Download moot problem and moot memorial and more Lecture notes Contract Law in PDF only on Docsity!
TEAM CODE _____
T HE 5 TH^ A MITY L AW S CHOOL I NTRA C OLLEGE M OOT C OURT C OMPETITION- 2011
I N IN T HTH EE H OHO NN '' BB LL EE HH II GG HH C OCO UU RR TT O FOF JJ UU DD II CC AA TT UU RR EE A TAT A LAL LL AA HH AA BB AA DD
LL UU CC KK NN OO WW BB EE NN CC HH ,, L ULU CC KK NN OO WW
(CASE NO.________ OF 2011)
IN THE MATTER OF:
MS. PRABHA DEVI,
--- PETITIONER
Versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, --- RESPONDENT
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT
TEAM CODE _____
T HE 5 TH^ A MITY L AW S CHOOL I NTRA C OLLEGE M OOT C OURT C OMPETITION- 2011
I N IN T HTH EE H OHO NN '' BB LL EE HH II GG HH C OCO UU RR TT O FOF J UJU DD II CC AA TT UU RR EE A TAT A LAL LL AA HH AA BB AA DD
LL UU CC KK NN OO WW BB EE NN CC HH ,, L ULU CC KK NN OO WW
(CASE NO.________ OF 2011)
IN THE MATTER OF:
MS. PRABHA DEVI,
--- PETITIONER
Versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, --- RESPONDENT
MEMORIAL for RESPONDENT
TaTabbllee ooff CCoonntteennttss III
II II.. (^) WWHEHETT HHEERR TT HHEE AADDMMII NNIISSTTRRATATIIVVEE IINNTTEERRVVEE NNTTIIOONN WWASAS IINN BRBREEAACCHH OOFF TT HHEE PPEETTIITTIIONONEE RRSS^ FFUNUNDDAAMMEENNTTAALL^ RRI GIGHHTT TT OO OOBBSSEE RRVVEE HHEERR^ RERELLII GGIIOOUUSS PPRRAACCTTIICCEE^ ..^ .....^14 A. That the administrative action was justified. .................................................... 14 B. That the petitioner intends to unlawfully end her life. ..................................... 15 C. That the petitioner had no spiritual motive but to end her miseries by ending her life. ............................................................................................................................ 17 C.1 That the attempt to commit suicide was intentional by the petitioner. ........... 19 D. That the state has to safeguard the larger interests of the society. ................. 20
PRA YE R .................................................................................................................................. 21
TaTabbllee ooff AAbbbbrreevviiaattiioonn IV
T T (^) AA BB LL EE OO FF (^) AA (^) BB BB RR EE VV II AA TT II OO NN § …. Section
¶/¶¶ …. Paragraph(s)
A.I.R …. All India Reporter
A.L.J …. Allahabad Law Journal
A.P. …. Andhra Pradesh
ACR …. Allahabad Criminal Rulings
AIHC …. All India High Court Cases
AIR …. All India Reporter
ALD(Cri) …. Andhra Legal Decision (Criminal)
All ER …. All England Law Reports
All. …. Allahabad
ALT …. Andhra Law Times
AWC …. Allahabad Weekly Cases
BLJR …. Bihar Law Journal Reports
Bom. L.R. …. Bombay Law Reporter
Bom. …. Bombay
C.L.J …. Calcutta Law Journal
Cal. …. Calcutta
CCR …. Current Criminal Reports
CriLJ …. Criminal Law Journal
DLT …. Delhi Law Times
ed./eds. …. Editor(s)
TaTabbllee ooff AAbbbbrreevviiaattiioonn VI
Ors. …. Others
Pat. …. Patna
p./ pp. …. Page/ Pages
Punj. …. Punjab
Pvt. …. Private
QB …. Queen‟s Bench
Rang. …. Rangoon
Rep. …. Reprint
S.C.A. …. Supreme Court Appeals
S.C.J …. Supreme Court Journal
S.C.R. …. Supreme Court Reports
Sau. …. Saurashtra
SCALE …. Supreme Court Almanac
Supp. …. Supplement
T.C. …. Travancore and Cochin
U.S. …. U.S. Supreme Court
UJ …. Unreported Judgment v. …. Versus
Vol. …. Volume
WritLR …. Writ Law Reporter
InInddeexx ooff AAuutthhoorriittiieess VII
I I NN DD EE XX OO FF AA UU TT HH OO RR II TT II EE SS
InInddeexx ooff AAuutthhoorriittiieess IX
Ramamoorthy alias Vannia Adikalar v. State of Madras, 1992 CriLJ 2074: MANU/TN/0140/1990 ......................................................................................................... 19 Ramanuja v. State of T.N., AIR 1972 SC 1586 .................................................................... 12 Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay and Ors. (1954) SCR 1055........................ 9 Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. State of Bombay and Ors., (1954) SCR 1055..................... 10 Reliance Telecommunications Ltd. v. S. I. of Police, W.P. (Cri) No. 6433 of 2010: MANU/KE/2352/2010 ......................................................................................................... 14 Reynolds v. U.S ., (1879) 98 US 145. ........................................................................................ 2 Reynolds v. US ., (1978) 98 US 145 .......................................................................................... 