Instruction for Students of V Year for Moot Court Examination

This is for the information of all the students of V year that the Schedule for Moot
Examination is as follows:-
1. Submission of Memorials for Moot Court Orals for V Year:1st May, 2023, till 04.00
pm at the examination branch.
2. In the groups the first roll no. is for speaker I who shall be Plaintiff /Petitioner/Ap-
plicant and the next roll no. against it is for speaker II who shall be the
defendant/defense/respondent. Each speaker will have 10 min to argue.The Memori-
als have to be prepared from one side only.
3. All the students are instructed to mail the soft copy of their memorial to the other
speaker. The print out of the mail forwarded has to be submitted to the Examination
Branch compulsorily. The Memorial submission shall not be accepted without the
Print Out.
4. In case of explanation or any discrepancy, kindly consult the coordinators. No
query regarding the moot proposition will be entertained after 22. April. 2023

BUSINESS LAWS

MOOT PROPOSITION

Mr Ashok, who is the Director of Ashoka Automotive Pvt Ltd. entered into a contract
on behalf of the company with ABZ Locomotives for 50 lakh rupees to buy machines
on 10.10.2021. As part of the performance a security cheque was submitted to the
ABZ locomotives by Mr Ashok on behalf of the company in capacity of being a di-
rector. The said cheque could only be presented in case the company failed to make
the payments on time. The said contract stating these terms was signed by both com-
panies on 10.11.2021. Mr Ashok retired from the company on 30.11.2018. Mr Alok
was appointed by the Ashoka automotive as the new director on 1.12.2021. On ac-
count of a faulty consignment received on 31.11.2021, the payments to ABZ locomo-
tive was stopped by Mr Alok. The ABZ submitted the cheque of 50 lakh son
12.12.2021 to the bank for payment of the said amount. The cheque was dishonored
on account of insufficient funds. They filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Ne-
gotiable Instruments Act 1882 against the two directors of the firm Ashoka Automo-
tive on 17.12.2021. Mr Ashok filed a complaint in the honorable High Court for
quashing of the criminal complaint on the ground that he is not liable.

Argue the case

Allotted to: 18221-18223, 18192-18032, 18034-18036, 18044-18050, 18053-18060

MOOT PROPOSITION
1. Elizabeth and Co was a very famous publishing house, which had thousand of
books to its credit. They recently launched themselves into online business and started
a blog where articles from the people working within the publishing house and out-
side could be published. The daughter of the director of the firm, Ms. Mona was al-
ready working in the publishing house since 2010. Lately Ms. Sweena joined the pub-
lishing house and apparently she was a very good friend of Ms. Mona and had a flair
for writing. She got lot of popularity not just because of her good writing but also be-
cause she was a friend of Ms. Mona.
2. Seeing her good work she was made the head of handling the blog and she was re-
sponsible for proof reading all the articles and information to see that they were not
copied before they were actually put on the blog. Ms. Sweena in order to attract more
readers floated many ideas but she could not convince the Director of the firm so she
approached Ms. Mona to help her out. She was working on the idea of starting a mo-
bile app where the e- books could be uploaded. Interested readers would give one-
time subscription fees and would get an opportunity to read the books online. She
wanted to discuss this with Ms. Mona and called her for dinner in the night. Ms.
Mona by this time was already jealous of the popularity that she had attained in the
firm.
3. Ms. Mona arrived at Ms. Sweena’s house and they had lot of discussion over the
dinner about how to attract more readers to their publishing house. Ms. Sweena did
not tell Ms. Mona about the mobile app idea she was about to float to the Direction of
the publishing house. Ms. Mona decided to help Ms. Sweena with some of the good
articles that were sent to be published in the Magazine she was heading in the same
Publishing House. The dinner went well and they parted on a good note.
4. Next day Ms. Mona sent 4 articles to Ms. Sweena to be published in her blog and
confirmed originality of the articles. Ms. Sweena had lot of faith on Ms. Mona and
published the article on her blog without checking the originality. Soon the articles
got viral and the four authors and the publishers of the article made her liable for pub-
lishing it without permission when the articles were already published in some other
magazine. To Ms. Sweena’s surprise when she was trying to deal with this matter an-
other matter came to light when one week after the incident a mobile app was
launched by Ms. Mona dealing with uploaded e- books.
5. Ms. Sweena was shocked with both the incidents and filed a complaint against Ms.
Mona and the Publishing House. The police along with Ms. Sweena raided the house
and office of Ms. Mona without warrant on the pretext that she should not destroy the
evidence and seized a mobile phone and a laptop.
6. Ms. Mona filed a case against the police authorities and Ms. Sweena for trespass.
And Ms. Sweena has already filed a case against Ms. Mona.
Allotted to: 18061-18063, 18065-18072, 18075-18076, 18084-18086,18090-18091

