1

THE LEGAL CHRONICLES MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

[1]. THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE

1. Art. 136(1) of the Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court to grant, in its
discretion, special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or
order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India1.
2. It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the Special Leave Petition filed by the
Petitioner, Ms. Enola is maintainable, as the matter involves a substantial question of law of
general public importance. Various sections of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 are
discriminating juvenile offenders on the basis of their age, which is violating the fundamental
Right to Equality and the Right against Discrimination. These violations are resulting in
gross injustice not only to Moriarity but also to juvenile delinquents as well as innocent
minors. Therefore, the Supreme Court should accept the Special Leave Petition by using its
discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136(1) to correct the wrong that had been done the JJ
Act 2015, by providing justice to Moriarity as well as to all the juvenile offenders who are
facing similar injustice like Moriarity, and by declaring JJ Act 2015 unconstitutional.

[1.1]. THE MATTER INVOLVES QUESTION OF LAW OF GENERAL

PUBLIC IMPORTANCE

3. It is not the policy of the Apex Court to entertain special leave petitions and grant leave
under Article 136 of the Constitution except in those cases where some substantial question
of law of general public importance is involved or there is manifest injustice resulting from
the impugned order or judgment. In C.C.E. v. Standard Motor Products, - SC states that
whenever there is an injustice done to a party in a proceeding before a court or tribunal or
when a question of law of general public importance arises, or there is some miscarriage
of justice then this jurisdiction can always be invoked. Article 136 is the residuary power of
the
Supreme Court to do justice where the Court is satisfied that there is injustice.

1- Art. 136, Constitution of India, 1950

2- Kunhayammed v. the State of Orissa, AIR 2000 SC 2587, See also Central Bank of India v.
Madhulika Guruprasad Dahir, (2008) 13 SCC 17 )
3- AIR 1989 SC 1298
 1
THE LEGAL CHRONICLES MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

4. It is humbly contended that the present case involves the question of law of general
public importance as it is not just Moriarity who is being treated discriminately, many
children who are between the age 16-18 years are treated differently than the children who
are below 16 years. Therefore, the case involves the question of law of general public
importance. Hence, the Special Leave Petition is maintainable.

[1.2] THE MATTER INVOLVES SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF

LAW AND GROSS INJUSTICE HAS BEEN DONE

6. In Nazir Mohamed v. J. Kamala And Ors ,SC stated a question of law will be
“substantial” when it is debatable, not previously settled by the law of the land or any
binding precedent, and must have a material influencing the decision of the case or the rights
of the parties before it.
7. Whether a matter involves a substantial question of law also depends on its general
public importance, which directly or substantially affects the rights of the parties 8. It is also
explained in Pritam Singh v. The State 1950 that that the power under Art. 136, the Court
will grant special leave when it is shown that exceptional and special circumstances exist,
that substantial and grave injustice has been done and that the case in question presents
features of sufficient gravity to warrant a review of the decision appealed against.
9. It is humbly contended that Section 15 and Section 18 of JJ Act 2015 are allowing many
Juvenile offenders to be tried and convicted as adults, which is highly debatable as it goes
against Justice J.S. Verma Committee Report that recommends that the state should have a
reformative rather than a punitive approach while dealing with juvenile offenders and the
State has shall reduce of the age from 18 years to 16 years Gross injustice is also happening
for the same reason as mentioned above. Therefore, the matter involves a substantial
question of law and gross injustice has been done. Hence, the Special Leave Petition is
maintainable.

1- Art. 136, Constitution of India, 1950

2- Kunhayammed v. the State of Orissa, AIR 2000 SC 2587, See also Central Bank of India v.
Madhulika Guruprasad Dahir, (2008) 13 SCC 17 )
3- AIR 1989 SC 1298
 1
THE LEGAL CHRONICLES MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

[1.3] PETITIONER HAS THE LOCUS STANDI TO PRESENT HIS

CASE

10. Locus Standi is defined as a right to appear in a court or before anybody on a given
question. It is a right to bring an action or to be heard in a given forum. Generally, an
aggrieved person can only have the right to appeal before the respective court.