9 Saifuddin v. State of Bombay, AIR 1962 SC 853 ................................................................... 9 Shaibya Shukla v. State of U.P., AIR 1993 All 171 ............................................................... 5 Smt. Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1996 SC 946: 1996 (1) ALD (Cri) 102: 1996 (1) ALT (Cri) 535: 1996 (2) BLJR 809: 1996 CriLJ 1660: 1996 (1) CTC 454: (1996) 2 GLR 563: JT 1996 (3) SC 339: 1996 (2) SCALE 881: (1996) 2 SCC 648: [1996] 3 SCR 697 .... 7, 15 Smt. Selvi and Ors. v. State of Karnataka, 2010 (2) Crimes 241 (SC) ................................. 8 Sri Jagannath Temple Puri Management Committee v. Chintamani Khuntia, (1997) 8 SCC 422 ............................................................................................................................... 12 State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kurshi Kassab Jamat, AIR 2006 SC 212 .................. 12 State of U.P. v. Shah Mohd. , AIR 1969 SC 1234 ................................................................... 5 State of West Bengal v. Ashutosh Lahiri, AIR 1995 SC 464 .............................................. 12 Swarup v. State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 809......................................................................... 12 T.V. Narayana v. Venkata Subbamma, AIR 1996 SC 1807 ............................................... 11 The Commissioner Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Shri Lakshimindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, (1954) 1 SCR 1005 ................................................ 9
InInddeexx ooff AAuutthhoorriittiieess X
Torcaso v. Watkins, (1961) 367 US 488.................................................................................. 2
Statutes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. ......................................................................................... 14 The Constitution of India. .......................................................................................................... 6 The Indian Penal Code, 1860. .................................................................................................. 18 The Police Act, 1861................................................................................................................ 14
Books Referred
A. Ashworth, Principles of Criminal Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991).......................... 17 Durga Das Basu, Commentary on The Constitution of India ( vol 3, LexisNexis: 2008) ......... 2 G. William, Salmond on Jurisprudence (LexisNexis: 2007) ................................................... 17 W. O. Russell, Russell on Crime (J.W.C. Turner Ed., Universal Law Publishing Pvt., New Delhi: 2001) ......................................................................................................................... 17 Articles
A.S. Jain, “ Santhara - A Religious Fast To Death” (available http://www.jainworld.com/jainbooks/images/29/ SANTHARA _- A_RELIGIOUS_FAST.htm) [accessed August 20, 2011] ................................................ 13 Prakash Bhandari, “Another Jain Woman on fast unto Death” (available http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2006-09-30/india/27821360_1 Santhara -jain- festival-age-old-jain-ritual [accessed August 16,2011]) ........................................................ 4 Wikipedia, “Santhara” (available http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Santhara [accessed August 18, 2011]) ..................................................................................................................................... 4
StStaatteemmeenntt ooff JJuurriissddiiccttiioonn XII
SS^ T ATA TT EE MM EE NN TT OO FF^ JJ^ U RUR II SS DD II CC TT II OO NN
THE PETITIONER HAS INVOKED THE JURISDICTION OF THE HON‟BLE HIGH COURT OF
ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW UNDER AARRTTIICCLLEE 222266 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND THE RESPONDENTS HUMBLY SUBMIT TO THE
JURISDICITON AS INVOKED BY THE PETITIONER.
StStaatteemmeenntt ooff FFaaccttss XIII
SS^ TT AA TT EE MM EE NN TT OO FF^ FF^ A CAC TT SS
- The petitioner Prabha Devi, aged about 51 years, is a resident of Lucknow from the Jain community who suffers from Liver Cancer. The petitioner took voluntary retirement from the post of a Lecturer in a City College.