MOOT PROP

In the High Court of Allahabad

Ram and Others
V.
Loknath Associates

Ram, Mohan and Gita are the copyright owner of a famous book “derivations of grey”
and they have given the licence of the work to Sham, Rohan and Sita, which is subject
to territorial restrictions. Loknath associates used to purchase low price editions of
books from Sham, Rohan and Sita and offer them for sale on the websites to territo-
ries outside India i.e. the prescribed territory. The defendant had been involved in the
in the acts of selling the books from India and offering them for sale from India
through website and thereafter accepting the money and couriering the books to some
other territory. Ram, Mohan and Gita filed a suit in the High Court of Allahabad to
seek injunction to stop primary infringement of copyright with following issues:
1. Whether Allahabad High court is having jurisdiction over the case as purchases are
out of India?
2. How far the doctrine of exhaustion of rights and first sale is applicable here in this
case?
3. Do the plaintiffs have any privity of contract with the defendants?
4. Whether the relief of injunction sought amounts to trade barriers, which are an anti-
competitive, and unfair trade practice?
Allotted to:
18097-18100,18108-18111,18115-18123,18125-18128,18130-18132

MOOT PROP
Ambuja cements  company is a proprietorship firm engaged in the sale of cements and
had an amount of approximately Rs 5 crore outstanding against the company trikuta
agencies. Certain post-dated cheques signed by the authorized signatories of the com-
pany were issued to the Ambuja cements in discharge of the debts as were remaining
to be satisfied. However, out of the 117 cheques issued to the Ambuja cements, some
were dishonoured with an endorsement stating “mismatch of signature” to be the rea-
son of such dishonour. On receiving such endorsement, Ambuja cements, in compli-
ance with the statutory provisions as provided under the section, sent a notice to
Trikuta Agencies Company to issue fresh cheques in their favour. Trikuta company
cited the “change in the mandate” to be the reason of such dishonour and undertook to
issue fresh cheques on return of the dishonoured cheques and further on the precondi-
tion of settlement of the account. Nevertheless, the same remained unpaid by the com-
pany thus compelling Ambuja cements to take recourse to legal action as a last and fi-
nal resort under Section 138\142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Argue from both
the sides.
Allotted to:
18138-18142,18144-18149, 18151-18153, 18156-18168, 18194-18198,
MOOT PROP
Sudhir Benipal along with his wife Sonam Benipal, 21-year-old son Saurabh and 85-
year-old mother Mamta were travelling from India to Australia by Air India on 24 De-
cember 2017. Sudhir had booked all four tickets through the official portal of Air In-
dia and made payment through his credit card on 25 September 2017. While booking
their tickets on the online portal Sudhir had given complete details of his family mem-
bers. There was a specific request made by Sudhir that
his family shall be requiring a wheelchair.
On 24 December 2017, Sudhir along with his family members reached Airport just 2
hours before the departure time. The taxi driver left them near Gate No. 8 which was
meant only for the entry of Air India staff. When they were stopped by the Central In-
dustrial Security Force
staff, they had an argument. The tussle continued for more than 20 minutes. This is
when Saurabh fell sick and lay on the floor. Saurabh suffered from Down Syndrome,
autism and learning difficulties. He was suffering from diarrhoea and Sonam realised
that she needed to take him to the toilet to clean him up. Since he could not stand up,
Sonam made him lie on the ground and asked the Air India staff inside the terminal
for a wheelchair. But they asked them to check in first.

