MOOT MEMORIAL ON JJ ACT, Assignments of Law

Download MOOT MEMORIAL ON JJ ACT and more Assignments Law in PDF only on Docsity! 1 MOOT MASTERS CLUB, 2021 Before TEAM - 14 THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DISPUTE RELATING TO CONSTITUTIONALITY OF JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT, 2015 SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO.****/2021, UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 IN THE MATTER OF CHILD RIGHT AND WE (CRW) AND ANR…………………APPELLANT V. UNION OF INDIA……………………………………………RESPONDENT UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA M E M O R A N D U M O N B E H A L F O F APPELLANT 2 MOOT MASTERS CLUB, 2021 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………………………………………..4 STATEMENT OF PARTIES……………………………………………………………………..5 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………………………………6 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………………………………… 9 STATEMENT OF FACTS…………………………………………………………………..…..10 STATEMENT OF ISSUES……………………………………………………………………...12 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS………………………………………………………………...13 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED……………………………………………………………….......15 I. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE THIS COURT IS MAINTAINABLE I.1 WHETHER THE PETITIONER HAS LOCUS STANDI TO APPROACH THE HON’BLE SC?..................................................................................................................15 I.2 WHETHER THE SC HAS THE JURISDICTION TO HEAR THIS CASE UNDER ARTICLE 136?..................................................................................................................16 II. WHETHER THE IMPUGNED PROVISIONS [S15 & S18(3)] OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT, 2015 ARE VIOLATIVE OF THE BASIC STRUCTIRE OF THE CONSTITUTION? II.1WHETHER THE IMPUGNED PROVISIONS ARE VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION?....................................................................................19 II.2WHETHER THE IMPUGNED PROVISIONS ARE VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 15 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITITION?......................................................................................25 M E M O R A N D U M O N B E H A L F O F APPELLANT 5 MOOT MASTERS CLUB, 2021 STATEMENT OF PARTIES APPELLANTS 1. Child Rights and We (CRW) 2. Moriarty and family V. RESPONDENTS 1. Union Of India (UOI) 2. State of Maharashtra M E M O R A N D U M O N B E H A L F O F APPELLANT 6 MOOT MASTERS CLUB, 2021 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES SUPREME COURT CASES 1. S.P. Gupta vs Union Of India & Anr. AIR 1982 SC 149………………………………..14 2. Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr 1967 AIR, 1 1966 SCR (3) 744……………………………………………………………………………...14 3. Pritam Singh v. States 1950 AIR 169………………………………………………….14 4. Tirupati Balaji Developers Pvt. vs State Of Bihar And Ors 2004 Supp(1) SCR 494……15 5. Smt Ujjam Bai vs State Of U.P 1963(1) SCR 778………………………………………16 6. Kondiba Dagadu Kadam vs Savitkibai Sopan Gujar An Dors 1999 (2) SCR 728…..….16 7. Indra Sawhney II v. Union of India, (2000) 1 SCC 168…………………………………18 8. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. Union of India, (1996) 10 SCC 104………….……..…18 9. Motor General Traders v. State of A.P., (1984) 1 SCC 222, 229, 230…………………..18 10. In Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs International Airport Authority Of India And Others (1979 AIR(SC) 1628 )…………………………………………………………………...18 M E M O R A N D U M O N B E H A L F O F APPELLANT 7 MOOT MASTERS CLUB, 2021 11. I.R. Coelho (Dead) By Lrs vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors [(1972) 2 SCC 133]………18 12. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 477……….……………………….18 13. Dr. Subramaniam Swamy & Ors vs, Raju & Other (2014) 8 SCC 390………………….18 14. Salil Bali vs. Union of India (2013) 7 SCC 705……………………………………...18,23 15. J.S. Luthra Academy v. State of J&K, (2018) 18 SCC 65……………………………….19 16. Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India 1984 AIR 469…………………………………21 17. Shilpa Mittal v. State of (NCT of Delhi, (2020) 2 SCC 787…………………………….23 STATUES 1. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 2. The Constitution of India 3. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child WEBSITES 1. WWW.MANUPATRA.COM 2. WWW.LIVELAW.COM 3. WWW.SUPREMECOURTCASES.COM 4. HTTPS://WWW.SCCONLINE.COM/BLOG/ BOOKS AND ARTICLES 1. Indian Constitutional Law by MP Jain 2. Special Leave under Article 136 of the Constitution and keeping the question of law open by Dormaan Jamshid Dalal. 