1.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Dr. Abey Mathews was a 36 year old doctor who died in a motor accident on
3.5.1996 while studying for M.s. Course in the Medical College, Kottayam. The motor
bike in which the deceased was travelling as pillion rider along with his relative was
knocked down by a tempo van driven by one Mohammed Ibrahim. The deceased sustained
injuries and was admitted in the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam where he later died.

A claim petition was filed in the Motor Claims Tribunal (MACT) against
Mohammed Ibrahim, driver of the van and the Oriental Insurance Company, by the widow
of the deceased named Jainy Abey, who is also a Doctor by profession ,2 children Roshen
Abey and Lisa Abey, born to the deceased and the parents of the deceased. In the claim
petition so filed, Alina Mary Abey and Johny Noru Abey who are the children of the
deceased and one Mrs.Mary got impleaded as additional respondents.

Even though Mrs. Mary claimed to be married to the deceased and Alina and Johny
are the children born in that wedlock, the tribunal held that since the first marriage was
subsisting there could not be another valid marriage by the deceased with Mrs. Mary.
However , the children born to the deceased through Mrs. Mary were granted
compensation along with the rest of the claimants out of the total compensation awarded,
Rs.50,000/- each was given to the parents of the deceased and the parents was apportioned
among Jainy Abey Mathews, Roshan Abey Mathews, Lisa Abey Mathews, Alina and
Johny equally.

Against this award, appeal was filed by Jainy Abey Mathews as was first appellant
and her two children as appellants 2 & 3 respectively for enhancement of compensation
and also for cancelling the award passed in favour of Alina and Johny (Respondent 4&5).
According to Respondents 4&5, Dr Abey Mathews married their mother as per an
agreement and they were born in that wedlock. Mrs.Mary produced the documents as to
the fact that the deceaced and herself lived together on the understanding that they will
eventually get married after getting divorce from the first appellant.

 
2. STATEMENT OF FACTS

Maggi is the daughter of Judith who had used medicine containing “DIETHYL
STILBESTROL” (D.E.S) during her pregnancy. This medicine is a synthetic
compound of female hormone estrogen used for the purpose of preventing
miscarriage. At the time the medicine was used by Judith , the harmful
consequences that may be caused to the female descendents were not known. Govt.
of India , through the Drug Controller had given licenses for the manufacture and
sale of this medicine. Subsequently , research studies revealed that D.E.S might
cause cancerous vaginal and cervical growth in the female descendents of women
who used this medicine during pregnancy. The symptoms will remain latent for a
period of 10 to 13 years and will reveal positive symptoms of disease only after
that time. Maggi developed this disease at the age of 15 and had to undergo
surgery and treatment for a long period. Realizing the cause of illness she wanted
to sue the manufacturers of the medicine administered to her mother. But due to
the long lapse of time the exact manufacturer whose medicine was used by her
mother could not be identified. It was ascertained that during the period when
Judith used the medicine four major pharmaceutical companies are engaged in the
manufacture and sale of medicines containing D.E.S. They together had a market
share of 96% of the product. These companies continued to produce and enjoy the
market share of 96% even now. Maggi files a writ petition before the Supreme
Court of India arguing that allowing these companies to manufacture and sell this
medicine the Government violated her rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. Under the Geneva Declaration 1970 , and the Helsinki Declaration on Bio-
medical Research 1975 , Government owes duty to ensure that medical product used
for therapeutic purposes are not dangerous. Even though these conventions are not
incorporated in right under Article 21. Failure

to identify real manufacturer is due to lapse of time which is inevitable to the

special nature of the case. In many developed countries proportionate liability based
upon the market share of the product is recognized and that principle is not
contrary to any legal principles adopted in India. Maggi pleads that the
compensation should be recovered from the four pharmaceutical companies made as
respondents in the petition. She also pleads that allowing the sale of hazardous
products like D.E.S amounts to violation of the International Convention on Human
Rights. Other causes of action pleaded by her are theory of Strict liability of
manufacturers , failure to warn the physicians and patients of the adverse effects ,
violation of implied warranties by the producers , conspiracy and lack of consent.
She seeks a compensation of rupees 10 lakhs for herself and pleads for a direction
to the pharmaceutical companies to establish a well-equipped hospital to give free
treatment to patients suffering from serious diseases caused by the use of dangerous
drugs including D.E.S manufactured and sold by them. The Government and the
pharmaceutical companies refuse all these contentions and reliefs prayed for.

