MOOT PROBLEM 1

1. The Country of Republic of Bharat, the laws of which are similar to India, is
a land of diversities. Such diversity is also visible in the spheres of religion.
The majority population of Bharat follow Sindhuism (i.e. approximately
84% of the total population), a religion which is deep-rooted to the Bharatn
culture and history and entwined with the concept of its nationalism.

2. The second largest religion is Jeruslam (i.e. approximately 12% of the total
population) consists of the largest minority religion, brought into the land of
Bharat by its invaders in early 1800s. According to the Constitution of
Bharat, Bharat is a secular and democratic nation. Due to differences in the
culture of Sindhuism and Jeruslam, there have been several conflicts which
have led to massive riots and massviolence in the past across Bharat. Often,
Sindhus condemned the followers of Jeruslam as anti-nationals and
associated them with Jerustan, a Jeruslam majority neighboring country,
which got recently separated from Bharat and has frequent cross border
conflicts with Bharat.

3. Due to substantial progress in the fields of technology, connectivity and

collaboration tools across the globe, Bharat is undergoing a digital
revolution. The present government has started initiatives such as ‘Digital
Bharat’ to give impetus to its technology and telecom companies, so that
they are able to provide uninterrupted services and internet facility to its
citizens. As a result, the number of users of internet and social media has
increased exponentially. However, as a flip side, these social media
platforms are being misused by politically motivated and rightwing groups,
 who upon understanding the influence of social media on the general public,
have started spreading hate speech and blasphemous contents to
instigate/trigger riots and violence in the country, especially between the
Sindhus and the Jeruslam.

4. Broomland is in the territory of Bharat, Jerustan has been claiming territorial

sovereignty over Broomland. The laws of state of Broomland are similar to
Delhi, India. On December 8, 2018, a migrant worker named Frazil of
Jeruslam, was hacked to death in the state of Broomland with a meat cleaver
and his body was then burnt at the scene of crime. The man on trial for his
murder had the entire attack on Frazil videotaped and uploaded on Funbook
(a popular social media platform in Bharat, owned by “Funbook Private
Limited”) along with a sermon against the Jeruslams, captioning it “Go to
Jerustan” and “JhandaUchaRahe” (flag should fly high) (“Video 1”). Before
Video 1 could be taken down from Funbook, it became viral on Funbook
owned messaging application called ChatOn which uses end-to-end
encryption technique to transmit messages.

5. Despite repeated petitions and complaints being made by the citizens of

Bharat to the Ministry of Home Affairs of Bharat to curb the spread of the
hate videos, the said Ministry took no cognizance of the matter. The
government of Bharat blamed the end-to-end encryption technology used by
ChatOn and said that because of this technology they are unable to trace the
origin of the dissemination of Video 1 and thus, they cannot take action
against the perpetrator. Further, the Government accused Funbook of
refusing to co-operate with them and provide them with data regarding the
spreading of Video 1 through ChatOn and Funbook on the grounds that the
 privacy of their users was of utmost importance to them. Funbook further
contended that they would not breach the trust of their users by decrypting
the materials shared on its platform as the USP of Funbook and ChatOn was
their end-to end encryption technology that guaranteed the privacy of
contents shared by users.

6. However, on receiving repeated complaints from users, ChatOn and

Funbook came up with a revised user policy whereunder if 50 or more users
complain about the content of any post uploaded or shared on such social
media, the same will be immediately removed. Further, through a new
feature of their application, ChatOn and Funbook ensured that any video
which has graphic content was blurred and an express consent from the user
is taken before such video is played.

7. Immediately after the video of Frazil's brutal murder went viral, processions
were taken out by AkhilBhartiya Sindhu Sanstha (“ABSS”) in Jeruslam
populated localities shouting anti-Jeruslam slogans and shouting “Go to
Jerustan” and “JhandaUchaRahe”. Post this incident, a video of a Sindhu
woman being raped by a group of men wearing religious Jeruslam lockets
went viral on Funbook and ChatOn (“Video 2”). It was observed in Video 2
that the men were shouting “Bharat belongs to Jerustan”. The said video
became viral and the slogan used therein became a trend. The mass
circulation of Video 2 caused massive riots and violence in the state of
Broomland, causing a communal fight between the Sindhus and Jeruslams.

8. Lady Unnamed whose rape video had become viral in Video 2 expressed her
angst and repeatedly pleaded Funbook and ChatOn to remove and prevent
 further circulation of the same. In their response, Funbook provided
documentary evidence of the fact that they have complied with all the legal
requirements under the Information Technology Act 2000 and have
processed her complaint. They further clarified that Funbook and/or ChatOn
do not initiate any transmission through their platform nor do they select the
recipient of such transmission or modify any information contained in the
transmission. Lady Unnamed was not satisfied with the response received
from Funbook and ChatOn and therefore, she urged the Government of
Bharat to intervene.