3. Supreme Court says it has sky-high powers to chase injustice by J. Venkatesan. M E M O R A N D U M O N B E H A L F O F APPELLANT 10 MOOT MASTERS CLUB, 2021 STATEMENT OF FACTS INDIA The Union of India is a democratic country. Its demography is diverse in nature. People from various backgrounds live here. The rich live in the bungalows while the poor live in slums. More than 6 million of India’s population comprises slum dwellers who hardly earn their daily livelihood. There are more than 1,00,000 slums in the country which serve as dwelling houses for these poor people. Maharashtra is one of the States in India with a maximum number of slums with more than 10% of the population residing in slums. CHARACTER OF MORIARTY Moriarty is a 15-year-old boy living in the slums of Mumbai, Maharashtra. He lived with his mother who works as a maid in different houses and carries out household chores. His father was an alcoholic and a drug addict who died two years ago due to an overdose. He skipped school for a year due to his father’s death and as a consequence of financial instability. As a young boy, Moriarty mostly used to hang out with his three friends namely, Mycroft, Sherlock, and Watson. They were of the same age and were from a similar background. Therefore, Moriarty shared a special bond with them. MORIARTY’S 16th BIRTHDAY M E M O R A N D U M O N B E H A L F O F APPELLANT 11 MOOT MASTERS CLUB, 2021 On the eve of Moriarty’s 16th birthday, his friends decided to do something special for him since he was the first among them to turn 16. They agreed that they would throw Moriarty a birthday party. In order to execute the plan, they were in need of money. Consequently, they decided to work for different people, fishermen, shopkeepers, cleaners, etc. but they could hardly manage to collect around one hundred rupees. Due to the paucity of time and money, Sherlock came up with an alternative plan to acquire some quick cash. KIDNAPPING FOR RANSOM Sherlock and the others agreed to kidnap Lestrade. This idea came to him as a double opportunity; to threaten Lestrade as well as ask for ransom from his parents since he and Moriarty had had several feuds in the past. The boys started planning the kidnapping of Lestrade. They had planned to kidnap Lestrade before he boarded his school bus at 7 AM since the street he lived in remained uninhabited during that time. Additionally, it would also give enough time for the boys to move Lestrade to a place where no one would find out since his parents would assume that he had gone to school. Therefore, they decided to first keep Lestrade in Moriarty’s house because it was only Moriarty whose house was empty at that time. After nightfall, they decided to move him to a boat on the seashore. Meanwhile, Lestrade’s parents had already filed a complaint with the police. The only task left was to call his parents and ask for the ransom amount. When Mycroft placed a call to his parents, the call was traced by the police. In no time, the police figured out the location where Lestrade had been taken, hostage. As a result, all four friends were arrested. COURT TRIAL The four kids were, therefore, charged with kidnapping for ransom under Sec. 364A of IPC, 1860. Sherlock, Mycroft, and Watson were tried before the Juvenile Justice Board because of their minor age. They confessed to their crimes and the Board had convicted them of kidnapping for ransom. They ordered that the boys be sent to an NGO named CRW, a special home under Sec. 48 of the JJ Act, 2015 for a period of three months. On the other hand, Moriarty was subjected to the preliminary assessment by Juvenile Justice Board under Sec. 15 of the JJ Act, 2015 and sent for trial by the Special Court under Section 18(3) of the JJ Act, 2015 as an adult M E M O R A N D U M O N B E H A L F O F APPELLANT 12 MOOT MASTERS CLUB, 2021 on the count of kidnapping for ransom and sentenced to 5 years of imprisonment. SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION Moriarty’s parents felt completely helpless, and they had no alternative remedy. Coincidentally, the director of CRW, Ms. Enola became privy to all the events that lead to the imprisonment of Moriarty. Therefore, with the consent of Moriarty’s parents, she decided to appeal before the Hon’ble SC of India on the grounds that certain provisions which differentiate children on the basis of their age were unconstitutional in nature. The SC accepted to hear the special leave petition filed by Ms. Enola and her organization. STATEMENT OF ISSUES -I- WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE THIS COURT IS MAINTAINABLE? -II- WHETHER THE IMPUGNED PROVISIONS [S15 & S18(3)] OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT, 2015 ARE VIOLATIVE OF THE BASIC STRUCTIRE OF THE CONSTITUTION? -III- WHETHER THE IMPUGNED PROVISIONS OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT, 2015 ARE IN CONTRAVENTION TO THE UNITED NATION CONVENTION ON RIGHTS OF CHILDREN? M E M O R A N D U M O N B E H A L F O F APPELLANT 15 MOOT MASTERS CLUB, 2021 development. India, by introducing an amendment that a child of 16-18 years of age who has committed a heinous crime is to be tried as an adult contravenes the convention by its principles. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED I. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE THIS COURT IS MAINTAINABLE 1. It is humbly submitted that the Special Leave Petition against the judgment of Hon’ble High Court is maintainable under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Article 136 empowers the Supreme Court to grant in discretion 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.1 It is humbly submitted that powers under Article 136 can be exercised against any kind of judgement or order which is causing injustice to any party, and to serve the need, the power under Article 136 is 1 Indian Constitution Act, 1950 M E M O R A N D U M O N B E H A L F O F APPELLANT 16 MOOT MASTERS CLUB, 2021 unfettered.2 I.1 This SLP is maintainable as, firstly the petitioner has locus standi to approach the Hon’ble SC. I.2 Secondly, the matter involves question of general public importance involving a substantial question of law. I.1 WHETHER THE PETITIONER HAS LOCUS STANDI TO APPROACH THE HON’BLE SC? 2. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble SC that the appellant has locus standi to approach the Hon’ble SC in the present case. Article 136 of the Constitution is couched in the widest phraseology.3 This Court's jurisdiction is limited only by its discretion.4 Article 136 is very broad-based & confers discretion on the court to hear “in any cause or matter”. In Pritam Singh v. States,5 the Supreme Court laid down the broad principles within which it would exercise its jurisdiction in granting special leave under this Article. The Court observed on a careful examination of Article 136 along with the preceding article, it seems clear that the wide discretionary power with which this Court is invested under it is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases only, and as far as possible a more or less uniform standard should be adopted in granting special leave in the wide range of matters which can come up before it under this article. By virtue of this article, we can grant special leave in civil cases, in criminal cases, in income tax cases, in cases which come up before different kinds of tribunals and in a variety of other cases. The only uniform standard which in our opinion can be laid down in the circumstances is that the Court should grant special leave to appeal only in those cases where special circumstances are shown to exist. I.2 WHETHER THE SC HAS THE JURISDICTION TO HEAR THIS CASE UNDER 2 Special Leave under Article 136 of the Constitution and keeping the question of law open by Dormaan Jamshid Dalal 3 S.P. Gupta vs Union Of India & Anr. AIR 1982 SC 149 4 Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr 1967 AIR, 1 1966 SCR (3) 744 5 Pritam Singh v. States 1950 AIR 169 M E M O R A N D U M O N B E H A L F O F APPELLANT 17 MOOT MASTERS CLUB, 2021 ARTICLE 136? 3. The jurisdiction conferred under Art. 136 on the SC are corrective one and not a restrictive one.6 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 .It has been held in plethora of cases that when 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 [1] and substantial question of law [2]. I.2.1 The Matter Involves Question of Law of General Public Importance and Hence, entitled to be Maintainable. 4. It has been held by this Hon’ble Court that when a question of law of general public importance arises, or a decision shocks the conscience of the court, its jurisdiction can always be invoked. Article 136 is the residuary power of SC to do justice where the court is satisfied that there is injustice.7 The principle is that this court would never do injustice nor allow injustice being perpetrated for the sake of upholding technicalities. In any case, special leave would be granted from a second appellant decision only where the judgment raises issue of law of general public importance. In the case at hand, Unconstitutionality of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 is in question. Also, the Act is violative of article 14 and 15 of constitution, which has an impact on public at large. Hence, it is humbly submitted before this court that the matters involve question of law of general public importance and therefore, the appeal is maintainable under article 136 of the Constitution of India. I.2.2 The Matter Involves Substantial Question of Law and Hence Entitled to Be Maintainable. 