3. STATEMENT OF FACTS

Mr. Arjun Pandit and Mr.Manohar Lal Kashyap are two very prominent leaders of the two
prominent leaders of the oldest political parties of Ganrajya. Arjun Pandit was invited to
participate in an open discussion on “Corruption in public life: How will Ganrajya fight
back?”. During the discussion Arjun Pandit started raising allegations against Mr. Narayan
Jyoti, honourable prime minister who belonged to Bharat Vidhata Party (BVP).He alleged
that Mr. Narayan Jyoti is using his political office to collect unaccountable offers and
money. The debate got so heated that workers of both the parties started hitting each other
and the Prime Minister had to leave the venue.

1. The national daily “New Morning” interviewed Mr.Kashyap about the whole
incident and he too took a very strong stand in favour of Mr. Arjun Pandit and the
allegations against the Prime Minister. This interview was published on the morning of
01.01.2016. Two weeks later on another TV debate also Mr. Arjun Pandit started alleging
the same charges of corruption, misadministration and inefficiency against Mr.Kashyap.
Every single dialogue spoken at the TV debate was publised by the newspaper.

2. A criminal complaint was filed for prosecution sanction by Central Government u/s
499,500 Ganrajya Penal Code against Arjun Pandit and Manohar Lal Kashyap on
14.03.2016. Thereafter the accused filed a Writ Petition (Civil) titled Arjun Pandit and Ors
v. Union of Ganrajya and Ors under Article 32 of the Constitution before the Supreme
Court challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 499 and 500 of the Ganrajya Penal
Code. The constitutional validity of the Petition is challenged forthwith.
3. The accused filed a Writ Petition before the Supreme Court of Ganrajya the Union
of Ganrajya with regard to various issues that have been listed for hearing on …………. .
4. STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Baba Satyanand is a well-known religious leader and preacher in India. He

established himself as a public figure and his influence is so strong that his followers have
started a new sect namely “Satyas”, following his teachings. Thus he became the people
leader of the sect “Satyas”.

2. One of his prominent teachings is not touch the liquor, which was the prime reason
for his popularity and hence he is not only worshipped as God but he also has a large sect
following him.

3. Silbil is a magazine, which publishes the stories, poems cartoons and sketches, all
based on the fictional nature of work primarily. It also publishes a parody column,
whereby it published the mocking cartoons and sketches or relevant description of
contemporary nature. But, while publishing the parody for contemporary figures or events
it uses the element of factual truth and modifies accordingly to suit the parody content or
situation. But in course of publication, it also uses the disclaimer to show the innocent use
of humor.

4. 4. In the same course, Silbil magazine in its August 2015 issue published the
parody column containing the description of Baba Satyanand campaigning in an
advertisement of liquor brand, as a parody to his teaching of non-consumption of liquor. It
used the picture of Baba Satyanand holding liquor bottle in his hand and describing to his
pupil about its importance and first-hand experience. It became a matter of grave concern
and reputation for the whole sect of Baba Satyanand’s followers.

A nationwide meeting of followers of Satyas was called to decide the course of action on
Silbil Magazine. On Sept 7, 2015, a meeting was held in Delhi, where the members of
sects attending the meeting were provided with the photography of the concerned parody
column of Silbil Magazine to discuss the issue of course of action to be decided by the
followers. One the next day, it was decided by the followers to approach court to take
legal action against Silbil Magazine.
5. STATEMENT OF FACTS

The State of Karnataka appointed a Commission headed by retired High Court judge to
identify the groups amongst the Scheduled Castes found in the List prepared under Article
341 of the Constitution of India by the President, who had failed to secure the benefit of
the reservations provided for Scheduled Castes in the State in admission to professional
colleges and appointment to services in the State.

The Report submitted by the Constitution led to certain litigations and a reference being
made by the State to the National Scheduled Castes Commission. Accepting the Report of
the Commission the State by an Ordinance divided the 57 castes enumerated in the
Presidential List into 4 groups based on inter-se backwardness and fixed separate quota in
reservation for each of these groups. Thus, the castes in the Presidential List came to be
grouped as A, B, C and D. The 15% reservations for the backward class in the State in the
educational institutions and in the services of the State under Article 15(4) and 16(4) of the
Constitution of India for the Scheduled Castes were apportioned amongst the 4 groups.

