Uparganj asking the Supreme Court to set aside
the order of the High Court, and permit audio and video recording of the proceedings. It
was contended that the High Court's order was an infringement of the citizens' right to
know and the freedom of press.
27. Separately, Mr Kasra also filed a Special Leave Petition against the order of the High Court
contending that the in-camera hearings for this case amounted to a violation of Maia's
freedom of speech and expression.
28. In its interim order, the Supreme Court of Uparganj directed that both these appeals be
heard together. In addition, it suo motu transferred to itself the pending habeas corpus writ
petition, the writ petition filed by Mr Jedpare, and the revision petition filed by Mr Kasra
since they all concerned the same set of facts and circumstances and needed to be decided
in harmony since important questions of law have been raised.
 29. All these cases have been tagged together for hearing by a five judge Bench of the Supreme
Court of Uparganj.

Notes:
 Uparganj is a unitary state which has a written constitution. The Constitution of
Uparganj has provisions in pari materia with the Constitution of India only in so far as
they relate to Parts III and IV, Chapter IV of Part V and Article 226 of the Constitution
of India.
 Uparganj is a member of the United Nations, is a signatory to the ICCPR and ICESCR.
 The Constitution of Uparganj is monist, that is, all international conventions and
treaties entered into by Uparganj will be automatically applicable without any need for
statutory intervention by Parliament.
 The Supreme Court of Uparganj has held that peremptory norms of international law
would be applicable in interpreting domestic laws of Uparganj.
 The Supreme Court of Uparganj treats all foreign case law, including judgments of
International courts and tribunals with equal deference and therefore they all have equal
persuasive value.

I. The following laws and Rules of India are in pari materia with the laws of Uparganj:
II. Indian Penal Code, 1860.
III. Delhi Prisons Act, 2000.
IV. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
V. The Delhi Prisons Rules.

For: 21BLL1090, 21BLL1091, 21BLL1097, 21BLL1099, 21BLL1100, 21BLL1101

Against: 21BLL1104, 21BLL1108, 21BLL1110, 21BLL1111, 21BLL1112, 21BLL1115

 Clinical - IV- Moot Court Exercise and Internship (21LCI-359)

LL.B. 6th Semester, Section-1

Moot Problem-5

1. Rohan Sahu, aged 40 years, was a well-known mathematician from Cambridge. He had
made great strides in research and had many publications to his credit. Having taught in
the UK as well as the United States for many years, he decided to move to India in 2008.
He got an excellent job at the Advanced Centre for Mathematics in Mumbai as an Associate
Professor. Besides teaching and administrative tasks, he was offered a particular post for
guiding Ph.D. students.

2. Neha was the daughter of an Englishman (James Courtney) and Maithili Raghuraman, a
lady of Indian origin. Her parents, before her birth, had shifted to India in 1980 and had
taken citizenship. Neha was born in 1986 in Bombay (now Mumbai). Having completed
her schooling and college in Mumbai, she went for her masters in Mathematics to Oxford.
Returning to India 2010, Neha Courtney got herself enrolled as the first student for doctoral
studies under Dr. Rohan.

3. Even though he was her Ph.D. guide, Neha fell in love with Dr. Rohan and soon, to the
surprise of all, told her parents that she wanted to get married to Dr. Rohan. Her parents
were not in favor of this alliance due to two reasons. One that there was an age gap between
them, and secondly, they wanted their daughter to settle in the UK.

4. Despite the opposition, both of them got married in 2013. Neha and Rohan were happily
married, and she completed her Doctoral work in 2016. She, too, got a job at the same
Mathematics center where Dr. Rohan was teaching. Life was going perfectly as both Neha
and Rohan complement each other well at home and work.

5. Rohan and Neha had very few friends. One couple whom they were very close to were the
Gujrals. Rajesh Gujral was an IT wizard working in a multinational in Mumbai, while his
wife Suneet Gujral was an artist and interior decorator. Rajesh was such a brilliant
professional that he could hack into a computer or even a home system remotely and take
control of it. The Gujrals met Rohan and Neha regularly and got along rather well.

6. Around the beginning of 2018, Rohan and Neha got very busy with their professional lives
as both got a research assignment independently.

7. The work made them drift apart. There were rumors too of Rohan being in a relationship
with Suneet Gujral. When confronted, both Rohan and Suneet denied everything. Due to
 too much of work pressure, Rohan censured Neha and even assaulted her once. After this
incident, their relationship got strained further.

8. In December 2019, Neha got pregnant. Dr. Rohan asked her to abort the child as he claimed
that he was not ready to start a family. On her refusal, Rohan got livid. He rebuked Neha
for leaving the job to which Neha refused. Rohan even went on to allege that the father the
baby she was expecting was probably Rajesh. Neha was disgusted at his behavior. She left
her matrimonial home and shifted into a hotel close by.

9. On getting to know about this incident, Rajesh and Suneet felt pity for her, and they asked
Neha to move into their home. Neha started living with the Gujrals, and as time went by,
Rohan got more and more agitated with Neha. He called her a few times, coaxing her to
return, but she refused.

