__________________________________________________________________________

XXII TSV NATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 2025

TSV117

BEFORE THE HON’BL SUPREME COURT OF AIDNI

S.L.P. No. /2025

UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF CONSTITUTION OF AIDNI

Abbkku and S.R.A.W.O ………………………………...….……………….. PETITIONER

Union of Aidni and Another………………………………………………….RESPONDENT

Memorandum on behalf of the Appelant

1
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
__________________________________________________________________________

XXII TSV NATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 2025

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
STATEMENT OF FACTS
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
2
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
__________________________________________________________________________

XXII TSV NATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 2025

AIR All India Reporter

ART Article
CEDAW Convet
HC High Court
Hon’bl Honourable
ICCPR International Covenant for Civil and
Political Rights
POCSO Prevention of Child Sexual offences
SRAWO Social Rights and Welfare
Organization
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
Sec Section
SLP Special Leave Petition
UNDRIP United Nations Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples
MTP

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

3
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
__________________________________________________________________________

XXII TSV NATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 2025

CASES:
1. Bengal Chemical Pharmaceutical Works ltd v. Employees, A.I.R. 1959 S.C.
633(635)
2. Common Cause v. Union of India (2018 SCC 1)
3. Developer Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 2004 S.C. 2351.
4. Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills v. C.I.T., A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 65
5. Durga Shankar Mehta v. Thakur Raghunath Singh, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 520
6. Haryana State Industrial coprn. v. Cork mfg. Co., A.I.R. 2007 8 S.C.C. 120
7. Haryana State Industrial Corpn. V. Cork Mfg. Co., A.I.R. 2007 8 S.C.C. 359
8. Janshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees Port of Mumbai, A.I.R. 2004 3 S.C.C.
214 (SC).
9. Kerala State Board v. Kurein E kalathil, A.I.R. 2000 6 S.C.C. 293
10. Kuldeep Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2021 SCC OnLine SC 895)
11. Laxmi Mandal v. Deen Dayal Harinagar Hospital (2010 SCC OnLine Del 2634)
12. Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar (1996 AIR 1864)
13. MI builders (P) ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu, A.I.R.1999 S.C. 2468.
14. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006 SCC 1)
15. Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, A.I.R. 2003 11 S.C.C. 241 (S.C.); C.C.E v.
Standard Motor Products, A.I.R.1989 1298 (S.C)
16. Shanti Kumar R. Canji vs The Home Insurance Co. Of New York 1974 AIR 1719
17. Shilpa Mittal v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2020
18. State of U.P v. Indian Hume pipe co. Ltd., A.I.R. 1977 S.C.1132.
19. Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration (2009 9 SCC 1)
20. T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India and Others, (1997) 2 SCC 267
21. U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. (1991). Planned Parenthood of Southeastern
Pennsylvania v. Casey. The Federal Reporter, 947, 682–727.
22. X.V The Principal Secretary Health and Family Wwelfare Department & Anr, 2022
Live law SC (209)

ACTS:
1. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
2. Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971 (as amended)
3. Mental Healthcare Act, 2017
4
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
__________________________________________________________________________

XXII TSV NATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 2025

4. Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act, 2012

5. Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights)
Act, 2006
6. Special Marriage Act, 1954
7. The Constitution of India, 1950

CONVENTIONS
1. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
(CEDAW)
2. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
3. The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP or DOTROIP)
4. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)

BOOKS
1. H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law Of India (4th ed. 2010)
2. Mamta Rao, Law Relating to Women & Children 2nd ed., reprint 2011.

JOURNALS
1. Amitesh Lal, Marriage & Divorce Under Tribal and Customary Law: A Perspective,
Principal Judge, Family Courts, Jamshedpur.
23. Monica Bidyasar, Critical Analysis of Minors’ Right to Abortion Under Medical
Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, 7 Int'l J.L. Mgmt. & Human. 1572 (2024).