The said Ordinance came to be challenged by Common Good an NGO before the High
Court by way of PIL as being violative of Articles 14, 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution
of India as also the Constitutional (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 notified by the President
of India and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Amendment Act, 1976. During the
pendency of the said writ petitions, the State Government replaced the Ordinance with the
Karnataka Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservation) Act, 2000. Consequently the
Act was also challenged and the petition was dismissed. Hence this appeal was filed before
the Supreme Court of India.
6. STATEMENT OF FACTS

Three people were hit by a train in the state of Kerala, on Feb 12, 2011. The initial
investigations and enquiries revealed that the men were in fact business partners in M/s
Blue Diamond Incorporated, a concern that dealt in supplying labour force to the Gulf.
These three people were Shyam, Vivek and James.

The trio was earlier in limelight for a huge scandal alleging Blue Diamond incorporated to
be trafficking women and children to the Gulf for various purposes including sex trade.
The case was brought to the limelight by a sting operation carried out by JJ TV a leading
local channel which did only such sting operations. The channel had aired images of the
partners demanding money from applicants seeking to go to the Gulf and promising high
salaries to them. Audio recordings of them talking about trafficking of people and its
profitability were also aired. However, the trio had maintained that they were innocent.

‘Thraani’, an NGO filed a PIL in the High Court of Kerala Questioning the sting operation
and the ‘trail by media’, contending that responsibility of media is to maintain professional
standards by evolving a self-regulatory mechanism, and the sting operation is inconsistent
with the freedom of Press.

In the PIL the petitioner complained about the impropriety of intruding into the privacy of
people, specially in the absence of stringent laws protecting the privacy in the country.

The High Court found sting operations to blatantly violate the basic right of privacy of
individuals and came out with a set of regulations controlling the conduct of sting
operations:

1) A media Regulation Board (MRB) be created to regulate the conduct of television

channels.

2) Sting operations can be conducted only upon public servants that too only while
they are on duty.

3) Sting operations or telecasting of material shot without consent of private

individuals be subject to the permission of the MRB.

The order of the High Court is being challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court under
article 136 by Organization for Free Press as violation of articles 19(1) (a) and 19(1) (g).
The petitioners also contended that the High Court had transgressed its powers by
legislating in the matter. The matter is posted for hearing.
7. STATEMENT OF FACTS

Dr. Vineeth Nair and Dr. Anitha Nair got married on 1st February 2000. After 7 years of
marriage, their relation got strained due to some personal issues and they started living
separately. They were having two children who began to leave with Dr.Anitha Nair.

Dr.Vineeth Nair filed a petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for
dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. Wife filed an application under section 24
of the act, stating that the husband was working in a multi speciality hospital and his gross
salary was Rs 25,000/- approximately. Both the children were living with her and she alone
was maintaining, educating and bringing them up out of her own income. It was further
pleaded that the husband was contributing a sum of Rs5,000/- per month as per the orders
passed by the court whereas the expenses of the children come to Rs16,500/- per month as
per her affidavit submitted in the maintenance case.

Further she pleaded that she was not having sufficient income to meet the expenses of the
present litigation and also for proper maintenance and up bringing of both the children.
Accordingly, it was prayed that the petitioner be directed to pay the maintenance of the
above said expenses of proceedings and also sufficient amount towards maintenance
pendente lite for the children.

Upon notice in the said application, the husband filed detailed reply stating that the wife
was not entitled to any relief. It was further submitted that salary of the husband was
Rs22,904/- and he was getting Rs 13,722/- per month after compulsory deductions.
Further, an amount of 5,000/- per month after compulsory deductions. Further, an amount
of Rs5000/-per month was being paid by him to his children in compliance of the court
orders passed under section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.

Along with his reply, the petitioner-husband also put forth his counter claim stating that he
was also entitled to get maintenance allowance as well as litigation expenses from the wife
as his parents are old and unable to meet out the their daily needs and their medical
expenses and the petitioner has to render financial help to them which is obligatory on his
part.

It was reiterated that salary last drawn by him was Rs 13722/- after making deductions and
from the comparison of the income of the husband with wife, it was clear that she was
earning more than three times disposable income in the hands of the petitioner.
Accordingly, it was prayed that the wife be directed to pay a sum of Rs15000/- per month
as maintenance to the husband and also litigation expenses as deemed appropriate by the
court.

The case is pending before the district judge.

8. STATEMENT OF FACTS

Evert Gullberg is citizen of Viscara residing in the state of ollsen which it shares with the
Marzipan .Mr Gullberg is a successful business man a tea estate in Ollsen as well as a
jewellary business called “Gullberg Jewellers ‘and Gullberg has several business across the
country and his name listed in Marzipan Diaries.