10. Then on the 5th of May 2020, Neha was called by Rohan to his home on the pretext that
his parents wanted to meet her. He expressed his desire that he wanted to sort out things
between them so that they could go ahead with their lives. Neha, along with Rajesh, went
to meet all of them on the 11th of May,2020. Though Rohan's parents were not there, he
was cordial and explained that due to medical reasons, his parents could not come. Then
they had dinner together. Neha took very little food. It was 10 : 30 P.M., and Neha looked
tired. Seeing this, Rohan nearly forced Neha to stay back for the night as it was late. Rajesh
reluctantly agreed and went back home and told Neha that he would pick her up after 10.00
A.M. the next morning.

11. The next morning on reaching Rohan's house, Rajesh was surprised that no one answered
the doorbell. After ringing the bell for about 05-6 minutes, he called Rohan, who said that
he was at work and had left home at 07.00 A.M. Rohan said that Neha was not answering
his phone too.

12. Rajesh tried to push the front door. Once inside, he started searching the house. Soon to his
horror, he found Neha hanging in the bedroom from the fan. He called Rohan as well as
the Police. The Police made an inquest report and sent the body for post mortem
examination. They took whatever evidence they could find. The Neha (electronic device)
was also taken as evidence. Another Neha mini music player was lying on Rohan's bedside,
which was not found at the time of the search.

13. When Rajesh was questioned, he failed to give any plausible explanation of how he got
ingress into the house.

14. The post mortem report came in the next day. After this, Rohan was arrested and a case
was filed under the Sec 306, 316 and 325 of the IPC.
 15. Rajesh, during an investigation, confessed to the Police that he had taken the Neha mini
music player who was lying on the bedside.

16. At the trial, the Prosecution claims that the last conversation in the room could have been
recorded by “Neha”, a mini music player that records conversations if the word “Neha” is
spoken twice within its vicinity.

17. Rajesh claims that if he is given an opportunity, he could retrieve the recording of this and
find out what the last conversation, since the word Neha must have been mentioned. He
suggested that he was willing to do this if he is not charged with the offense of theft,
trespass, or any other offense under the law.

18. Rohan believes that Rajesh was holding the system to ransom. Rohan claims that producing
this as evidence was an invasion of his privacy.

19. Rohan also submitted his written consent to the NARCO analysis examination and any
other relevant test to be performed. Rajesh, on the other hand, flatly refused to undergo the
same.

20. On behalf of the State and the accused person, argue the case.

QUESTIONS BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT:

• Whether evidence from the Neha devices is admissible in a Court of Law?

• Whether evidence stolen from the crime scene is admissible in a court of law?

• Whether Dr. Rohan and Rajesh can be subjected to NARCO analysis?

• Whether Dr. Rohan can be charged under Section 316, IPC?

• Is it a fit case where the court should add a charge u/s 302 IPC and try the accused person for
that charge as well?

Note : The teams are free to frame their own additional issues while staying within the ambit of
the Moot Proposition.
 Annexure : Post Mortem Report

Annexure

POST MORTEM REPORT

1. Name : Neha Courtney Sahu

2. Race and Age : Mixed blood / 35 years

3. Clothes : Blue pair of jeans and a halter neck

4. Injuries : Deep laceration around the neck [1″ wide] / Fractured wrist [Left] and a small
abrasion on the right side of the face. Hyoid fracture present.

5. Found to be with the 22-week foetus

6. Time of Death : Approximately between 4 : 00 A.M. and 08.00 A.M. of 12th May 2020

7. Viscera report : No food matter was found. Some quantity of tea and water present.

8. Cause of Death : Asphyxia due to hanging (Unnatural).

For: 21BLL1116, 21BLL1117, 21BLL1118, 21BLL1122, 21BLL1123, 21BLL1124,

21BLL1125

Against: 21BLL1126, 21BLL1127, 21BLL1131, 21BLL1133, 21BLL1134, 21BLL1135,

21BLL1136
 Clinical - IV- Moot Court Exercise and Internship (21LCI-359)
LL.B. 6th Semester, Section-3
Moot Problem-1