6 Tirupati Balaji Developers Pvt. vs State Of Bihar And Ors 2004 Supp(1) SCR 494 7 Supreme Court says it has sky-high powers to chase injustice by J. Venkatesan M E M O R A N D U M O N B E H A L F O F APPELLANT 20 MOOT MASTERS CLUB, 2021 9. In 2013, in Salil Bali vs. GOI14, the Supreme Court, while upholding the constitutional validity of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 had observed that the Act of 2000 was in tune with the provisions of the Constitution and the various declarations and conventions adopted by the world community represented by the United Nations. Recognising children's vulnerability in the same judgement, the Supreme Court had held that children were amongst the most vulnerable sections in any society. Upholding 18 years as the age of juvenility, it was also observed that the age of eighteen has been fixed on account of the understanding of experts in child psychology and behavioral pattern and that till such an age the children in conflict with law could still be redeemed and restored to mainstream society, instead of becoming hardened criminals in future. 10. The petitioner also observes that in Dr. Subramaniam Swamy & Ors vs, Raju & Other15 case also, the Supreme Court had observed that there was a considerable body of world opinion that all persons under 18 ought to be treated as juveniles and separate treatment ought to be meted out to them so far as offences committed by such persons were concerned. The avowed object was to ensure their rehabilitation in the society and to enable the young offenders to become useful members of the society in later years. Further in order to elaborate the arguments and reasoning in detail, the arguments advanced are three folded: 2.1.1 Equality is the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. 2.1.2 The classification of children in the JJ Act, 2015 is valid under Art. 14. 2.1.3 The classification lacks intelligible differentia. 2.1.1 Whether equality forms the basic structure of the Indian Constitution? 11. Equality is considered as one of the magnificent corner-stones of Indian Democracy.16 In 14 Salil Bali vs. Union of India (2013) 7 SCC 705 15 Dr. Subramaniam Swamy & Ors vs, Raju & Other (2014) 8 SCC 390 16 Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 477 M E M O R A N D U M O N B E H A L F O F APPELLANT 21 MOOT MASTERS CLUB, 2021 Indra Sawhney II v. Union of India17, this Hon’ble Court held that the Indian Constitution is wedded to the concept of equality which is the basic feature of the Constitution. The concept of equality and equal protection of laws guaranteed by Article 14 in its spectrum encompasses social and economic justice in a political democracy.18 Therefore, the State while making laws should keep in mind that it should follow the basic principle that is enshrined in our Constitution through Art. 14 i.e., any treatment of equals unequally or unequal as equals will be a violation of basic structure of the Constitution of India according to the decision of this Hon’ble Court in Motor General Traders v. State of A.P.19 This Hon’ble Court has also reiterated several times this principle in several different cases. 12. The State by introducing the JJ Act, 2015 and by allowing the Courts for trial of children of age 16 and above who have committed a heinous offence has disregarded the basic principles enshrined in the Constitution. Art. 14 enunciates that treatment of equals unequally is unconstitutional. The State should treat all children who have committed a heinous offence equally and the children should not be treated as an adult in certain cases. They ought to treat all children subjected to any legislation alike under like circumstances and conditions. 2.1.2 Whether the classification in JJ Act, 2015 is valid under Art. 14? 13. A valid classification is truly a valid discrimination based on a just objective. For a classification to be valid, it must be unarbitrary, rational and reasonably fair in nature. non-discriminatory. In Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs International Airport Authority Of India And Others20 the expression ―arbitrarily means: in an unreasonable manner, as fixed or done capriciously or at pleasure, without adequate determining principle, not founded in the nature of things, non-rational, not done or acting according to reason or 17 Indra Sawhney II v. Union of India, (2000) 1 SCC 168. 18 Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. Union of India, (1996) 10 SCC 104 19 Motor General Traders v. State of A.P., (1984) 1 SCC 222, 229, 230. 20 In Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs International Airport Authority Of India And Others (1979 AIR(SC) 1628 ) M E M O R A N D U M O N B E H A L F O F APPELLANT 22 MOOT MASTERS CLUB, 2021 judgment, depending on the will alone. 14. This Hon’ble Court laid out a test for determination of arbitrariness in J.S. Luthra Academy v. State of J&K.21 Whether an action was arbitrary or not depends upon facts of each case. Tests to determine it are (i) whether there is any discernible principle emerging from impugned act; and (ii) if yes, does it satisfy test of reasonableness. Where a mode is prescribed for performance of an act and there is no impediment in following that procedure, performance of that act otherwise and in manner which does not disclose any discernible principle which is reasonable, may attract arbitrariness. Executive action would not be arbitrary merely because action was not explicitly stated to have been taken for particular reason or based on particular principle which itself is reasonable. It would be open for courts to see whether such reasonable principle is discernible from facts of case. As courts can examine whether executive action is motivated by extraneous reasons so also courts can examine whether executive action led to germane objective by examining surrounding facts leading to that action. 