24. Rodman, H., & Griffith, S. B. (1982). Adolescent autonomy and minors’
legal rights: Contraception and abortion. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 3(4), 307–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/0193-3973(82)90003-X

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

5
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
__________________________________________________________________________

XXII TSV NATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 2025

The Hon’bl Supreme Court of Aidni has the inherent jurisdiction to try, entertain and
dispose of the present case by virtue of Article 136 of the Constitution of Aidni.

The present memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions, and arguments.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Background

6
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
__________________________________________________________________________

XXII TSV NATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 2025

Aidni, a federal and democratic country with a rich cultural heritage, accommodates diverse
traditions through laws aligned with India’s legal framework. The Thooka tribe, residing in
Thunga Nadu and Berkala, follows age-old customs, including early marriages. Abbkku, a
respected tribal leader, lives in Thunga Nadu with his son Munna, who married 15-year-old
Kanti in a ceremony accepted by their community.

Unfolding of Events

Kanti became pregnant at 15, prompting a social welfare officer to report the case, citing
violations of Aidni’s criminal laws, including the POCSO Act. Munna was arrested for
statutory rape and dealt with under juvenile justice laws. Medical experts deemed Kanti’s
pregnancy detrimental to her health, but she refused termination, leading activist Dr.
Subhkala to petition unsuccessfully for abortion on health and welfare grounds.

Legal Proceedings

The Juvenile Justice Board ordered Munna’s trial in a children’s court based on social
investigation reports. Meanwhile, Dr. Subhkala argued against treating him as a juvenile and
advocated regular criminal laws. Bail was repeatedly denied. Abbkku and SRAWO
challenged the constitutionality of POCSO’s application to tribal customs and the denial of
bail in the High Court, which dismissed the petition. Appeals and cross-petitions, including
requests for abortion and jurisdictional transfer, are now before the Supreme Court.

ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE I

7
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
__________________________________________________________________________

XXII TSV NATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 2025

WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE HON’BLE

SUPREME COURT OF AIDNI IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?
__________________________________________________________________________
_
ISSUE II
WHETHER THERE IS A VIOLATION OF CULTURAL RIGHTS OF THE THOOKA
TRIBE OR NOT?
__________________________________________________________________________
_
ISSUE III

WHETHER MUNNA’S LEGAL TREATMENT IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF

FAIRNESS AND JUSTICE?

__________________________________________________________________________

ISSUE III
WHETHER KANTI’S BODILY AUTONOMY IS BEING INFRINGED?

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS

ISSUE I
WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE HON’BLE
SUPREME COURT OF AIDNI IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’bl court that the petition is maintainable as there
is sufficient locus standi, there is a substantial question of law and the fact that they have

8
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
__________________________________________________________________________

XXII TSV NATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 2025

exhausted all available remedies. Hence, all cases should be transferred to the HC of
Berkala.

__________________________________________________________________________
_
ISSUE II
WHETHER THERE IS A VIOLATION OF CULTURAL RIGHTS OF THE THOOKA
TRIBE OR NOT?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’bl court that there is a violation of both fundamental
rights as well as rights ratified through international conventions that are being violated.
__________________________________________________________________________
_
ISSUE III

WHETHER MUNNA’S LEGAL TREATMENT IS IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF

FAIRNESS AND JUSTICE?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’bl court that Munna’s legal treatment is in violation
of principles of fairness and justice.
__________________________________________________________________________
_
ISSUE III
WHETHER KANTI’S BODILY AUTONOMY IS BEING INFRINGED?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’bl court that Kanti’s bodily autonomy is being
infringed.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE I : WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE

HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF AIDNI IS MAINTAINABLE OR NOT?

9
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
__________________________________________________________________________

XXII TSV NATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 2025

1. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’bl court that the petition is maintainable as there
is sufficient locus standi (1.1), there is a substantial question of law (1.2) and the fact
that they have exhausted all available remedies (1.3).