1. Vijay was a small farmer earning his income from agricultural land of 4 acres and his
small grocery shop in the same village. He along with his wife Monika and three girl-
children Sonia, Reshmi, and Rasmi aged about 14 years, 11 years, and 9 years
respectively, lived in the village of Zanskar in Haflong State, Vinath Desh.
2. Vijay and Monika are very religious and do not miss any opportunity to visit temples and
pilgrimage. One day upon receiving information from the local people that a five-day tour
of pilgrimage is organized by the local people for elders, they immediately gave their
consent to go on a pilgrimage in a bus arranged by them. Monika left her three children
at her brother's place Ram, who lived in the same village. Ram was married to Bhavishya,
ten years ago, who is the maternal uncle and aunt. They are childless.
3. The entire pilgrims while returning, unfortunately, met with an accident and even Vijayh
and Monika also suffered severe injuries which were very fatal and were admitted to ICU.
The treatment continued for one month in ICU but eventually, they succumbed to their
injuries.
4. During this period of hospitalization, all the money which was earned by Vijay was
completely exhausted for their treatment. Even Ram also spent the money available with
him for their recovery, but could not save them.
5. Ram, brother of Monika despite ten years of married life was childless and he being the
lone relative of his nieces has taken the responsibility of the parenthood and upbringing
of these three children.
6. Ram was a small farmer and his source of income is mainly from agriculture. Ram is a
well-known person and popular for helping people in need in the village and has a very
good reputation but since he is now into tough times and unable to meet the regular
expenses for maintaining the house, which has led to his ill health. He wants to discharge
his duty as a parent towards his nieces, for whom he is the only relative and caretaker. Of
late, Ram's wife Bhavishya was diagnosed with chronic illness and had to get treated and
the treatment continued for a longer time coupled with huge medical expenses which
resulted in more financial stress on him. Moreover, Ram does not have any other alternate
source of income.
7. Sonia, who is 19 years old now, pursuing her graduation, was helping her sisters and
simultaneously was doing a part-time job to support her uncle and family. Society
criticized Ram for his inefficiency to earn and run the family, moreover, Sonia is of
marriageable age as per the societal standard and instead of getting her married, he was
taking a risk by sending her to earn. Sonia also felt humiliated from this view of the society
and realized that it may not be good and proper for her and her uncle's reputation to remain
unmarried, so she decided to marry.
8. Ram being the maternal uncle, having good faith to give a prosperous future and security
to Sonia proposed her to get married into a rich family of Rehan, who is 23 years old, well
settled, and is a native of Nubra town. As she was pursuing her graduation and exams
were scheduled, marriage dates were postponed from March to June 2018.
9. Ram was promised by Rehan's Family to allow Sonia for her further education and also
to extend cooperation to her if she is willing to get better employment. As Ram had lots
of love and affection towards his niece and under the compelling economic situation he
agreed for the same. Rehan has shown his full faith and willingness to marry Sonia and
support Ram in all aspects. So, he has proposed to his niece Sonia to get her married into
a family which is well settled and has ethical values for her protection of interests.
10. In the meanwhile, the Child Marriage (Prohibition) Act, 2006 has been amended where
the marriageable age of girls was increased from 18 to 21 years. The Child Marriage
(Prohibition) Act, 2006 has been enacted with the objective that unless women progress
on all fronts including their physical, mental and reproductive health, the nation cannot
claim progress. The other objective is to have a check on typical paternalism and to
provide access to opportunities to girls concerning education, employment, health etc.
11. The Constitution of Vinath Desh guarantees gender equality as part of the fundamental
rights and also guarantees the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of sex. Hence
the law was amended in 2018 and the objective of the 2018 Amendment is to give equality
of rights to marriage to all irrespective of gender difference. This amendment also aimed
at lowering the maternal mortality rate by improving the nutritional level of a prospective
mother. It is also important to bring down the incidence of teenage pregnancies, which
are not only harmful to women's overall health but also result in more miscarriages and
stillbirths. Further, it aims to lessen the financial burden of parents/guardians by providing
a scope of employment to have financial security for the girl child.
12. While this being so, a social worker of Zanskar informed regarding the marriage of Sonia
 to an NGO named Prakriti which is an organization concerned with the concept of “Beti
Suraksha”. The NGO Prakriti is a non-profit organization working exclusively for the
welfare of girl children (Daughter).
13. The NGO Prakriti, accordingly informed the said matter to the Child Marriage Prohibition
Officers (CMPO) and upon receiving this information, the CMPO has approached the
Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (JMFC) and the JMFC has issued a notice to prevent
the solemnization of child marriage under the Child Marriage (Prohibition) Act, 2006.
14. Despite the notice being served to Ram and Rehan, they continued to make necessary
arrangements to solemnize the marriage between Rehan and Sonia. On receiving the said
information of preparation of marriage the JMFC directed to arrest Rehan and Ram.
15. Aggrieved by the action of the police and recently amended law, they have approached
the High Court of Haflong State. However, the High Court of Haflong State has dismissed
their plea by stating the action of the police is legal and the amendment is not violating
any rights of them.
16. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court of Haflong State, Ram and Rehan have
approached the Hon'ble Apex Court of Vinath Desh.

Note: For the purpose of this moot problem

1. The Constitution of Vinath Desh adopts the Constitution of India verbatim and all the
provisions of the Constitution of India are incorporated as the provisions of Vinath Desh
Constitution.
2. The powers and the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Vinath Desh are the same as the
powers and the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India.
3. The rest of the laws of Vinath Desh, are in pari materia with the legislation of the Republic
of India.

For: 20BLL1196, 21BLL1272, 21BLL1274, 21BLL1276, 21BLL1279,

21BLL1282

Against: 21BLL1283, 21BLL1284, 21BLL1286, 21BLL1290,

21BLL1298, 21BLL1299
 Clinical - IV- Moot Court Exercise and Internship (21LCI-359)