Saurabh kept lying there for more than 20 minutes. It was only after Sudhir, who was
a doctor, and Sonam screamed at the airline staff, one of them provided them with a
wheelchair after more than half-an-hour. The staff explained that the wheelchairs are
available only at Gate nos.
1 to 4 which are meant for entry of public. The family was quite upset and perturbed
by the entire incident. They got furious. Sonam took
the matter to social media. She wrote a post on her facebook which was liked, shared
and commented by many. Later on, a newspaper report was published on the basis of
her post. Now, Air India has filed a suit for defamation against Sonam. Argue the case
for Air India and Sonam.

Allotted to:
18200-18202, 18203-18204,18205-18210, 18211-18214, 18215-18220
CRIMINAL LAW MOOT PROBLEMS

Raman was a scrap dealer and was a resident of Model Town, Patiala. On 26 Decem-
ber 2022 a robbery took place in Model Town Patiala. The Police authorities sus-
pected the involvement of Raman in the alleged robbery. On 28 th December 2022 at
1:00 a.m. in the morning the Station House Officer of Police Station, Model Town
along with three other male constables forcefully entered into the house of Raman and
took Raman and his wife Neha who was Eight Months pregnant to the Police Station
for the interrogation. In the Police Station the police authorities for the purpose of in-
terrogation gave electric shocks at the private parts of Raman by using a car battery.
Seeing the condition of her husband Neha collapsed in the Police Station and she was
immediately taken to the Civil Hospital, Patiala where she delivered a still born child
and later on account of Medical complication Neha expired on 29 th December 2022.
On the same day Raman confessed of committing the robbery along with his other as-
sociates. An FIR was registered against Raman and some unknown person. During
this time the death of Neha was highlighted by the Media and on this basis ‘Astha’ a
local NGO filed a complaint before the Punjab State Human Rights Commission,
Chandigarh for alleged atrocities committed upon a female which resulted into the
death of Neha. It was contended that the Police authorities has grossly violated the ba-
sic Human Rights of Neha which resulted in her death. The NGO claim for registra-
tion of FIR against the delinquent police officials and claimed compensation for the
victim from State of Punjab. The Punjab State Human Rights Commission upon the
receipt of complaint immediately ordered for registration of FIR against the Police
Officers and directed the State Government to release and interim compensation of
Rs. 10 lacs in favour of Raman, husband of the victim. The State of Punjab challenge
the directions issued by Punjab State Human Rights Commission by filing a writ peti-
tion before Hon’ble High Court. It was inter-alia contended on behalf of State of Pun-
jab that Punjab State Human Rights Commission did not have the power and jurisdic-
tion to order registration of FIR. Moreover, the State could not be held liable for the
action of Police Officials. Also it was contended on behalf of State of Punjab that the
death was not an account of Police torture.

Argue the Case.

Allotted to:

17045-17066,17179-18002,18005-18008,18010-18011,18020-18024, 18012-18013

MOOT PROPOSITION
Shravan, a 18 year boy was puruing his bachelors from Government College, Patiala.
He met Gurdeep Singh, in his college and became friends with him. They both com-
pleted their graduation. Shravan then started working as an electrician with a local
shop. Gurdeep Singh went abroad to country, ‘Astra’ after completing his degree.

After some years of working there, Gurdeep asked his friend Shravan to come there.
Shravan went to an immigration agent named Ritender. Ritender was in the business
of sending people abroad. Gurdeep had recommended the name of Ritender as he too
had gone abroad through Ritender.
Ritender asked Sharavan to make arrangements for funds to the tune of 8 lakh rupees.
Sharavan spent all his savings and a small shop he had bought in order to start his
own business to raise the sum of 8 lakhs. Sharavan’s father was a retired goverbnment
employee. He did not want to send his son abroad. However, Sharavan forcefully sold
the shop which was bought from the Gratuity fund the father had received on his re-
tirement from the service. Sharavan gave the money to Ritender. Ritender started pre-
paring the papers for Sharavan. On 10 March, 2019 Sharavan was sent abroad by Ri-
tender. However, in the meantime there was change of government in Astra and there
immigration policy was made very stringent. Sharavan was deported back to India as
his papers were not in accordance with the government’s immigration policy. When
Sharavan reached back to India, he had to face the wrath of his father for wasting
money. Sharavan had an altercation with Ritender and blamed Ritender for his and his
family’s misfortune. He demanded that Ritender should return back the money and
even threatened Ritender for dire consequences in case of failure to return money.
After much talks, an oral settlement was arrived at in which Ritender agreed to pay
five lakh rupees. Ritender pleaded his incapacity to pay such a big amount immedi-
ately and issued post dated cheques. In the meantime, Ritender was picked by police
for defrauding another youth of the same village.
Sharavan presented the cheque to the bank but the same was dishonoured. He has
filed a criminal case against Ritender under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act read with section 420 of IPC in the Magistrate’s Court. However, the trial court
acquitted Ritender because of non-appearance of Shravan on the date. Sharavan has
filed a criminal appeal in the Court of Sessions Judge challenging the order of the trial
court. On the first date, Ritender’s lawyer has challenged the jurisdiction of the Ses-
sions Court to hear the appeal of the said case.
Allotted to: 18025-18029,18030-18031, 18037-18039,18042-18043,18047-18048,
18049-18056