9. Neutral Bharat, a public spirited non-governmental organization, which

strives for a violence free and secular nation, requested Funbook to remove
Video 1 and Video 2 (collectively “Videos”) and actively followed it up
with Funbook. At the time of Video 2 going viral, Lady Unnamed and
Neutral Bharat (the “Petitioners”) made a written request to the Grievance
Officer of Funbook stating that the said videos should be urgently taken
down and any future posts pertaining to the same should be automatically
blocked. Also, that the user account posting the same should be deactivated.
According to them, these contents fall under the category of hate speech and
violated the right to privacy of Lady Unnamed. They also alleged that the
contents are prima facie blasphemous and have triggered riots all over
Bharat. However, despite repeated requests from the Petitioners, Funbook
declined to take down the said videos and related contents because as per
Funbook's policy 50 people had to complain for Funbook to take down any
content from its platform. Funbook refused to entertain any further
queries/requests from the Petitioners.
10.The Petitioners also approached the Department of Information Technology,
State of Broomland (“DIT”) requesting DIT to issue an official notification
to Funbook and ChatOn to take down the Videos from such platforms and
blacklist Funbook and Chaton in Bharat. DIT issued a show cause notice to
Funbook demanding a detailed report of the incidents. However, DIT
refused to entertain the request of the Petitioners to blacklist Funbook and
ChatOn on the ground that it did not have enough information on the same
and it has to hear both the parties before taking any further action. Further,
DIT said that any form of regulation of the contents of Funbook and ChatOn
without reasonable justification would tantamount to violation of freedom of
speech of the citizens of Bharat. In the meantime the riots had already spread
and there were various instances of violence across Broomland. Thus, the
Petitioners have approached the Hon'ble High Court of Broomland with its
petition against Funbook(“Respondent 1”) and DIT (“Respondent 2”)
(Respondent 1 and Respondent 2 are collectively referred to as
“Respondents”).

11.The Petitioners in their petition have alleged that the Respondent 1 had
played a pivotal role in spreading the riots all across Broomland. They
alleged that not only did Respondent 1 decline the request to take down the
Videos but they also caused the contents pertaining to the Videos or related
contents to appear again and again on their application software in those
areas which were most impacted by the riots. It was alleged that the repeated
re- posting of the Videos in riot inflicted areas made the riot spread faster.
The Petitioners claimed that social media forums such as Funbook lack
proper vigil mechanism to ensure that contents which spread hatred or are
blasphemous or create security issues are identified, tracked and blocked
 before they have any negative impact on the society at large or instigate a
crime. Further, the Petitioners claimed that due to inactivity of Respondent 2
to take necessary action, the right to privacy of Lady Unnamed had been
violated and mass riots had been caused in Broomland.

12.In light of the above facts, the reliefs claimed from the Hon'ble High Court
of Broomland were largely as follows: a. Directions to the DIT and/or any
other appropriate authority to discharge their executive, statutory and all
other obligations in relation to safeguarding of privacy of Lady Unnamed
and prevent public access of any information which threatens the security of
Bharat and public order. b. Directions to the Government of Bharat under
the Information Technology Act 2000 to: i. regulate the functioning of the
platforms run by intermediaries; ii. ensure that the privacy rights of the
users/citizens are not compromised and are duly protected. c. Directions to
Respondent 1 to immediately take down the Videos and prevent further
spread of the same and payment of compensation to Lady Unnamed.
[Note: Maintainability of the writ petition can be challenged.]

Disclaimer: All facts mentioned in the above problem are purely fictitious and
any resemblance to any person, place, situation is purely coincidental.

For:
Against:

MOOT PROBLEM 02

1. Neha and Ramant Singh (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, Ramant Singh 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 Neha to go back

to India. In March 2011, Neha along with her children came back to Punjab

(India).

3. After moving to New York, Ramant Singh severed all his contacts with

Neha. He had developed an extra marital affair with a lady named Elizabeth
Prescott. In January 2012, Neha wrote a letter to Ramant Singh expressing

her willingness to join Ramant Singh in New York. Ramant Singh in reply

wrote to Neha 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. Neha 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 Ramant Singh . 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 Ramant Singh failed to pay maintenance

to wife and children. Neha 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 Ramant Singh . 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

Ramant Singh . 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, Neha filed a petition under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage

Act, 1955 for Restitution of Conjugal Rights in the District Court, Jalandhar.

Ramant Singh 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. Neha 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. Neha 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.

6. Prepare memorials and argue from both sides.

Legal Issues—

1. Whether the marriage of Neha and Ramant Singh 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?

Statutes to be referred

1. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

2. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

3. International Comity of Courts

MOOT PROPOSITION 03

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).