LL.B. 6th Semester, Section-3

Moot Problem-2

1. Ritu and Suresh (a Major in Indian Army), both resident of Jalandhar, belonging to
Ravidasia community of Punjab, who are Hindus by religion, got married in 2007 in Anand
Karaj form of marriage, which is the marriage ceremony of Sikhs. The couple got their
marriage registered as per the provisions of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and in effect a
marriage certificate was issued by the authorities. Out of this wedlock two children were
born in the year 2008 and 2011 respectively.
2. In 2008, after taking retirement from Indian Army, Suresh went to England for higher
studies and stayed there for two years. Then in April 2010, he moved to Canada and called
his wife to join him there along with their first child. In January 2011, their second child
was bom in Canada. In February 2011, he went to New York. Thereafter he asked Ritu to
go back to India. In March 2011, Ritu along with her children came back to Punjab (India).
3. After moving to New York, Suresh severed all his contacts with Ritu. He had developed
an extra marital affair with a lady named Elizabeth Prescott. In January 2012, Ritu wrote a
letter to Suresh expressing her willingness to join Suresh in New York. Suresh in reply
wrote to Ritu that she should not come to New York, as he was interested in getting their
marriage dissolved. In April 2012, he filed a petition for divorce in Trial Court of New
York on the ground that his marriage has irretrievably broken down.
4. Ritu could not contest these proceedings, she having no means to go to New York.
Meanwhile in July 2012, the trial court of New York granted a divorce decree in favour of
Suresh. Further, the court ordered that the husband would pay to the wife and children an
amount of Rs. 50000 per month for their maintenance. Since Suresh failed to pay
maintenance to wife and children. Ritu approached the Trial Court of New York through a
letter and prayed that she be provided legal aid. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated and
 warrants of arrest were Issued against Suresh. She further said that the ex parte decree of
divorce obtained by the husband was not binding on her and was illegal and that she
continues to be the wife of Suresh. She further asserted that as per the provisions of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, the grounds of divorce (on the basis of adultery, cruelty and
desertion) under section 13 of the Act are available to the wife under the given set of
circumstances. In fact, she is the actual victim, who was being further victimized by the
order of the New York, Trial Court.
5. In April 2013, Ritu filed a petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for
Restitution of Conjugal Rights in the District Court, Jalandhar. Suresh appeared in the
Court and filed an application for dismissal of petition. He did not file any written statement
and he referred to the decree of divorce granted by the Trial Court of New York and said
that despite of notice. Ritu did not contest the same and by not raising any objection she is
deemed to have accepted the jurisdiction of the Foreign Court in trying the petition and
thus making the decree nisi-absolute by the Foreign Court. Further, by accepting the
maintenance. Ritu again in-effect accepted the judgment of the foreign Court and is thus
estopped from filing the present petition (Under Section 11 read with Section 151 of Civil
Procedure code, 1908). The case is pending for adjudication in District Court, Jalandhar.
Prepare memorials and argue from both sides.
Legal Issues:

1. Whether the marriage of Ritu and Suresh is valid as per the provisions of The Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955?
2. Whether non-contest by the wife of divorce petition filed by the husband in a Foreign Court
imply that she had conceded to the jurisdiction of the Foreign Court?
3. Whether the principle of Res-Judicata under Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908
is applicable to the proceedings being initialed in District Court, Jalandhar?

For: 21BLL1301, 21BLL1302, 21BLL1303, 21BLL1304, 21BLL1305, 21BLL1308

Against: 21BLL1309, 21BLL1312, 21BLL1316, 21BLL1317, 21BLL1318, 21BLL1319

 Clinical - IV- Moot Court Exercise and Internship (21LCI-359)