1.1 EXISTENCE OF SUFFICIENT LOCUS STANDI

1.1.1 Directly affected parties

2. This Hon’bl Supreme Court has recognized that any aggrieved person (grievance of any
kind) has locus standi1 to address such issue. This also includes to allow individuals or
groups to approach the court on behalf of those unable to represent themselves, such as
marginalized or tribal communities. This supports the petitioners’ standing to approach
the Court. The petitioners, Abbkku (a representative of the Thooka tribe), Munna (the
accused), and SRAWO (a social rights organization), are directly affected by the
application of laws such as the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act
(POCSO Act) and Juvenile Justice laws. Since these laws impact their personal liberty,
cultural practices, and rights, they have a direct stake in challenging their applicability
and validity.

1.1.2 Violation of Fundamental rights

3. The petitioners argue that the enforcement of statutory laws over customary tribal
practices infringes on their fundamental rights under Articles 14 (equality before the
law), 15 (prohibition of discrimination), 19 (protection of cultural practices), and 21
(right to life and personal liberty). When fundamental rights are violated, the affected
individuals or communities have locus standi to approach the court.
4. The petitioners represent the Thooka tribe, whose cultural and customary practices, such
as early marriage, are integral to their identity. The Constitution of Aidni (mirroring
India’s framework) protects the rights of minorities under Article 29, allowing them to
preserve their cultural practices. The enforcement of laws that undermine these practices
directly impacts the tribe, giving the petitioners locus standi.

1
Shanti Kumar R. Canji vs The Home Insurance Co. Of New York 1974 AIR 1719

10
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
__________________________________________________________________________

XXII TSV NATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 2025

1.2 JURISDICTION OF THE SC UNDER ARTICLE 36 CAN BE

INVOKED WHEN A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES

1.2.1 Exceptional and extraordinary power of the Supreme Court

5. Article 136 vests the Supreme Court of India with a special power to grant special leave.
“Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in it’s discretion, grant
special leave to appeal from any judgement, decree, determination, sentence or order in any
cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.”

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgements has pointed out that this special
discretionary power is granted to the Supreme Court to grant leave to appeal against any
judgement in case any substantial constitutional question of law is involved, or gross
injustice has been done. The High Court of Thunga Nadu has done gross injustice to the
Petitioners by dismissing the appeal made by them.

1.2.2 Substantial question of law

8. In the view of the petitioners, the appropriate standard for judging whether a legal issue
brought up in the case is significant would be whether it is of general public interest or
whether it directly and significantly impacts the parties' rights, and if so, whether it is either
an open question in the sense that it has not been definitively resolved by the HC of Thunga
Nadu and necessitates consideration of opposing viewpoints.

9. The jurisdiction conferred under Art. 136 on the SC are corrective one and not a
restrictive one.2 A duty is enjoined upon the SC to exercise its power by setting
right the illegality in the judgments is well-settled that illegality must not be allowed
to be perpetrated, and failure by the SC to interfere with the same would amount to
allowing the illegality to be perpetuated.3 It has been held in plethora of cases that when

2
Haryana State Industrial Corpn. V. Cork Mfg. Co., A.I.R. 2007 8 S.C.C. 359
3
Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, A.I.R. 2003 11 S.C.C. 241 (S.C.); see also 1 H.M. Seervai, Constitutional
Law Of India (4th ed. 2010); see also 35 Halsbury‟s Laws of India (2007).

11
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
__________________________________________________________________________

XXII TSV NATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 2025

the question of law of general public importance arises, the jurisdiction of SC can be
invoked by filing special leave petition.

In the present case, the issue involves matter of General Public Importance and hence,
entitled to be maintainable. Article 136 is the residuary power of SC to do justice
where the court is satisfied that there is injustice.4

The principle is that this court would never do injustice nor allow injustice being
perpetrated for the sake of upholding technicalities.5
The SLP challenges the constitutional validly of the provisions of the The Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 as well as the rights related to cultural
identity under Art. 25 and 29 along with Juvenile justice.

10. The SLP consist of a pure question of law and should be held maintainable.6
Article 136 confers on the Supreme Court to interfere in the exceptional cases where the
laws are uncertain and there is substantial question of law.7 The SLP hence stands
maintainable. The petitioner therefore contends before the Hon’bl Supreme Court of Aidni
that the instant petition should be held maintainable.