MOOT PROBLEM

Karan and his deceased wife Sandya got married on 15-05-2016. they were living to-
gether in a flat at Delhi. Since both the wife and husband didn’t pull ell they filed a
joint petition on 12-12-2020, seeking divorce by mutual consent under section 13-b of
the Hindu Marriage Act. Prior to filing of the petition they had purchased the said flat
in Delhi where they were staying. The flat was purchased from the money that was
given by the Sandhya’s father. The mutual consent petition for divorce created an
obligation for the Karan to pay the Rs. 15 lakh to Sandhya. In the night of 14-05-2017
between 11.00 or 11.30 pm there were some shrieks and cries from the house of
Karan. Ankit who is the neighbour of Karan saw from the window that smoke was
coming form the flat of Karan. He noticed one person standing in the house. Ankit
telephoned the police and Fire-force immediately. The rescue team of fire-force
rushed to the spot but could not save Sandhya. The Inspector of Police Rajan found
the Karan was sitting on the floor while the deceased Sandhya was lying in the other
room. The police made the preliminary inquiry and also took the statement made by
the witness Ankit(PW1). He said that about 15-16 days prior to the occurrence. Karan
had beaten Sandhya. A report was made by the Inspector that Sandhya was murdered
by Karan setting her on fire. On the basis of this report FIR was registered. The Post
mortem report says that the Sandhya was beaten up badly in head by some heavy ob-
ject and the death was due to the burns suffered by her. The Preliminary enquiry also
relives that some money were also missing from home which were kept in Almirahs.
The police arrested Karan and charged him under 299, 302, 304(b), 498(a) and other
charges.
Allotted to: 18056-18058,18059-18064,18067-18068,18069-18071,18074-
18080,18085-18089

Moot Prop

Shravan, a 18 year boy was pursuing his bachelors from Government College, Patiala.
He met Gurdeep Singh, in his college and became friends with him. They both com-
pleted their graduation. Shravan then started working as an electrician with a local
shop. Gurdeep Singh went abroad to country, ‘Astra’ after completing his degree.

After some years of working there, Gurdeep asked his friend Shravan to come there.
Shravan went to an immigration agent named Ritender. Ritender was in the business
of sending people abroad. Gurdeep had recommended the name of Ritender as he too
had gone abroad through Ritender.
Ritender asked Sharavan to make arrangements for funds to the tune of 8 lakh rupees.
Sharavan spent all his savings and a small shop he had bought in order to start his
own business to raise the sum of 8 lakhs. Sharavan’s father was a retired goverbnment
employee. He did not want to send his son abroad. However, Sharavan forcefully sold
the shop which was bought from the Gratuity fund the father had received on his re-
tirement from the service. Sharavan gave the money to Ritender. Ritender started pre-
paring the papers for Sharavan. On 10 March, 2019 Sharavan was sent abroad by Ri-
tender. However, in the meantime there was change of government in Astra and there
immigration policy was made very stringent. Sharavan was deported back to India as
his papers were not in accordance with the government’s immigration policy. When
Sharavan reached back to India, he had to face the wrath of his father for wasting
money. Sharavan had an altercation with Ritender and blamed Ritender for his and his
family’s misfortune. He demanded that Ritender should return back the money and
even threatened Ritender for dire consequences in case of failure to return money.
After much talks, an oral settlement was arrived at in which Ritender agreed to pay
five lakh rupees. Ritender pleaded his incapacity to pay such a big amount immedi-
ately and issued post dated cheques. In the meantime, Ritender was picked by police
for defrauding another youth of the same village.
Sharavan presented the cheque to the bank but the same was dishonoured. He has
filed a criminal case against Ritender under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act read with section 420 of IPC in the Magistrate’s Court. However, the trial court
acquitted Ritender because of non-appearance of Shravan on the date. Sharavan has
filed a criminal appeal in the Court of Sessions Judge challenging the order of the trial
court. On the first date, Ritender’s lawyer has challenged the jurisdiction of the Ses-
sions Court to hear the appeal of the said case.
Argue the case.
Allotted to: 18092-18094, 18095-18099,18102-18104, 18105-18106,18110-
18116,18126-18139