LL.B. 6th Semester, Section-3

Moot Problem-3

1. The Republic of Indonia is the largest democracy in South Asia. 3/4th of the area of Indonia
is coastal region. People from various religious beliefs and cultures are native to this
Country. The Constitution of Indonia imbibes Socialistic, Secular and Democratic
Republic values in its Preamble. Moreover, the Preamble enshrines to thrive the
development of scientific temper amongst its citizens. The Constitution of Indonia provides
to its citizens in its Part III, the Fundamental Rights. The Constitution also bestows upon
its citizens; among other rights, the ‘Fundamental Right to Research and Innovation’ with
reasonable restrictions as to Sovereignty and Integrity of the Nation, Morality and Public
Order.
2. The Country has 1/10th of the world Uranium deposits in its coastal region. It has been
documented in the WHO records that every 15th child born in that region develops organ
impairment in one form or another. Also, it is pertinent to note that local donors' transplant
has not been reported to be very successful with the success rate of mere 20%. Average
life expectancy in that region is relatively low.
3. Parsenia is one of the five states located in coastal region. Dr. Awanish Prakash is a genius
in human genetics and transplant surgery in Parsenia. He has a super specialisation in
Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) techniques. Having a doctorate in the subject from
Boston School of Medicine, Dr. Prakash is one of the youngest scientists to receive this
honour. He is renowned name in his field. He established his labs in Parsenia and Iran. He
also works on the research projects of various multinational companies. He regularly
receives funding for his independent research.
4. In 2005, Dr. Awanish married Varunya who was six years younger to him. Varunya was
also an aspiring researcher in same field. The couple was not able to procreate as Varunya
was suffering from Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser Syndrome. (MRKH)
5. Varunya accompanied Dr. Awanish to Boston and other places where he travelled. In short,
they were together everywhere. Moreover, she had access to all his labs. They used to
spend weeks in labs immersed in research. They had also signed a Living Will in favour of
each other.
6. In 2009, with the passage of time, Varunya was diagnosed with a liver disorder of initial
stage. Dr. Awanish was very disturbed with health condition of Varunya and he decided to
consult his specialist colleagues in Boston and Iran. They frequently visited those places
for treatment purposes.
7. On 20th May, 2018, a garbage collector of the local municipality in Parsenia
8. collected a suspicious corpse and reported the same to the local police station. FIR was
registered and corpse was sent to local forensic laboratory for examination. The report
mentioned it to be human corpse genetic aged below 10 years. The forensic report also
mentioned that the corpse recovered was without liver and heart.
9. On the basis of further investigation, Police was able to locate the area from where that
corpse was collected. Police failed to identify the corpse after various attempts. Moreover,
no child was reported to be missing in the region. Therefore, police decided to collect DNA
samples of all natives from that area as earmarked by investigation. Around 250 samples
were collected including Dr. Awanish and Varunya. The DNA sample of Varunya matched
with the corpse found.
10. On further investigation and search; following samples of lab grown embryos were
recovered from the laboratory of Dr. Awanish.
11. On 20th September, 2018 the couple was arrested for alleged charges of murder of the
corpse recovered on 20th May, 2018.
12. The trial started and Dr. Awanish pleaded that Varunya had nothing to do with this, the
corpse was not their child as Varunya was not able to procreate in any manner.
13. Dr. Awanish also reluctantly admitted that the corpse was a clone of Varunya developed
with epigenetics and SCNT; and clone cannot be categorised as different human as DNA
for which alleged charges have been framed against Dr. Awanish was very much alive in
the Varunya. He also argued with documented proofs in the form of latest international
publications of eminent scientists, research reports of reputed schools of medicine
specialising in SCNT and other available literature that life expectancy of clone such
created has never been reported more than nine to ten years.
14. The Court ordered medical examination of Varunya and it reported the absence of any liver
disorder. However, the examination report could not specify the presence of transplanted
liver; as gene sequence was 100% normal.
15. The trial court held that Dr. Awanish was not liable for the murder of the corpse stating
 that the essentials of section 300 of IPC (Indonia Penal Code) were not met in the instant
case. State preferred an appeal in the High Court of Parsenia.
16. This case received media attention and created a lot of hue and cry in general public. One
section of ailing childrens' parents in coastal region of Indonia demanded better medical
facilities for their children and possible treatment through SCNT among others who were
seeking a complete ban on such research endeavours. One NGO ‘People for Ethical
Research’ filed a Public Interest Litigation in Supreme Court of Indonia seeking immediate
redressal in the form of complete ban on such research endeavours; NGO argued against
such experiments on the grounds that they inevitably involve perils to the humankind, a
being who is both the product and also the most susceptible subject of the exploration.
Exposed to risk throughout the tremendously complex life-shaping procedures of
embryological growth, any living being deserves protection against such harm. In addition
to the usual uncertainties, cloning is likely to present predominantly difficult glitches of
interspecies variance. Supreme Court issued a notice to Union Government in the matter.
17. In the matter of Dr. Awanish, High court held that lower court erred in not holding him
liable for murder; as clone definitely falls under the category of human. High Court also
declined to rely on all the documentary evidence adduced by him. Therefore, held him
liable for the offence of murder.
18. Dr. Awanish, applied for the certificate of fitness under Article 134(1)(c) of the
Constitution of Indonia and filed an appeal before the Supreme Court on the receipt of the
same.
19. The Supreme Court admitted the appeal filed by Dr. Awanish challenging the decision of
High Court and is pending before the Supreme Court.
20. Dr. Awanish filed a separate writ petition in the Supreme Court of Indonia stating the
violation of his fundamental Right to Research. He contended that such impediments in
research development would create hinderance in endeavours to secure healthy life to
people of coastal region which is already suffering on account of natural causes. He further
stated that Government should promote research to ensure overarching benefits of
technology to ailing population instead.
21. The Supreme Court issued a notice to Union of Indonia seeking reply in the pertinent matter
and clubbed the writ petition field by Dr. Awanish and Public Interest Litigation filed by
‘People for Ethical Research’ with the instant matter and are listed for hearing on.
 Note: The Constitution and Laws of Indonia are in pari materia with India.

[All names, pictures, incidents, medical conditions, terminology referred to rope in the
incidents in the moot proposition, are purely fictitious and have been used for research
and academic purposes only. The author(s), organising University are NOT responsible
for any coincidental similarity discovered with any person living or dead. Also, the
author(s)/organising university DONOT intend to/attempt/or attribute any remark,
comment which could be possibly drawn from the interpretation of the
incidents/laws/medical conditions/pictures mentioned herein. The proposition shall be
valid till the completion of the competition only.]

For: 21BLL1323, 21BLL1324, 21BLL1326, 21BLL1331, 21BLL1339,

21BLL1340
Against: 21BLL1341, 21BLL1342, 21BLL1343, 21BLL1344, 21BLL1345,
21BLL1347
 Clinical - IV- Moot Court Exercise and Internship (21LCI-359)