1.3 PETITIONER HAS EXHAUSTED ALTERNATIVE REMEDIES

11. The petitioners have pursued and exhausted all available alternative remedies to
safeguard their legal and constitutional rights. The petitioners having reached the Supreme
Court as a last resort, they now seek protection of these rights through the present SLP8.
This petition invokes the Court's exceptional and extraordinary powers9, which are of a

4
C.C.E v. Standard Motor Products, A.I.R.1989 1298 (S.C.), see also 1 H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law Of
India (4th ed. 2010).
5
Janshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees Port of Mumbai, A.I.R. 20
04 3 S.C.C. 214 (SC).
6
State of U.P v. Indian Hume pipe co. Ltd., A.I.R. 1977 S.C.1132.
7
Bengal Chemical Pharmaceutical Works ltd v. Employees, A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 633(635); TirupatiBalaji
Developer Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 2004 S.C. 2351.
8
MI builders (P) ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu, A.I.R.1999 S.C. 2468.
9
Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills v. C.I.T., A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 65

12
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
__________________________________________________________________________

XXII TSV NATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 2025

residuary and reserve nature10, and whose scope of application cannot be exhaustively
defined. Consequently, the petitioners argue that the SLP should be deemed maintainable
due to the unavailability of further remedies11.

The Petitioner challenges the decision of the lower court by the privilege given
under Article 136 of the Constitution of Aidni12. The Supreme Court can grant special leave
to any aggrieved by the decision of any lower court13.

In the current case, there has been not only contentions against how the POCSO Act is
affecting the cultural rights of the parties but also juvenile justice rights and medical rights.

12. It is submitted that, the present facts in issue satisfy all of the above mentioned
criteria. The case involves the matter of general public importance and it
directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties as the order is erroneous
and prejudicial to the interest of Children. The SLP contains pure question of law
and the challenges the decision of lower courts which cause abuse of due process of
law and injustice and stands maintainable. The constitution requests the apex court to
entertain the SLP under Article 136 as the matter lies within the complete discretion
of the SC and the only limit upon it is the wisdom and good sense of judges of court.

ISSUE II: WHETHER THERE IS A VIOLATION OF CULTURAL RIGHTS OF

THE THOOKA TRIBE OR NOT?

13. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’bl Court that there is a violation of cultural
rights of the Thooka tribe enshrined by the Constitution of Aidni [2.1],as well as
International conventions [2.2] .

2.1 VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

10
Durga Shankar Mehta v. Thakur Raghunath Singh, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 520
11
Haryana State Industrial coprn. v. Cork mfg. Co., A.I.R. 2007 8
S.C.C. 120
12
Kerala State Board v. Kurein E kalathil, A.I.R. 2000 6 S.C.C. 293
13
The Supreme Court Rules, 1966, Art 136, Order XVI Ch. XXXVII, Sec. E.

13
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
__________________________________________________________________________

XXII TSV NATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 2025

14. It is submitted before this Hon’bl Court that there is a violation of fundamental rights
enshrined by the Constitution of Aidni in the following manner:

2.1.1 Criminalisation of Tribal Marriage practices

15. The Thooka tribe follows a customary practice of swayamvara, where teenagers can
choose their life partners and decide on marriage, which is accepted by the family and
community. This practice has been going on since the dawn of time and has cultural
significance. The POCSO Act intends to help victims of sexual crimes but applying the
POCSO Act to prosecute Munna for marrying Kanti, criminalizes a deeply ingrained tribal
practice, disregarding the cultural traditions of the Thooka tribe. Article 29 (1) guarantees
the right to conserve distinct cultural practices, which is being infringed upon by the state’s
blanket application of statutory laws.