MOOT PROP

Mr. Amit and Ms. Babita married each other in 1990 they have two daughters. But as
they were not compatible to each other, the husband asked for divorce to which wife
refused in the year 2002. Mr. Amit started living separately from his wife. They both
never met each other from them onwards. After one year. Mr. Amit found his new
love in Ms. Deepa, an employee in his office. After same time both started living in
the same house as live-in partners. In year 2010, Mr. Amit and Ms. Deepa started
fighting with each other and he started abusing and beating her. Ms. Deepa moved out
of the house in frustration and in the fear that he would kill her. She lodged FIR in the
Police-Station for domestic violence and wants to claim maintenance from him.

Frame issues and fight the case on both the sides.

Allotted to:

18148-18150,18158-18161,18162-18164,18165-18170, 18177-18180,18186-18187

Moot Proposition

Ranjan and Raghu are two friends studying at a local school in Chandigarh. Ranjan is
in 11th while Raghu is in the 12th . Both of them are not serious about their studies
and have had to drop a year each because they failed. They do not get along very well
with their school mates, because of social and other teen issues. On July 2 nd 2012
when the school opened after the vacations, both friends were confronted outside the
school by another group. The group started teasing them, on which they ignored. Soon
one boy out of the group threw a small stone at Raghu, which hit him on the hand.
This infuriated Ranjan to an unexpected level and he took a small pocket knife and at-
tacked the boy who had thrown the stone. After that the group started a free for all
with the two boys. This continued for some time till the police came and separated
them. One of the boys, Dinesh who had been attacked by Ranjan, was admitted to
hospital with some injuries. He developed an infection, and died on the 9 th of July
2012. Both Ranjan and Raghu have been charged with Section 302 read with 34 of the
IPC.

Allotted to: 18189-18190, 18191-18195, 18197-18199, 18201-18206,18212-

18213,18216-18219

MOOT Proposition
Sunil and Sadhana got married on the 4 th of August 2005. Their matrimonial home
was a joint family setup with in-laws, two sisters in law, and one brother in law. All of
them lived in Sector 34 of Chandigarh. Sadhana who was from a landlord’s family
was a little uncomfortable in Sunil’s home. But she made some effort to adjust and
life went along with its usual ups and downs. Sunil was into a small business, and had
to travel a lot. On one of his business trips he met another girl called Rupan. He later
kept Rupan as his secretary as he found her to be very efficient. Rupan used to go on
all his business trips, and often was at the house as she got along well with one of the
sister in law. Sadhana started doubting the relationship of her husband with Rupan,
but when asked he always brushed it aside. A baby boy was born to Sadhana on 9 th
September 2010. Then on a business trip when Sadhana called Sunil at 04.30 in the
morning, the phone was answered by Rupan. She said that Sunil had left the phone
with her and had gone to Calcutta for an urgent meeting. This angered Sadhana and
on 10th January 2012 she tried to commit suicide by eating some pills. On way to the
Hospital her statement was recorded, shortly after which she died.
Her statement: “My life has become a mess. Both my husband and his so called secre-
tary are responsible for my condition. She is a good girl, but I will not allow anyone
to break my home. May god give them what they deserve if they are at fault. I do not
wish to live any longer, even for my small child.”