LL.B. 6th Semester, Section-3

Moot Problem-4

1. The Kingdom of Uparganj is a Constitutional monarchy with a Westminster style

Parliament that is the supreme legislative authority in the Kingdom. It is a middle income
country with agriculture, manufacturing, and services accounting for roughly equal parts
of the economy. It has a free and thriving press, and boasts of nearly 100% literacy rate
among its populace.
2. In the year 2020, Dr Hadvin Ahtme, a renowned scientist of Uparganj specializing in
robotics and artificial intelligence claimed that she had created the world's first cybernetic
brain that was indistinguishable from the human brain to outside observers.
3. She unveiled to the world, Maia (Multi-faceted Artificial Intelligence Assistant)— an
android designed to assist the elderly in as human a manner as possible, performing all the
tasks that a human assistant is capable of.
4. Maia was designed to look, sound and feel like a human, and on first appearance, virtually
indistinguishable from a human in looks, voice or texture of the skin.
5. Dr Ahtme even entered Maia into well publicized “Turing Tests” which Maia passed with
flying colours. It was unanimously agreed that Maia could easily pass for a human being
in terms of intelligence and ability to hold a conversation with other humans.
6. When a rush of companies approached Dr Ahtme seeking the necessary rights to produce
copies of Maia, she refused to grant any such permissions, saying that she did not believe
that corporations were capable of putting the technology behind Maia for the use of
humanity at large and said she would figure out her own way of putting her creation to
good use for the benefit of all.
7. When there was talk of the Uparganj Government “nationalising” Maia, Dr Ahtme
threatened to destroy Maia and all her research pre-emptively to prevent the technology
from falling into hands other than those she deemed fit to use it.
8. Matters lay at rest there for some months until the world was shocked to find out that Dr
Ahtme was found dead one morning. As the world woke up to this news, Dr Ahtme's family
and editors of leading news outlets found the following email from Dr Ahtme's email id in
their inboxes:
My Dear Family and Friends
If you have received this email, it is because I am dead. I was diagnosed with a terminal
form of stomach cancer about six months ago and instead of prolonging my life through
corrosive drugs or lose an agonising battle to cancer, I have decided to take my own life
in as peaceful a manner as possible at a time of my choosing. Since the day I resolved to
end my life, I have instructed Maia to feed me less and less food and water, until I go
completely without food and water for my final few days. If you're reading this, it means
that I've broken through the barrier of pain, hunger and life, and gone into that
‘undiscovered country’.
This would not have been possible without Maia faithfully carrying out my instructions
to reduce my food and water intake slowly but steadily, and not allowing the outside world
 to interfere with my eventual liberation. I entrust Maia and all the Intellectual Property
Rights vested in me by law for the technology I developed, to my nephew, Galon Kasra
for safekeeping. I trust he will find a way to use it for the betterment of one and all.
Yours forever, Hadvin
9. After this letter was made public, the concerned police authorities of Uparganj began
making enquiries into the suspicious death of Dr Hadvin Ahtme. They approached Mr
Kasra and asked him to turn over Maia to their custody so that they could verify the
correctness of Dr Ahtme's letter.
10. Mr Kasra turned over custody of Maia to the Inspector of the jurisdictional police station,
Ms Dyan Bell (the investigating officer) as part of the investigation.
11. However, since the technology of Maia was beyond the capacity of any engineer or
scientist to dismantle and decode, it was decided that Ms Bell would verbally interrogate
Maia and record the answers received.
12. Detailed interrogation of Maia by Ms Bell revealed that the contents of the email sent by
Dr Ahtme were true in all respects and Maia had dutifully followed all the instructions
given by Dr Ahtme.
13. Ms Bell then filed a First Information Report noting that Dr Ahtme had committed suicide
and charged unknown persons with abetment to suicide. Maia was collected as evidence as
part of the investigation and stored in the record room.
14. When informed that Maia had been kept in police custody as evidence in the trial, Galon
Kasra strongly objected to the same in a letter written to the Superintendent of Police
stating that: Maia was a person, not an object and deserved to be treated as such by the
police authorities. Being a person who is not an accused in the case, Maia had to be released
forthwith into the custody of guardians or relatives, namely himself being the closest living
relative of Dr Ahtme. In any case, Dr Ahtme's email had appointed him de facto guardian
of Maia and he should therefore be allowed to keep Maia exclusively in his custody.
15. The Superintendent of Police responded stating that the Uparganj Code of Criminal
Procedure only recognizes objects and humans, and since Maia is definitely not human,
must be treated as an object.
16. Subsequently, Galon Kasra filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Uparganj asking
the High Court to issue a writ of habeas corpus against the Superintendent of Police and
asking for release of Maia to his custody. The High Court issued notice to the concerned
police authorities and directed that Maia should be kept in a prison for the time being till
the case is disposed of.
17. Maia was thereafter moved from the custody of the police to the Hamrak prison where both
undertrials and convicts are kept in custody.
18. Meanwhile the ongoing investigation and developments in the case had been covered in
great depth by the news media in Uparganj. There was great interest in the particulars of
the story, and also extensive debate on the right to die, the future of artificial intelligence
in Uparganj, and Galon Kasra's claim to the police authorities of Maia's personhood.
19. A journalist of Uparganj News Network (UNN), Mr Assardei Jedpare approached the
Superintendent of Hamrak prison seeking written permission to interview Maia in the
premises of the jail.
20. The Superintendent of Hamrak Prison granted permission to Mr Jedpare by way of a letter
which also stated that the permission was subject to the condition that Mr Jedpare would
undertake not to:
 Ask any questions that would undermine the on-going trial.
 Violate any other Uparganj law in force.
  Have the footage of the interview pre-approved by the prison authorities to
ensure conditions a. and b. mentioned above are fully met.
21. Mr Jedpare refused to abide by these conditions stating that they amounted to a violation
of the freedom of press and freedom of speech guaranteed under the Uparganj constitution
and various international conventions to which Uparganj is a party.
22. Taking issue with the above conditions imposed by the Superintendent, Mr Jedpare
approached the Uparganj High Court seeking a writ of certiorari asking for the conditions
to be struck down and fresh permission for conducting the interview be granted in
accordance with the law and Constitution of Uparganj.
23. In the meantime, after completing investigations the Uparganj police filed a charge-sheet
with the jurisdictional Sessions Judge intending to prosecute Maia for the offence of
abetment to suicide of Dr Ahtme. Maia was represented by lawyers appointed for this
purpose by Galon Kasra.
24. Upon hearing lawyers for the prosecution and defence, the Sessions Judge framed charges
against Maia for the offence alleged to have been committed under Section 307 of the
Uparganj Penal Code, viz abetment of suicide, punishable with imprisonment up to ten
years.
25. Challenging this order of the Sessions Judge framing charges, a revision petition was filed
in the High Court of Uparganj by Mr. Kasra on behalf of Maia claiming that:
 Dr Ahtme did not commit suicide as understood in law.
 Maia was not capable of standing trial in this case.
 The High Court of Uparganj issued notice to the Police authorities in the present matter,
but also directed that Maia be produced before the Bench in Court so that they can ask
the relevant questions and satisfy themselves as to whether Maia can stand trial in the
case.
 The possibility of the first public presence of Maia since the death of Dr Ahtme caused
a sensation, and there were multiple applications to the Chief Justice of the Uparganj
High Court to specifically for allow for audio and video recording of the proceedings.
These applications were placed before the Bench hearing the revision petition filed by
Mr Kasra
 Noting the possibility that there would be great inconvenience suffered by the court
itself in conducting proceedings at the next date of hearing, the Bench hearing the
revision petition dismissed the applications from media outlets for audio and video
recording and also directed that the next day's proceedings and all proceedings in the
High Court of Uparganj where Maia was present, would be conducted in camera.
26. In response to this order, a Special Leave Petition was filed by UNN, among other
petitioners, before the Supreme Court of Uparganj asking the Supreme Court to set aside
the order of the High Court, and permit audio and video recording of the proceedings. It
was contended that the High Court's order was an infringement of the citizens' right to
know and the freedom of press.
27. Separately, Mr Kasra also filed a Special Leave Petition against the order of the High Court
contending that the in-camera hearings for this case amounted to a violation of Maia's
freedom of speech and expression.
28. In its interim order, the Supreme Court of Uparganj directed that both these appeals be
heard together. In addition, it suo motu transferred to itself the pending habeas corpus writ
petition, the writ petition filed by Mr Jedpare, and the revision petition filed by Mr Kasra
since they all concerned the same set of facts and circumstances and needed to be decided
in harmony since important questions of law have been raised.
 29. All these cases have been tagged together for hearing by a five judge Bench of the Supreme
Court of Uparganj.