11. In Arunachalam v. P.S.R. Sadhanantham and Anr the respondent was acquitted of
the murder charge on appeal by the High Court. The State did not file an appeal against this
decision but the brother of the deceased, who was not part of the incident, got leave to appeal
to the Supreme Court, the Court set aside the order of acquittal and convicted the accused.
Objections were raised on behalf of the accused relating to the maintainability of the special
leave petition in P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalamunder but the plea was rejected. SC
stated that Art. 136 is a special jurisdiction; it is a residuary power that is extraordinary in
its amplitude. The Court relaxed the traditional rule of locus standi. SC specifically stated
that Art. 136 of the Constitution neither confers on anyone the right to invoke the jurisdiction
of the Supreme Court nor inhibits anyone from invoking the Court's jurisdiction. It is
pertinent to mention that due to the lack of literacy and financial stability, the sole parent of
the aggrieved party was neither aware nor could afford the available remedies on her own.
Thus, Ms. Enola took their permission to file the appeal on her behalf.
12. A doubt has been raised about the competence of a private party, as distinguished
from the State, to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution
against a judgment of acquittal by the High Court. We do not see any substance in the doubt.
In Durga Shankar Mehta v. Thakur Raghuraj Singh and Ors. It is expressed by SC that
the Appellate power vested in the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution is not
to be confused with ordinary appellate power exercised by Appellate Courts and
Appellate Tribunals under specific statutes. It is a plenary power exercisable outside the
purview of ordinary law to meet the pressing demands of justice

1- Art. 136, Constitution of India, 1950

2- Kunhayammed v. the State of Orissa, AIR 2000 SC 2587, See also Central Bank of India v.
Madhulika Guruprasad Dahir, (2008) 13 SCC 17 )
3- AIR 1989 SC 1298
 1
THE LEGAL CHRONICLES MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

13. It is humbly stated that though Enola is not the aggrieved person and stranger to
Moriarty, she has the Locus Standi to file a Special Leave Petition in the SC as the court can
relax the traditional rules of Locus Standi by using its special jurisdiction and residuary
power under Article 136. SC can also invoke its power under article 136 since the matter
involves a substantial question of law and gross injustice has taken place as proved above.
Therefore, Petitioner Enola has the Locus Standi to appeal before the Supreme Court. Hence,
Special Leave Petition is maintainable.
PETITIONER CAN APPEAL EVEN THOUGH SHE DID NOT EXHAUST HER
ALTERNATIVE REMEDIES

14. Generally Supreme Court does not entertain appeals against an order of a tribunal
unless the appellant has exhausted the alternative remedies provided by the relevant law. For
example, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal by the appellants who moved to the
Supreme Court straightaway from the tax tribunal without first appealing to the concerned
High Court.
15. Power of Supreme Court under Art. 136 is discretionary, its parameters cannot be
exhaustively defined. Generally, the main consideration on which the Supreme Court acts is
that under Art. 136, it is its duty to check that injustice is not done by the tribunals. In Delhi
Judicial Service Assn. v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court stated that the court has
special residuary power to entertain an appeal against any order of any court in the
country. The plenary jurisdiction of this Court to grant leave and hear appeals against any
order of a court or tribunal, confers the power of judicial superintendence over all courts
and tribunals in the territory of India. This Court has, therefore, supervisory jurisdiction over
all courts in India. For example, in Rajendra Kumar v. State the Supreme Court heard an
appeal from the decision of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The appellant did not go to the
High Court but came straight to the Supreme Court.
16. Since Art. 136 uses the phrase ‘any court’, it empowers the Supreme Court to hear
appeals from judgments given not only by the High Courts but even by a subordinate court,

1- Art. 136, Constitution of India, 1950

2- Kunhayammed v. the State of Orissa, AIR 2000 SC 2587, See also Central Bank of India v.
Madhulika Guruprasad Dahir, (2008) 13 SCC 17 )
3- AIR 1989 SC 1298
 1
THE LEGAL CHRONICLES MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2021

if the situation demands that its order should be quashed or reversed even without going
through the usual procedure of filing an appeal in the High Court.

17. It is humbly stated that since Enola filed a Special Appeal Petition, she need not
necessarily file an appeal to the High Court. Since one of the prayers of the petitioner is to
declare JJ Act 2015(Central Law) unconstitutional, the matter must be resolved by the
Supreme Court as the High Courts does not have the power to declare a central law
unconstitutional. Therefore, the Petitioner can appeal even though she did not exhaust her
alternative remedy. Hence, this Special Leave Petition is maintainable.

1- Art. 136, Constitution of India, 1950

2- Kunhayammed v. the State of Orissa, AIR 2000 SC 2587, See also Central Bank of India v.
Madhulika Guruprasad Dahir, (2008) 13 SCC 17 )
3- AIR 1989 SC 1298