2.1.2 Imposition of Statutory restrictions on the tribal community.

16. In Aidni, the minimum age of marriage is 21 years for men and 18 years for
women14. In the current case, Munna is of age 17 and Kanti is of age 15. This is
conflicting with the statutory minimum age. Thooka tribe’s cultural norms are being
violated here. We can see a lack of accommodation of Indigenous practices in the
present legal framework. The prosecution of Munna under laws like POCSO, which
do not account for tribal customs, demonstrates the state's failure to recognize the
unique needs of indigenous communities, amounting to cultural insensitivity. Kanti’s
family and community supported her decision to marry Munna and have a child.
Despite this, the state authorities intervened, citing statutory provisions. This
intervention undermines the collective autonomy of the Thooka tribe, which values
community-based decision-making. The state’s disregard for this practice violates
the spirit of Article 21 (right to dignity and liberty). Along with this, the laws that
disproportionately affect tribal practices constitute indirect discrimination against a
minority community, violating Article 15(1).
17. Tribal communities often rely on customary laws. Overriding these practices
through blanket statutory provisions without accommodations violates their identity.
This Hon’bl court has emphasized the need to balance constitutional provisions with
14
Section 2(a) Prohibition of Child Marriage Act of 2006

14
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
__________________________________________________________________________

XXII TSV NATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 2025

social justice and the rights of backward communities before. 15 The Hindu Marriage
Act exempts certain tribal communities from its application. A similar
accommodation should exist under POCSO to respect tribal practices. Incorporating
them with The Special Marriages Act, 1956. There is need to integrate tribal
customary practices within the constitutional framework 16. The Indian parliament
legislated the Panchayat (Extension to Schedule Tribe Areas) Act, 1996. PESA
mandated India to devolve certain political, administration and radial powers to local
Government elected by the tribal community in their jurisdiction, and to preserve
their tradition and entrusting them with the authority to manage their community
resources. A law on similar lines is required today to preserve the various customary
laws of the tribal community on marriage, more so, when the clamour for a uniform
civil code is intensified day by day.17

2.2 INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS

18. There are International conventions Article 11 of UNDRIP18 emphasizes the right of
indigenous peoples to practice and revitalize their cultural traditions and customs. By
criminalizing tribal marriage practices, India risks violating the principles of
UNDRIP, which it supports. By failing to accommodate their practices, India
disregards its commitments under international conventions like UNDRIP and
ICCPR, which emphasize the protection of indigenous cultural practices and
autonomy. These International conventions are legally binding and has been part of
judgements such as T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad VS Union Of India19.

ISSUE III: IS MUNNA’S LEGAL TREATMENT IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES

OF FAIRNESS AND JUSTICE?

19. It is respectfully submitted before the Hon’ble Court that Munna’s legal treatment
violates the principles of fairness and justice. The process of seeking a Social
Investigation Report (SIR) and Preliminary Assessment under the existing law
relating to children undermines the rights of the accused in the criminal process
[3.1]. Furthermore, the arbitrary denial of bail exacerbates this injustice, depriving
Munna of his fundamental rights to due process and personal liberty [3.2].

15
M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006 SCC 1)
16
Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar (1996 AIR 1864)
17
Amitesh Lal, Marriage & Divorce Under Tribal and Customary Law: A Perspective, Principal Judge,
Family Courts, Jamshedpur.
18
The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
19
T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India and Others, (1997) 2 SCC 267

15
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
 __________________________________________________________________________

XXII TSV NATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 2025

3.1 UNFAIRNESS OF SIR AND PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT

20. It is humbly submitted the process of seeking a Social Investigation Report (SIR) and
Preliminary Assessment under the existing law relating to children (Juvenile Justice Act,
2015) can vitiate the rights of an accused in a criminal process.

The Preliminary Assessment Report and SIR are often prepared by individuals or
institutions unfamiliar with the cultural and socio-economic background of the accused, as
seen in Munna's case, where a professor from another state prepared the report.
This can lead to a biased or incomplete understanding of the accused's circumstances,
unfairly influencing decisions on culpability and bail. The lack of cultural sensitivity
violates the principle of fairness in criminal proceedings. The Juvenile Justice Act mandates
assessments to be fair, objective, and contextual.20