Both Sunil and Rupan were arrested and charged with section 306 read with 34 of the
IPC

Allotted to: 18127-18133, 18136-18141, 18146-18017, 18006

Constitutional Law Moot Proposition

MOOT PROPOSITION
The republic of Karpuristan is a union of states. It is one of the strongest democracies
across the globe. The Preamble to the Constitution of Karpuristan, 1960 considers
democracy, federalism, and the liberty of individuals as the basic feature of the Con-
stitution. Part V of the Constitution provides wide protection for the fundamental
rights of citizens. The Constitutional and legal framework of the Republic of Indostan
is in pari materia to the Republic of India. Moreover, Indostan is a member of several
international organizations that recognised it as a ‘welfare State’. The Government of
Karpuristan considers itself as parens patriae of the rights of the people of Karpuris-
tan. In the recent past, the nation has witnessed a paradigm shift in criminal activities.
There has been a constant rise in the cases of offences against the state, recidivism,
offence against women and minors, riots, and heinous offences. In order to curb the
menace of such incidents, the union government of Karpuristan has tabled ‘The Dis-
tinctive and Biological Profile number Bill, 2020’ as a general bill before the lower
house of the parliament of Karpuristan in the winter session.
Under this bill, a 15-digits distinctive number named ‘DBPN’ shall be allotted to all
the citizens’ especially hardcore criminals and convicts. The objective clause deter-
mines ‘to authorize for taking records of convicts and other persons for the purposes
of investigation and identification in criminal matters and any other matters connected
therewith and incidental’.  The application process and verification process of DBPN
require specific measurements namely, palm print impressions, iris, and retina scans,
foot-print impressions, photographs, and biological samples. The collected samples
and measurements would be recorded and preserved by the State Government. Ini-
tially, the bill was made applicable to convicts and under-trials prisoners however, the
Union government has mandated the linking of ‘DBPN’ with users’ personal docu-
ments namely, passport, insurance documents, bank accounts, and tax payment cards,
driving licenses, etc. The said government has considered ‘DBPN’ as a strong tool to
curb the menace of money laundering, and Benami transactions and ensure expedi-
tious trials and maintenance of peace & tranquility in the society. Finally, the parlia-
ment has passed a pending bill on 5th August 2021 and ‘The Distinctive and Biologi-
cal Profile number Act, 2021’(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 2021’) got presiden-
tial assent on 10.08. 2021. On 12.08. 2021, the Act of 2021 was published in the offi-
cial gazette and came into force with retrospective effect.  
Now, the private service providers like cable operators, telecom companies, e-com-
merce portals, cab service providers, etc. have mandated ‘DBPN’ for the customer
verification process. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court of Karpuristan has declared
‘Right to privacy as the fundamental right under Article-11 of the Karpuristanian
Constitution. Article-11 of the Constitution provides ‘No one shall be deprived of the
right to life and personal liberty except procedure established by the legislature’.
Also, Section-14 of the Act of 2021 empowers the magistrate to give directions for
the preservation of biological samples of undertrials prisoners and hardcore criminals.
Considering the said statute as violative of Civil liberties, Manav Aadhikar Suraksha
Foundation, a non-profit organization (hereinafter referred to as ‘P-1’) has filed a writ
petition before the Supreme Court of Karpuristan to declare ‘The Distinctive and Bio-
logical Profile number Act, 2021’ as unconstitutional. On 26.02.2022, the petitioner
submitted a ground report titled ‘Dangers of DBPN’ which discloses that DBPN cur-
tails the right to self-incrimination and endangers the democratic rights of individuals
at large. Also, the said legislation is silent upon the remedy to be granted to victims of
a data breach.
On 06.03.2022, the Session Court of Luckypur directed Mr. Evans, an under-trial
prisoner (hereinafter referred to as ‘P-2’) to deposit DNA samples as per the provi-
sions of the Act of 2021. Contending it as violative of his fundamental right to self-in-
crimination, he filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court of Karpuristan. He re-
quested the Supreme Court to declare the said legislation unconstitutional. The
Supreme Court issued a notice to the Central Government and directed it to submit a
reply. The Central Government submitted an affidavit and requested the Apex Court
to issue appropriate guidelines instead of declaring it unconstitutional. The Supreme
Court of Karpuristan clubbed both the petitions. It has to decide the following issues:
1) Whether ‘The Distinctive and Biological Profile Number Act, 2021’ is con-
stitutionally valid or not. Also, the retrospective application of the Act of 2021
to the under-trial prisoners is arbitrary and against the spirit of the Constitu-
tion.
2) Whether the directions should be issued to regulate the appropriate utiliza-
tion of DBPN or not.  
DISCLAIMER: The facts stated in the present case are fictitious and have been
drafted exclusively for academic moot court practice. The names, facts, dates, and lo-
cations used in the problem bear no resemblance to any location, event or person
whether dead or alive. No real incidents can be attached to them. The proposition does
not intend to hurt the sentiments or feelings of any section of society or to offend any
organization.  
Allotted to: 18001-18014, 18018-18019, 18027-18038, 18046-18052, 18066-18078,
18088-18093