- The petitioner unlike any other cancer patient undergoes chemotherapy and radiation treatment and the experts hold the opinion that she may recover provided the treatment is continuous, especially if performed at a reputed cancer treatment centre at the United States.
- Since, the cost of treatment has taken a heavy toll on family income and savings, making it difficult for them to continue the treatment so the petitioner undertakes the vow of santhara to end her life which in a consequence will put an end to her miseries. In furtherance to her object of self- destruction she denied food, water and medication.
- The family somehow managed to withhold the information of the commission of the cognizable offence in their presence. But, they couldn‟t cling to that state of affairs for too long and it came to the notice of the city administration.
- The police intervened and broke the ritual by force feeding Prabha Devi, as force feeding was the only option left since she was not conceding to the persistent requests of the relatives to eat food. The police, however, did not lodge a case on the ground that she was reeling under severe ailment and that an attempt to suicide was prevented by the necessary action, but the petitioner was warned of penal consequences if the act was ever repeated.
- Consequently, the petitioner stubbornly files a writ petition before the Hon‟ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench.
SuSummmmaarryy ooff (^) AArrgguummeennttss IX
SS^ UU MM MM AA RR YY OO FF^ AA^ RR GG UU MM EE NN TT SS
I. I. WWHHEETT HHEERR TTHHEE PPRRAACCTTIICCEE OOFF SSAANNTTHHAARRAA EENNJJOOYYSS PRPROOTTEECCTTII OONN UNUNDDEERR CCOONNSSTTIITTUUTTI OIONNAALL^ PPRROOVVIISSIIOONNSS^ ..
The practice of Santhara is unconstitutional as it vehemently violates the principles of Article 21 which ensures right to life, whereas Santhara is a practice that encourages suicide by individual in name of religion. There is no evidence to suggest that Santhara is a essential practice of Jain religion, removal of such illegal practice would not change the principles enshrined in Jain religion.
No such practice in name of religion enjoys protection under Article 25 of Indian Constitution. And, contending that such practice is performed with one‟s home, would not amount to breach of privacy as police has such powers to stop such illegal activity.
IIII.. WWHEHETT HHEERR TTHHEE ADADMMII NNIISSTTRRATATIIVVEE IINNTTEERRVVEENNTTIIOONN WWASAS IINN BBRREEAACCHH OOFF TTHHEE PPEETTIITTIIOONNEE RRSS^ FFUUNNDDAAMMEENNTTAALL^ RRII GGHHTT^ T OTO OOBBSSEE RRVVEE HHEERR RREELLII GGIIOOUUSS PPRRAACCTTIICCEE^ ..
The local police of the State of U.P. is empowered under § 149 the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as under § 23 the Indian Police Act, 1861 to prevent the commission of cognizable offences. As an attempt to suicide (§ 309 of IPC) is a cognizable offence as per Schedule – I of the code, hence the police were justified in preventing the commission by using a reasonable force against the petitioner (offender) and force feeding her.
That the petitioner never had a spiritual motive behind the practice of santhara but the ill intent to end her life which in consequence might end her miseries. The ill-practice is cloaked in the guise of religious sanction which is a sham, because there is no pride in committing suicide. And, lastly that our constitution does not provide a right to extinguish one‟s life while enumerating the right to life.
ArArgguummeennttss AAddvvaanncceedd 1
AA^ R GRG UU MM EE NN TT SS^ AA^ D VDV AA NN CC EE DD
The courts have the power to determine whether a particular rite or observance is regarded as essential by the tenets of a particular religion.^1
I. WWHHEETT HHEERR TT HHEE PPRRAACCTTIICCEE OFOF SSAANNTTHHAARRAA ENENJJOOYYSS PRPROOTTEE CCTTIIOONN UUNNDDEE RR CCOONNSSTTIITTUUTTII OONNAALL PPRROOVVIISISIOONNSS ..
- Santhara is a practice where an individual‟s takes a vow to fast until death in name of religion. The sanctity of life which has been held in number of cases by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court ceases to exist in such type of religious activity. United States which is considered to be the mother of liberty was also provisions to restrict such illegal activity in name of religion.