15. It is submitted before this Hon’ble Court that although the State by introducing the provisions for trial of a child as an adult has provided principles, it is arbitrary in nature as it fails to provide valid reasons to implement such actions. The petitioners submit before this Court the downsides of this classification.  The primary objective of the JJ Act, 2015 is to provide a safe and understanding environment for children who are in conflict with law regardless of their age. A child who commits a heinous crime has to be dealt with utmost care and sensitivity as his reasoning and decision-making is highly flawed. He should be provided an environment where rehabilitation could be possible. This impugned act does not provide such opportunities for children to grow. If tried and convicted as an adult, the child would have to go through rigorous imprisonment which could scar him mentally and physically. 21 J.S. Luthra Academy v. State of J&K, (2018) 18 SCC 65. M E M O R A N D U M O N B E H A L F O F APPELLANT 25 MOOT MASTERS CLUB, 2021 the inhibition of this Article. The classification must be rational. The differentia which is the basis of classification and the subject of the Act are distinct things and what is necessary is that there must be a nexus between them. The legislation is given the utmost latitude in making the classification and it is only when there is a palpable abuse of power and the differences made have no rational relation to the objectives that judicial interference becomes necessary. Every State action must be informed by reason and it follows that an act uninformed by reason is per se arbitrary. 17. The Preamble to the JJ Bill, 2014 states that it seeks ―to consolidate and amend the law relating to children alleged and found to be in conflict with law and children in need of care and protection by catering to their basic needs through proper care, protection, development, treatment, social re-integration, by adopting a child-friendly approach in the adjudication and disposal of matters in the best interest of children and for their rehabilitation through processes provided, and institutions and bodies established. None of these objectives can be met by sending children alleged and found to be in conflict with the law to ̳places of safety‘ and/or an adult criminal justice system. Transfer will deprive these juveniles not only of protection and treatment and would amount to sentencing them to physical and sexual abuse by adult under-trials and convicts and leaving them with no option but to pursue a career in crime.23 18. The petitioner would like to draw the attention of this Hon’ble Court to the Salil Bali vs. Union of India24 where this Court has very aptly observed "There are, of course, exceptions where a child in the age-group of 16 to 18 may have developed criminal propensities, which would make it virtually impossible for him/her to be re-integrated into mainstream society, but such examples are not of such proportions as to warrant any charge in thinking, since it is probably better to try and re-integrate children with criminal propensities into mainstream society, 29 rather than to allow them to develop into hardened criminals, which does not augur well for the future." One must not forget that 23 Critique of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Bill, 2014 (JJ Bill) 24 Salil Bali vs. Union of India (2013) 7 SCC 705 M E M O R A N D U M O N B E H A L F O F APPELLANT 26 MOOT MASTERS CLUB, 2021 juvenile justice law is based on a strong foundation of reformation and rehabilitation, rather than on retribution. 19. Therefore, drastic changes proposed in some key areas of the existing system of juvenile justice need very deep introspection. It is all the more surprising that the State has very comfortably chosen to ignore the dire consequences of this impugned act. Better implementation of the Act and more public awareness were required to be focused upon to curb the recent cases of juvenile crime rather than adopting a retribution form of justice. 2.2 Whether the impugned sections of the JJ Act, 2015 violates Article 15(3) of the Indian Constitution? 