Ms Olive Bennett former wife she filed a FIR on 12th February her allegation was 3 armed
men entered the residence and stole the painting worth USD 1 million dollars.and named
Gullberg as her suspect.

On the basis of information the police intercepted vehicle on Mr Gullberg and found 100
kg gold in the car. On that time one of his friend Mr Larrison with him but the police did
not pursued him and even the police did not find painting in the car. The police arrested
Gullberg while in custody he had given declaration that the gold did not belong to him and
the bag was belong to Harrison. The police filed FIR as per the provisions of Customs Act.

On the basis of information ,the enforcement authority conducted search and recovered
painting in Gullberg’s offices. Due to the pursuance of the search order Gullberg applied
bail. During pendency of proceeding ED initiated investigation under prevention of money
laundering Act During the investigation by the ED discovered all the bank accounts
operated by Gullberg clearly illegal means.

On june 2016 the provisional attachment order granted by the enforcement authorities as
per the provisions of PMLA Act. Gullberg challenged validity of attachment order and
seeking quashing the FIR dated on 12 th February 2016 on the ground that search and
seizure was not proper. The Hon’ High court rejected writ petitions filed by the Gulberg.
Gullberg filed special leave petition.
9. STATEMENT OF FACTS

1) Mr. Raj Kumar was running a successful property dealing business in Kuru, a town in
Rajasthan. In year 2011, he got married to one Malini as per Hindu Rites and ceremonies.
The marriage was solemnized in Kuru. After their marriage, the couple started living
together and a daughter was born out of the said wedlock in 2012. In September 2013, Raj
Kumar told Malini that he had suffered major loss in business and was in dire need of
money. Malini after hearing him voluntarily offered to sell the gold which was kept safe in
a bank locker jointly accessed by both. The said gold ornaments and other gifts were gifted
to her by her parents, in-laws and other relatives from both the sides.

2) Raj Kumar did not agree to Malini’s suggestion as he believed that the gold should be
kept for future use. He rather suggested that she should approach her parents and procure
20 lakhs from them which would be returned to them once the business got stable.
However, Malini expressed her reluctance towards such a move and after two days told
him that she chose not to approach her parents with such a demand. Upon hearing this, Raj
Kumar got agitated and kept on insisting that she must speak with her parents and demand
the money. On several occasions, they had heated arguments; Malini did not say anything
to her parents. But after a gap of two months, difference in opinion arosed between the two
and said that she had no right to inquire about it.

3) Next day, Malini decided to open the locker in which they have kept the ornaments, but
she found those five months ago, on 07.07.2013, most of the ornaments are sold. Marini’s
contention was that the ornaments were gifted to her by her parents and Raj Kumar had no
access to it. But Raj Kumar claimed that, since it is a joint locker, he had an equal right
over the said property. He mentioned that she had no authority to question him.

4) Malini approached a law consultancy firm and sought their advice regarding the issue.
She was advised that the gold ornaments come within the purview of Stridhan. In view of
the strained relations, the consultants suggested her to take the matter to the Family Court.

5) The Family court decreed that where the husband and the wife are having joint lockers,
the better mode is to operate the locker by mutual consent.Aggreived, by the decision of
the Family Court, Malini filed an appeal with the High Court of Rajasthan with a
contention that gold ornaments that come within the purview of Stridhan can only be used
and disposed of by wife. The case is pending before the High Court of Rajasthan.
 6) In 2015, in the month of October, both Raj Kumar and Malini along with their
daughter, decided to spend Durga Pooja vacations in a hill station with the objective to
have reconciliation, to sort out their differences and to develop healthy family relations for
better future. They were staying in a guest house and also accompanied by one of their
friends, Rekha and her husband, Vikram. On the night of 10.10.2015, at around 2: 00 A.M,
they heard some noise coming from Malini and Raj Kumar’s room. Upon hearing the
screams, Rekha, her husband Vikram and the staff of the guest house rushed towards the
room.

7) The door of their room was broke open and Malini was found burning in flames. Raj
Kumar and their daughter were found lying unconscious in the next room. With the help of
the staff of guest house, Rekha and Vikram and the staff of the guest house rushed towards
the room. The door of their room was broke open and Malini was found burning in flames.
After this a statement, was given by Malini wherein she said that her husband had tried to
burn her by pouring petrol. The said statement was recorded by Rekha, who happens to be
a law teacher and hence was aware of the legal nuisances and implications.

8)Meanwhile an ambulance came and Rekha was taken to hospital where another
statement as second dying declaration in the presence of doctors and police personnel on
guard that she herself had poured petrol on her body and had set herself on fire.