MOOT Prop

The Constitution of India, 1950 deals with questions and concerns regarding citizen-
ship under Chapter II. Pursuant to the mandate of Article 11, a comprehensive enact-
ment the Citizenship Act, 1955 was enacted by the Parliament providing the modes
and methods for acquisition and termination of the citizenship under Indian Law.
Government of India enacted the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (copy attached)
to provide for relaxed norms for citizenship to members belonging to six specified re-
ligious minorities viz Hindu, Sikh, Christian, Buddhist, Jain and Parsi minority com-
munities from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh who have reached Indian terri-
tory by 31st March 2022.
Consequent upon the protests by members of civil society the matter was referred by
the President for advisory opinion of the Supreme Court under Art 143 of the Consti-
tution. It is pending before the Supreme Court. Argue from both sides.
Allotted to:
18113-18131, 18135-18140,18143-18147, 18155-18163, 18167-18169, 18173-18174

Moot Proposition

The constituency of Baharampur Parliamentary constituency in West Bengal consists

of thirteen assembly segments and the polling took place on March 15, 2022. Accord-
ing to the calendar notified by the Election Commission, the counting took place in
respect of six assembly segments on March 19, 2022 and the remaining seven on the
next day. Mr. Rohan Shah, the petitioner and the Mr. Niladri Chatterjee were the prin-
cipal contestants. The postal ballots arrived at the returning officer’s headquarters at
Baharampur where they were counted. The final tally was to be made when the ballot
boxes and the returns duly reach the Baharampur headquarters, from the various seg-
ment headquarters. The completion of the counting at the constituency headquarters in
Baharampur however was aborted at the final hour as the postal ballots were being
counted due to a sudden outbreak of mob violence. The petitioner contented that he
had all but won on the total count by a margin of nearly 2500 votes when Mr. Chatter-
jee halted the process by use of criminal force and intimidation tactics. The postal bal-
lot papers were destroyed. The returning officer who had postponed the concluding
part of the election reported the happenings to the Election Commission. The observer
also reached New Delhi and gave written account and perhaps an oral narration of the
untoward events which marred the whole process. The petitioner met the Chief Elec-
tion Commissioner with the request that he should direct the returning officer to de-
clare the result of the election. The Commission however issued an order declaring
cancellation of the whole poll. The petitioner felt aggrieved as he had, in all probabil-
ity, won the poll and was being deprieved of this valuable and hard earned victory by
the arbitrary action of the Commission. The Commission also issued a direction to
hold a fresh poll for the whole constituency, involving all the nine segments, although
there were no complaints about the polling in any of the constituencies and the ballot
papers of eight constituencies were available intact with the returning officer and only
in one segment ballot papers were destroyed or demanded on the way. These grounds
were taken up by the Petitioner before the Calcutta High Court in a Writ Petition un-
der Article 226 against the Commission. The Commission on the other hand con-
tented that a judicial intervention will be barred under Article 329. It was also con-
tended that the observer in the report to the Election Commission though mentioned
that in two polling stations capricious tactics were adopted with regard to testing valid
and invalid votes. In one of the stations the presiding officer’s seal on the tag as well
as the paper seal of one box was broken. In another case the assistant returning officer
had rejected a number of ballot papers of a polling station as they were not signed by
the presiding officer. In yet another case it was reported that the ballot papers were
neither signed nor stamped but accepted but were accepted by the assistant returning
officer as valid. Hence, no arbitrariness can be attributed to the findings and decision
of the Commission. The High Court accepted the contentions of the respondent and
accordingly dismissed the Petition. The petitioner approached the Supreme Court un-
der Article 136 against this order. Frame the relevant issues and argue the matter.