20. It is further submitted that the impugned Act is in violation of Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India. Art. 15(3) enables the state to make special provisions for welfare of the children. This Hon’ble Court has emphasized in Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India25, upon the great significance of child welfare in the country. According to the Supreme Court, the welfare of the entire community depends on the health and welfare of its children. Referring to the various constitutional provisions, the Court has said, "The Constitutional provisions reflect the great anxiety of the constitution-makers to protect and safeguard the interests and welfare of children in the country." Bhagwati J while delivering the opinion of the Court observed underlining upon the importance of the welfare of the children: "It is obvious that in a civilized society the importance of child welfare cannot be over emphasized, because the welfare of the entire community, its growth and development, depend on the health and well-being of its children. Children are a 'supremely important national asset and the future well-being of the nation depends on how its children grow and develop."26 25 Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India 1984 AIR 469 26 MP Jain Indian Constitutional Law M E M O R A N D U M O N B E H A L F O F APPELLANT 27 MOOT MASTERS CLUB, 2021 21. It is submitted that the stated object of the Act is for the welfare of children, however, the amendment passed makes the legislation draconian and against the idea of welfare of children. It is submitted that the idea behind treating a certain age group as children is to protect the most vulnerable section of the society. In case a crime is committed by the children, the endeavour of the state should be reformative rather than punitive or worse retributive. The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), a multi-disciplinary body meant to dispose matters in the best interest of the child, is now empowered to re-criminalize the child.27 The law of juvenile justice stands on the principles of restorative justice and any digression from the same would be detrimental to the right of the children and in contravention with the principle as enunciated under Article 15(3) of the Constitution. It is respectfully submitted that the impugned act seeks to punish the child in conflict with law for the failure of the society at large in providing the child with adequate care and protection. III. WHETHER THE IMPUGNED PROVISIONS OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT, 2015 ARE IN CONTRAVENTION TO THE UNITED NATION CONVENTION ON RIGHTS OF CHILD? 22. The humble Petitioner submits that the impugned amendment is against the UN Convention on the Rights of the child, which is a comprehensive, internationally binding Agreement on the rights of children (hereinafter referred to as "The UNCRC"), which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1989. The definition of child as envisaged in Article-1 states- For the purposes of the present Convention, a child means Every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier." III.1 Whether the impugned sections of the JJ Act violates Art. 37, 39 & 40 of the 27 Developing Statutes for Competence to Stand Trial in Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings: A Guide for Lawmakers, 2 April 2012 M E M O R A N D U M O N B E H A L F O F APPELLANT 30 MOOT MASTERS CLUB, 2021 and extent of reformation. Such discrimination is also contrary to Article 2 of the legally binding UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which prohibits discrimination of any kind, including religion, property and other status. Furthermore, the State is pushing children of age 16-18 who are in conflict with law and have committed heinous crimes into the adult criminal justice system. Keeping in mind the above data, a child who has already been exposed to unsafe environment might have the potential to turn into a typical criminal if these sections are imposed in the society. They will be subject to potential torture, exploitation and other forms of cruelty in the adult criminal justice system. Consequently, those children would lose the opportunity for reintegration and rehabilitation in life. M E M O R A N D U M O N B E H A L F O F APPELLANT 31 MOOT MASTERS CLUB, 2021 PRAYER IN THE LIGHT OF THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED, CASES AND AUTHORITIES CITED ABOVE, THE PETITIONER HUMBLY REQUESTS THE HON‟BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, TO ADMIT THE WRIT PETITION, AND IN SO DOING, ADJUDGE AND DECLARE THAT: I. THE JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT (CARE AND PROTECTION ACT) ACT, 2015 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BEING INTER-ALIA VIOLATIVE OF THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE CONSTITUTION, THE PRINCIPLES OF EQUALITY ENSHRINED IN THE PREAMBLE OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION FOR RIGHTS OF CHILD. 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 PETITIONER SHALL DUTY BOUND FOREVER PRAY. M E M O R A N D U M O N B E H A L F O F APPELLANT 32 MOOT MASTERS CLUB, 2021 SD/- COUNSELS FOR THE PETITIONER M E M O R A N D U M O N B E H A L F O F APPELLANT