Moot Problem 4

In the village of Balpur in the State natka here is an eminent businessman turned
politician Kamal. He has been elected tonaka assembly successfully 3 consecutive
times. Kamal a management graduate from University was an active student in
Youth Politics. He was The President of Janata Morcha Youth wing and thereafter
he joined Janata Morcha, he held several posts within the party and at a young age
of 31 became MLA. Kamal is a 2nd generation politician and son of renowned
industrialist Bhargav Raghuvanshi, has been a 2 times MLA and 3 times MP from
Balpur constituency, he also held the portfolio of Minister for Urban Development
when Janata Morcha was in power in the country .Kamal being an Industrialist
owned several factories which had huge manpower and Trade unions with political
affiliation. Kamal after procuring a degree in management from Annamalai
University chose to pursue his family business, in the course of his business he had
to grapple with many problems relating to workforce such as absenteeism, low
productivity, and acrimonious disputes as the trade unions had differences within
themselves. A strike broke out in Mr.kamals factory on account of denial of bonus
and incentives. There was labour unrest, sloganeering and chaos. The Trade Union
Leader Babu Shankar was affiliated to Samaj Saghatan the party which was in the
opposition and arch rival of Janata Morcha the Party in power. Kamal was in a fix
and catch 22 situation as the labourers besieged the bunglow of Kamal at the
behest of Babu Shankar on account of political rivalry there was wide media
coverage of the issue. On the 2nd February, 2019 situation was extremely turbulent
hence the local police imposed Section 144 of Cr.PC and also detained a few
labourers U/S 151 of Cr.PC. The detention of many labourers exceeded the
prescribed time ordained by Cr.PC. As Kamal used his clout and influence to
suppress the agitation, the family member of a worker filed a Habeas Corpus
petition on 6th February, 2019 Under Article 226 and 227 of Shennai High Court
at natka challenging the detention of several workers and also claimed
compensation. The Shennai Bench consisting of Chief justice allowed the petition
and gave relief to the prayers of the petitioners and also awarded compensation.
The Trade Union leader Babu Shankar urged 2 the leader of opposition
innatkaassembly to broach a debate on Kamal’s undue influence and causing loss
to poor labourers. This led to furor in the Assembly demanding resignation of
Kamal was the post of standing committee for Education and Environment. Kamal
did not relent. This lead to social unrest and there were protest marches across the
city, agitation which led to Gheraos and Bandhs. The Home minister tried to
control the situation with Rapid Action Force and Local constabulary. In the course
of this chaos Kamal made a public speech at Tradulai Swamy stadium on 16th
February 2019 in the course of his speech he called the agitators of Samaj
Sanghtans as ‘wild creatures’ and urged the Janata Morcha workers to give a
‘fitting reply’ to the protesters. This caused a furor and there was law and order
problem which resulted in casualties and damage to property. Kamal was held
responsible for whatever transpired and he was compelled to resign from the
committees he was part of and the portfolio he held. The speech delivered by
Kamal was regarded as a hate speech causing enmity between two communities
hence he was booked under sec 153 A of IPC and a FIR was lodged against him on
17th Febraury 2019 There was round the clock coverage of the incidents of
violence by the media. The opposition demanded an inquiry of the incidents and
insisted on setting up a commission. A Commission was constituted on 1st April,
2019 by the Ruling Party i.e Janata Morcha under the auspices of retired judge,
Justice Vishwanath to enquire and investigate into this matter on urgent basis. The
commission submitted its report before the House on 30th June, 2019. There was
election hence the commission report was debated fiercely then kept in abeyance.
Samaj Sanghatan captured Power and Muthuswamy Nair became the Chief
Minister in November 2019 and the commission report was again debated with
disruptions in the House. Though Kamal was booked under sec 153 A of IPC and a
FIR was lodged against him on 17th February 2019, he was not arrested due to the
political influence. The home minister finally demanded arrest of Kamal and
Kamal was arrested and produced before magistrate on 12th November 2019. The
Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint and convicted Kamal Raghu Vanshi
for 3 years imprisonment on 18th November 2019. The order was challenged in
court of sessions court, on 22nd November, 2019 the order was upheld and
eventually it was challenged in Shennai High Court on 27th December 2019. The
High Court admitted the appeal and overruled conviction on 16th July, 2021 of
Kamal and found that lower courts made gross error in passing such orders. The
State challenged the High Court order of acquittal in the Supreme Court of India in
August 2021.
 3 Issues: 1) Is he said appeal maintainable in the Supreme Court? 2) Is the High
court justified in setting aside the session court’s order? 3) Does the case have
anything pertaining to limitation act or has time barred as per the relevant legal
provisions? 4) Is sanction required for prosecution of Kamal as he is member of
state assembly? 5) Is the government bound by the findings of Justice Viswanathan
commission as regards its implementation or not?