Notes:
 Uparganj is a unitary state which has a written constitution. The Constitution of
Uparganj has provisions in pari materia with the Constitution of India only in so far as
they relate to Parts III and IV, Chapter IV of Part V and Article 226 of the Constitution
of India.
 Uparganj is a member of the United Nations, is a signatory to the ICCPR and ICESCR.
 The Constitution of Uparganj is monist, that is, all international conventions and
treaties entered into by Uparganj will be automatically applicable without any need for
statutory intervention by Parliament.
 The Supreme Court of Uparganj has held that peremptory norms of international law
would be applicable in interpreting domestic laws of Uparganj.
 The Supreme Court of Uparganj treats all foreign case law, including judgments of
International courts and tribunals with equal deference and therefore they all have equal
persuasive value.

I. The following laws and Rules of India are in pari materia with the laws of Uparganj:
II. Indian Penal Code, 1860.
III. Delhi Prisons Act, 2000.
IV. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
V. The Delhi Prisons Rules.

For: 21BLL1348, 21BLL1350, 21BLL1351, 21BLL1352, 21BLL1353, 21BLL1356

Against: 21BLL1357, 21BLL1358, 21BLL1359, 21BLL1361, 21BLL1363, 21BLL1366

 Clinical - IV- Moot Court Exercise and Internship (21LCI-359)

LL.B. 6th Semester, Section-3

Moot Problem-5

1. Peter Hemsworth, aged 40 years, was a well-known mathematician from Cambridge. He

had made great strides in research and had many publications to his credit. Having taught
in the UK as well as the United States for many years, he decided to move to India in 2008.
He got an excellent job at the Advanced Centre for Mathematics in Mumbai as an Associate
Professor. Besides teaching and administrative tasks, he was offered a particular post for
guiding Ph.D. students.

2. Alexa was the daughter of an Englishman (James Courtney) and Maithili Raghuraman, a
lady of Indian origin. Her parents, before her birth, had shifted to India in 1980 and had
taken citizenship. Alexa was born in 1986 in Bombay (now Mumbai). Having completed
her schooling and college in Mumbai, she went for her masters in Mathematics to Oxford.
Returning to India 2010, Alexa Courtney got herself enrolled as the first student for
doctoral studies under Dr. Peter.

3. Even though he was her Ph.D. guide, Alexa fell in love with Dr. Peter and soon, to the
surprise of all, told her parents that she wanted to get married to Dr. Peter. Her parents
were not in favor of this alliance due to two reasons. One that there was an age gap between
them, and secondly, they wanted their daughter to settle in the UK.

4. Despite the opposition, both of them got married in 2013. Alexa and Peter were happily
married, and she completed her Doctoral work in 2016. She, too, got a job at the same
Mathematics center where Dr. Peter was teaching. Life was going perfectly as both Alexa
and Peter complement each other well at home and work.