9) Next morning, due to 80% burns on her body, Malini succumbed to her injuries and
died. Her husband and daughter regained consciousness and informed to the authorities
that of them had consumed milk after dinner, offered by Malini, and got unconscious. Thus
they pleaded that they had no knowledge of the incident. The medical reports of Malini,
Raj Kumar and their daughter stated that:

 Death of Malini was caused by burns

 High dose of zolpidem was found in the blood of Raj Kumar and his daughter.

10) The police registered the case in view of the gathered circumstantial evidence and
medical reports. Both contradictory detailed descriptions of dying declarations, first given
by Malini to Rekha and second given by her in the presence of doctor and police personnel
were part of the police report. The investigating officer in the final police report mentioned
that Raj Kumar had himself consumed sleeping pills and made her daughter do the same.
Since he was habitual of taking sleeping pills, he had enough control over his body to carry
the activity of pouring petrol on Malini and set her on flames before finally unconscious
due to the effect of pills. His daughter, being a child, had already been unconscious due to
the overdose of sleeping pills. On that basis, police officers after completing the
investigation filed a charge-sheet under section 173 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

11) The Court of Session gave life imprisonment to Raj Kumar under section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 by declaring that the act comes within the purview of culpable
homicide amounting to murder. However, the decision of the Court of Session was
challenged by Raj Kumar, the accused in the High Court of Rajasthan and he relied on the
second dying declaration given in presence of doctors and police personnel.

12) The High Court clubbed both the appeals, one by Malini based on the contention of
Stridhan and other by Raj Kumar. On the basis of the final hearing in view of the
circumstantial evidence of the case as well as the presumption based on just and reasonable
grounds the case is to be finally decided.
10. STATEMENT OF FACTS

The State of Mahadpur, by an amendment dated 4th March 2015, brought about an
amendment to the Mahadpur Preservation of Animals Act, 1976 [hereinafter referred to as
the MPA, 1976]. It was published in the Mahadpur Gazette on 4th March, 2015. The said
amendment has received President's assent on March 4, 2015.

The newly added Sections, namely, Sections 5A to 5D, in effect, imposed a total ban, inter
alia, on the transportation, slaughter, import and possession of any flesh of cows, bulls and
bullocks slaughtered outside the State of Mahadpur.

Also, by Sections 9A and 9B, the burden of proving that the slaughter, transport, export
outside the State, sale, purchase or possession of Flesh of cow, bull or bullock, was not in
contravention of the MPA, 1976 is upon the accused.

There was a major furore amongst certain class of the Public as well as the slaughter House
Owners, that the said total Ban, being first of its kind, is highly arbitrary and
Unconstitutional.

Being aggrieved by the said ban, a Public Interest Litigation came to be filed by a public
spirited citizen, PQR, in the Hon'ble High Court, challenging the vires of the MPA Act,
1971. The Slaughter Houses Association also filed a Writ Petition challenging the vires of
the MPA Act, 1971 The said Petitions raised several challenges, inter alia,

a. Sections 5 A to 5D violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Right of Privacy

includes right of choice. The provisions as amended have taken away the fundamental right
of Citizens right of choice and right to be left alone.

b. Section 9-B is also violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India since, the
reverse burden of proof is cast upon the accused to show that he is innocent, violating the
general presumption of the accused being innocent until proven guilty,

c. The amended provisions have also been challenged on the ground of being violate
of Article 19(1 )(g), inter alia, freedom of trade,

d. There is also a challenge on the amendments being violate of the Fundamental

Right to Practice and Propagate Religion under Article 25 as well as violation of Cultural
Right under Article 29
The State of Mahadpur, defended the vires of the said Amendment, inter alia, on the
following grounds namely;

a. Right of privacy is not an absolute fundamental Right, Every Fundamental Right is

subject to reasonable restrictions.

b. Fundamental Rights cannot be read in isolation but along with the Directive
Principles and Fundamental Duties, The Petitioners cannot seek violation of Fundamental
Rights when a Legislation seeks to achieve a “Compelling Public Interest”.

c. Reasonable restrictions in implementation of Directive Principles of State Policy

should be upheld as being in Public Interest and individual interest must yield to the same.

d. The Apex Court has brought within its ambit the Right of Life for Animals as well.

The Hon'ble High Court has upheld the validity of the amendments and the Petitioners are
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition under Article 136.

The Mahadpur Preservation of Animals Act, 1976 and the amendments are Pari materia to
the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976.

Participants can incorporate and urge additional ancillary points.