- The first Amendment to America‟s Constitution (1791) says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or…prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
- The freedom to practice religion taken to an extreme can be used as a license for illegal conduct. But even when the conduct stems from deeply held conviction, government resistance to it is understandable. The inevitable result is a clash between religion freedom and social order.^2
(^1) Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta v. Commissioner of Police, (1983) 4 SCC 522: AIR 1984 SC 51; see Also SCC 770. Commissioner of Police v. Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta, AIR 2004 SC 2984: (2004) 12 (^2) THE CHALLENGE TO DEMOCRACY (Government of America) by Janda, Berry and Goldman, Chap XVII, “Order and Civil Liberties” at pg. 627-
ArArgguummeennttss AAddvvaanncceedd 3
Adelaide Company of Jehovah's Witnesses v. The Commonwealth,^7 discuss the evil practices in name of religion. The judgment of Latham C. J. the Australian Supreme Court, contains a useful and illuminating discussion of the ambit of religious liberty “ At all periods of human history there have been religions which have involved practices which have been regarded by large number of people as essentially evil and wicked. Many religions involve the idea of sacrifice and the practice of sacrifice has assumed the form of human sacrifice or animal sacrifice as appears in the Old Testament, and in many other sacred writings and traditions. So also religions have differed in their treatment of polygamy. Polygamy was not reproved in the Old Testament; it has been part of the Mormon religion; it is still an element in the religion of millions of Mohammedans, Hindus, and other races in Asia. The criminal religions in India are well-known. The thugs of India regarded it as a religious duty to rob and kill. The practice of Suttee, involving the immolation of the widow upon the funeral pyre of her husband, was for centuries a part of the Hindu religion."
- Though above contention regard a very harsh view, but it is important to understand the fundamental language of Art. 21 which state that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty eexxcceepptt aaccccoorrddiinngg ttoo pprroocceedduurree eessttaabblliisshheedd bbyy llaaww. Special emphasis should be laid on the word, except according to procedure established by law. Therefore it is emphasized that a life^8 of any individual can only be taken according to the procedure established by law.
(^7) 67 CLR 116 (^8) We have already extracted a passage from the judgment of Field, J. in Munn v. Illinois, (1877) 94 U.S, where the learned Judge Pointed out that "life" in the 5th and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution corresponding to Article 21, means not merely the right to the continuance of a person's animal existence, but a right to the possession of each of his organs-his arms and legs etc. We do not entertain any doubt that the word "life" in
ArArgguummeennttss AAddvvaanncceedd 4
- It is humbly submitted that although fasting is a part of Indian culture, made famous by independence leader Mahatma Gandhi, who took up hunger strikes in protest against British rule, laws do not permit euthanasia or suicide. Ultimate result of this practice in cloak of religion is death of individual, a voluntary practice taken up by a Jain individual which results in death. Jains claim that Santhara is the most ideal, peaceful, and satisfying form of death. Many Jain religious leaders contend that when a person commits suicide, it is usually in anger or depression. The act of suicide is conducted by isolating oneself from the world and the purpose can be given in a suicide note^9. But it is asserted that in majority of cases Santhara is practices by aged women^10 who have atleast suffered a trauma.
- In the case of District Registrar and Collector v. Canara Bank,^11 it was held by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court that life and liberty can only be curtailed by satisfying the triple test:- a) It must prescribe a procedure b) The procedure must withstand the test of one or more of the fundamental rights conferred under Art. 19 which maybe applicable in a given situation.
Article 21 bears the same signification. Is then the word "personal liberty" to be construed as excluding from itspurview an invasion on the part of the police of the sanctity of a man's home and an intrusion into his personal security and his right to sleep which is the normal comfort and a dire necessity for human existence even as ananimal? It might not be inappropriate to refer here to the words of the preamble to the Constitution that it is designed to "assure the dignity of the individual" and therefore of those cherished human value as the means ofensuring his full development and evolution. We are referring to these objectives of the trainers merely to draw attention to the concepts underlying the Constitution which would point to such vital words as "personal liberty"having to be construed in a reasonable manner and to be attributed that sense which would promote and achieve those objectives and by no means to stretch the meaning of the phrase to square with any preconceived notionsor doctrinaire constitutional theories. (^9) Wikipedia, “Santhara” (available http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Santhara [accessed August 18, 2011]) (^10) Prakash Bhandari, “ Another Jain Woman on fast unto Death” (available http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2006-09-30/india/27821360_1_ritual [accessed August 16,2011]) “ A day after 60-year-old Shwetambar Jain woman Vimla Devi BhansaliSanthara -jain-festival-age-old-jain- died while on terminal fast under the faith's Santhara tradition in the Pink City, another case has come to lightof 93-year-old woman, who has given up food and water for the past 24 days under this ritual”. (^11) (2005)1 SCC 496