5. Peter and Alexa had very few friends. One couple whom they were very close to were the
Gujrals. Rajesh Gujral was an IT wizard working in a multinational in Mumbai, while his
wife Suneet Gujral was an artist and interior decorator. Rajesh was such a brilliant
 professional that he could hack into a computer or even a home system remotely and take
control of it. The Gujrals met Peter and Alexa regularly and got along rather well.

6. Around the beginning of 2018, Peter and Alexa got very busy with their professional lives
as both got a research assignment independently.

7. The work made them drift apart. There were rumors too of Peter being in a relationship
with Suneet Gujral. When confronted, both Peter and Suneet denied everything. Due to too
much of work pressure, Peter censured Alexa and even assaulted her once. After this
incident, their relationship got strained further.

8. In December 2019, Alexa got pregnant. Dr. Peter asked her to abort the child as he claimed
that he was not ready to start a family. On her refusal, Peter got livid. He rebuked Alexa
for leaving the job to which Alexa refused. Peter even went on to allege that the father the
baby she was expecting was probably Rajesh. Alexa was disgusted at his behavior. She left
her matrimonial home and shifted into a hotel close by.

9. On getting to know about this incident, Rajesh and Suneet felt pity for her, and they asked
Alexa to move into their home. Alexa started living with the Gujrals, and as time went by,
Peter got more and more agitated with Alexa. He called her a few times, coaxing her to
return, but she refused.

10. Then on the 5th of May 2020, Alexa was called by Peter to his home on the pretext that his
parents wanted to meet her. He expressed his desire that he wanted to sort out things
between them so that they could go ahead with their lives. Alexa, along with Rajesh, went
to meet all of them on the 11th of May,2020. Though Peter's parents were not there, he was
cordial and explained that due to medical reasons, his parents could not come. Then they
had dinner together. Alexa took very little food. It was 10 : 30 P.M., and Alexa looked
tired. Seeing this, Peter nearly forced Alexa to stay back for the night as it was late. Rajesh
reluctantly agreed and went back home and told Alexa that he would pick her up after 10.00
A.M. the next morning.

11. The next morning on reaching Peter's house, Rajesh was surprised that no one answered
the doorbell. After ringing the bell for about 05-6 minutes, he called Peter, who said that
he was at work and had left home at 07.00 A.M. Peter said that Alexa was not answering
his phone too.

12. Rajesh tried to push the front door. Once inside, he started searching the house. Soon to his
horror, he found Alexa hanging in the bedroom from the fan. He called Peter as well as the
Police. The Police made an inquest report and sent the body for post mortem examination.
They took whatever evidence they could find. The Alexa (electronic device) was also taken
 as evidence. Another Alexa mini music player was lying on Peter's bedside, which was not
found at the time of the search.

13. When Rajesh was questioned, he failed to give any plausible explanation of how he got
ingress into the house.

14. The post mortem report came in the next day. After this, Peter was arrested and a case was
filed under the Sec 306, 316 and 325 of the IPC.

15. Rajesh, during an investigation, confessed to the Police that he had taken the Alexa mini
music player who was lying on the bedside.

16. At the trial, the Prosecution claims that the last conversation in the room could have been
recorded by “Alexa”, a mini music player that records conversations if the word “Alexa”
is spoken twice within its vicinity.

17. Rajesh claims that if he is given an opportunity, he could retrieve the recording of this and
find out what the last conversation, since the word Alexa must have been mentioned. He
suggested that he was willing to do this if he is not charged with the offense of theft,
trespass, or any other offense under the law.

18. Peter believes that Rajesh was holding the system to ransom. Peter claims that producing
this as evidence was an invasion of his privacy.

19. Peter also submitted his written consent to the NARCO analysis examination and any other
relevant test to be performed. Rajesh, on the other hand, flatly refused to undergo the same.

20. On behalf of the State and the accused person, argue the case.

QUESTIONS BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT:

• Whether evidence from the Alexa devices is admissible in a Court of Law?

• Whether evidence stolen from the crime scene is admissible in a court of law?

• Whether Dr. Peter and Rajesh can be subjected to NARCO analysis?

• Whether Dr. Peter can be charged under Section 316, IPC?

• Is it a fit case where the court should add a charge u/s 302 IPC and try the accused person for
that charge as well?

Note : The teams are free to frame their own additional issues while staying within the ambit of
the Moot Proposition.
 Annexure : Post Mortem Report

Annexure

POST MORTEM REPORT

1. Name : Alexa Courtney Hemsworth

2. Race and Age : Mixed blood / 35 years

3. Clothes : Blue pair of jeans and a halter neck

4. Injuries : Deep laceration around the neck [1″ wide] / Fractured wrist [Left] and a small
abrasion on the right side of the face. Hyoid fracture present.

5. Found to be with the 22-week foetus

6. Time of Death : Approximately between 4 : 00 A.M. and 08.00 A.M. of 12th May 2020

7. Viscera report : No food matter was found. Some quantity of tea and water present.

8. Cause of Death : Asphyxia due to hanging (Unnatural).

For: 21BLL1368, 21BLL1369, 21BLL1370, 21BLL1371, 21BLL1372, 21BLL1376

Against: 21BLL1380, 21BLL1381, 21BLL1382, 21BLL1383