21. The accused has little to no opportunity to challenge or provide input during the
preparation of these reports, leading to unilateral conclusions. This denies the accused
the right to a fair hearing, a fundamental principle under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Decisions based solely on these reports can unjustly disadvantage the accused.
The law provides vague criteria for assessing whether a juvenile should be tried as an adult,
such as physical capacity, mental ability, and understanding of consequences. The
subjective nature of these assessments can lead to arbitrary outcomes, as seen in Munna’s
case, where his physical build and leadership qualities were emphasized over other factors.
Such assessments risk unfairly categorizing juveniles as adults, exposing them to harsher
penalties. The Court emphasized that preliminary assessments must be evidence-based
and not rely on superficial observations.21

22. Dr. Subhkala wrote an article in a leading newspaper arguing that Munna should not be
treated as a juvenile under the law. Her article questioned the appropriateness of
applying juvenile justice principles to Munna’s case, portraying him as a mature
individual with significant social influence and strong physical capabilities, as
highlighted in the preliminary assessment report. This public stance could have
influenced opinion of the ones who prepare the report by introducing a narrative that
Munna was undeserving of the protections typically afforded to juveniles, swaying the
court against granting him bail. The public might have viewed Munna as a more
culpable individual, rather than as a juvenile entitled to rehabilitation and protection.

23. There is no standardized mechanism for preparing SIRs, leading to inconsistent practices.
In Munna’s case, the report failed to account for his tribal background and socio-economic
challenges. This undermines the reliability of the reports, which are crucial in determining
the treatment of juveniles in the justice system. The procedural gaps violate the right to
equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
The process often pre-judges the accused’s guilt based on subjective interpretations in the
reports. This undermines the presumption of innocence, a cornerstone of criminal justice.

20
Shilpa Mittal v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2020
21
Kuldeep Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2021 SCC OnLine SC 895)

16
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
__________________________________________________________________________

XXII TSV NATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 2025

The focus shifts from rehabilitation to punishment, especially when juveniles are tried as
adults. The findings in these reports disproportionately influence bail decisions and
whether the accused is tried as a juvenile or an adult.
In Munna’s case, the reports led to the denial of bail and his trial in a children’s court,
despite his tribal and socio-economic background suggesting the need for leniency.
This arbitrary influence violates the principle of proportionality under Article 21 of the
Constitution.

24. The process of seeking Social Investigation Reports and Preliminary Assessments, as
applied in Munna’s case, is fraught with procedural and substantive flaws. It disregards
the accused’s cultural and socio-economic context, violates principles of natural justice,
and undermines constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 21. These flaws render the
process arbitrary and detrimental to the fairness of the criminal justice system.

25. Thus it is humbly contested that Munna’s legal treatment violates principles of natural
justice, cultural sensitivity, and constitutional rights. The arbitrary application of
statutory laws, denial of bail, flawed assessments, and prolonged detention collectively
amount to legal injustice and discrimination against Munna.

ISSUE IV: WHETHER KANTI’S BODILY AUTONOMY IS BEING INFRINGED?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that Kanti’s bodily autonomy is being
infringed through actions that violate her fundamental rights.

26. This Hon’bl Supreme court had declared “ A woman’s right to reproductive choice is an
inseparable part of her personal liberty under Article 21 of the constitution of India, she
has the sacrosanct right to bodily integrity”22 The medical team’s suggestion to terminate
Kanti’s 18-week pregnancy, coupled with the Social Welfare Officer’s pressure on her
family to consent to the procedure, directly infringes upon her right to bodily autonomy.
Kanti’s explicit refusal to undergo the abortion reflects her assertion of the fundamental
right to make decisions about her own body. Article 21 of the Constitution of Aidni,
which safeguards the right to life and personal liberty, includes the right to refuse
medical treatment. Coercive medical interventions violate this right, as upheld in
Common Cause v. Union of India23

The disregard for Kanti’s informed consent constitutes a significant violation of her personal
liberty. Despite being a minor, Kanti expressed a clear and reasoned choice to continue her
pregnancy, demonstrating her understanding of its consequences. The Mental Healthcare
Act, 2017, mandates informed consent in healthcare decisions, even for minors capable of
comprehending the implications. The Supreme Court, in Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh
Administration24, held that reproductive rights, including the choice of whether to continue a
pregnancy, are a part of personal liberty under Article 21. Ignoring Kanti’s refusal
undermines this right. Minors like Kanti must be allowed to exercise autonomy over
reproductive decisions to ensure dignity and equality. O'Connor highlights that regulating
22
X.V The Principal Secretary Health and Family Welfare Department & Anr, 2022 Live law SC (209)
23
Common Cause v. Union of India (2018 SCC 1)
24
Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration (2009 9 SCC 1)