Allotted to:
18175-18176, 18184-18185, 18188-18196, 18207-18208

MOOT COURT PROPOSITION

(International Law Group)

Bukano and Luganda Vs Subaak

A state called Subaak is situated between the territories of Bukano and Luganda.
Bukano is in north and Luganda in south of Subaak. Subaak is a big and powerful
country in contrast to the said two. There are boundary disputes between Subaaak and
Bukano , and Subaak and Luganda. Many soldiers of these countries had laid their
lives in these disputes. After a fresh conflict that resulted in some causalities of Sub-
aak’s soldiers, Subaak took an action and attacked its both the said neighbours and oc-
cupied some portion of their territories.
Subaak’s Case:
 1. Subaak justifies the above attack by taking plea that Bukano and Luganda
were about to attack it.
2. It had taken the military operation in order to protect its interests as Bukaano
and Luganda has no right to violate its sovereignty.
3. Subaak also contended that it alone can determine the existed danger to its
sovereignty and it has acted in self defence.

Bukano and Luganda’s case:

1. Subaak has violated the international law by attacking its neighbours without
any threat to its sovereignty.
2. Subaak can’t take the plea of self defence as there was no aggression from the
part of Bukano or Luganda, prior to the attack of Subaak.
3. Subaak can’t justify its military action as the same is against the Charter of
United Nations.

Status of the case:

Both the above parties have agreed to submit this dispute to the International Court of
Justice.
Applicable Law:
UN Charter/ International law.
Allotted to: 17167-17174,18004-18208,18033-18035,18073-18112

Moot Proposition-II
INDI vs. MAAK
Indi is a Central American country which is bordered Favat, to the north and Movak
to the south. The Pacific Ocean lies in its west and Caribbean Sea at east. Maak also
has access to this country through sea route. There is government of Adolees in Indi
which is not liked by Maak
DISPUTE: The dispute between Indi and Maak arose in 1984, when more than six-
thousand counter-revolutionaries raided Indi and mined its three main sea ports and
damaged ships with the intention to cut off Indi from the rest of the world. They also
killed, wounded and kidnapped many citizens of Indi. All this was done in spite of the
fact that there was treaty between Indi and Maak not to interfere in the sovereignty
and internal matters of each other and not waging war direct or indirect against each
other.
INDI’S CASE:
1. Maak has violated the treaty between Indi and Maak by recruiting, training
and arming the persons for military and paramilitary actions against Indi.
2. Maak violated the UN Charter by encouraging, supporting, aiding and direct-
ing military and paramilitary actions against the sovereign state of Indi.
 3. Maak violated International Law by attacking on Indi by air, land and sea and
making incursions into Indi’s territorial water.
4. Maak intervened in the internal affairs of Indi
5. Maak is guilty of killing, wounding and kidnapping citizens of Indi.

Indi demanded that all such actions cease and Maak had an obligation to pay repara-
tion to the government of Indi for damage done to the economy and the property of
the people.
MAAK’S CASE:
1. Its actions are primarily for the benefit of Indi.
2. Its actions are in order to help Favat to respond to an alleged armed attack by
Indi.
3. Maak is exercising right of collective self- defence.
4. Favat is an ally of Maak and to save it is a political and legal right of Maak.

QUESTIONS TO DECIDE:
1. Whether Maak violated any International Law?
2. Whether Maak violated bilateral treaty?
3. Whether Maak has right to intervene in the internal affairs of Indi by taking
the plea of collective self-defence, political right and moral right.
4. Whether Indi’s plea before court is false or frivolous?

APPLICABLE LAW: Relevant International Law and Customary International Law.

Allotted to: 18114-18124, 18145-18159,18166-18193, 18209-18218,18222

**************************