17
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
__________________________________________________________________________

XXII TSV NATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 2025

reproductive choices is essential for women, including minors, to fully participate in social
and economic life25. Rodman and Griffith26 note that autonomy develops through consistent
feedback and guidance, while Bain’s research confirms minors can make informed decisions
if given proper support. Kanti’s refusal to terminate her pregnancy reflects her capacity for
reasoned choice. Denying her this autonomy violates her rights under Article 21 and
international conventions, which affirm equal rights for minors to make decisions about
their bodies.

27. According to the MTP Act, 1971 a minor can terminate their pregnancy with permission
of their guardian only. Here, her family is against the termination of the pregnancy.

28. Kanti’s decision to procreate aligns with her cultural practices and personal beliefs. The
pressure to terminate her pregnancy disregards her autonomy and violates the cultural
rights of the Thooka tribe. Article 29(1) of the Constitution protects the rights of
communities to conserve their distinct cultural practices, including customary family and
reproductive traditions. In Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar27, the Supreme Court
emphasized the need to balance statutory law with cultural preservation. By ignoring
Kanti’s cultural context, the authorities are failing to uphold this constitutional mandate.

29. It is also to be noted that Dr. Subhkala’s petition before the courts for the termination of
Kanti’s pregnancy further emphasized her position as a vulnerable minor needing
protection, contrasting it with the image of Munna as an adult-like figure taking
advantage of Kanti. This reinforced the view that granting bail to Munna could
exacerbate Kanti’s vulnerability or obstruct justice.

30. Additionally, these actions contravene India’s international obligations under the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
(CEDAW) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Both conventions
emphasize the importance of protecting women’s reproductive autonomy and ensuring
freedom from coercion in personal decisions. The Delhi High Court, in Laxmi Mandal v.
Deen Dayal Harinagar Hospital28 , underscored the significance of respecting individual
autonomy, including for minors, in reproductive choices.

Finally, the coercion to terminate Kanti’s pregnancy, coupled with the authorities’ failure to
respect her decision-making capacity, represents an unjustified interference in her personal
liberty. This interference disregards her cultural background, her maturity in making
decisions, and her right to dignity and autonomy under Article 21. Taken together, these
actions infringe upon Kanti’s fundamental rights and fail to meet the principles of justice,
equity, and fairness.

25
U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. (1991). Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey.
The Federal Reporter, 947, 682–727.
26
Rodman, H., & Griffith, S. B. (1982). Adolescent autonomy and minors’ legal rights: Contraception and
abortion. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 3(4), 307–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/0193-
3973(82)90003-X
27
Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar (1996 AIR 1864)
28
Laxmi Mandal v. Deen Dayal Harinagar Hospital (2010 SCC OnLine Del 2634)

18
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
__________________________________________________________________________

XXII TSV NATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 2025

PRAYER

Wherefore In The Light Of The Issues Raised, Argument Advanced, Reasons Given And
Authorities Cited, This Hon’ble Court May Be Graciously Pleased To hold that
1. The Special Leave Petition is maintainable.
2. To transfer all the cases to the High Court of Berkala.
3. Issue orders to make laws in terms of marriage for tribal populations
4. Grant bail for Munna
5. The government to not interfere with Kanti and her family’s decisions on her
pregnancy.

And Pass any other Order, Direction, or Relief that it may deem fit in the Best Interests of
Justice, Fairness, Equity and Good Conscience. For This Act of Kindness, the Respondent
Shall Duty Bound Forever Pray.
Sd/-

19
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
__________________________________________________________________________

XXII TSV NATIONAL MOOT COMPETITION 2025

(Counsel for the Appelant)

20
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT