MOOT COURT ORAL PLEADINGS SCRIPT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ARAVINDA
Case: Mr. Ayush Pandey v. UOI (FEMC Appeal)
Speaker 1 – Petitioner Counsel
May it please the Hon’ble Bench,
The Counsel seeks permission to enter into the dias
Much obliged, Your Lordship.
My Lord, I am [Name], and my co-counsel is [Name]. We appear on behalf of the Petitioner
in the matter titled Mr. Ayush Pandey v. Union of India.
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
If Your Lordship permits, the Counsel shall begin with the Statement of Jurisdiction.
Much obliged, Your Lordship.
This Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of Aravinda. The
Petitioner has filed a special leave petition against the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of
Karunadesh which upheld the constitutionality of the Karunadesh Crowd Management and
Public Safety Act, 2025. The jurisdiction is validly invoked.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
If the lordship permitls , the Counsel shall now proceed to the Statement of Facts.
Much obliged, Your Lordship.
The facts revolve around several tragic incidents of stampedes across the country,
culminating in the 2025 Swarnapatha incident, where 11 people lost their lives. This led to
the hasty enactment of the 2025 Act. However, the Act excludes religious and cultural
gatherings, which are often the most hazardous, raising serious constitutional questions.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1. Whether the Act violates Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution?
2. Whether the exclusion of religious and cultural gatherings is constitutionally valid?
3. Whether the Act suffers from excessive delegation and lack of safeguards?
4. Whether a uniform crowd control framework is mandated under the Constitution?
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
The Counsel shall now summarize the core contentions:
- The Act is discriminatory, arbitrary, and violative of fundamental rights.
- It fails to meet constitutional standards of equality and proportionality.
- The excessive powers granted to authorities lack procedural checks.
- There is an urgent need for a uniform safety framework for all gatherings.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
Issue 1: Violation of Articles 14 & 19(1)(g)
My Lords, the Act places a disproportionate burden on secular event organizers. The
blanket exclusion of religious events, despite historical evidence of danger, fails the test of
reasonable classification under E.P. Royappa. It also infringes on Article 19(1)(g) as per
Modern Dental College and violates the proportionality doctrine.
Issue 2: Unconstitutional Exclusion
The exclusion of religious and cultural events contradicts the very aim of the legislation—
public safety. This arbitrary distinction, lacking intelligible differentia, breaches Maneka
Gandhi and Bijoe Emmanuel, where constitutional values were prioritized over sentiment.
Issue 3: Excessive Delegation
The Act delegates unguided discretionary powers to police and executive authorities
without procedural safeguards. As held in Ajoy Kumar Banerjee and Avinder Singh, policy-
making cannot be left open-ended. No hearings are prescribed, breaching natural justice.
Issue 4: Need for Uniform Framework
Public safety is not event-specific. All gatherings—religious, cultural, or commercial—must
be subjected to the same safety regulations. This argument is rooted in Article 21, the right
to life, as reaffirmed in Francis Coralie Mullin and Anwar Ali Sarkar.
Speaker Transition
If Your Lordship permits, the remaining issues shall be dealt with by my co-counsel.
Much obliged, Your Lordship. Speaker 2 shall now continue.
PRAYER
With the permission of the Court, both Counsels shall now present the Prayer.
We humbly pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
1. Strike down or read down the discriminatory portions of the Act that exclude religious
and cultural gatherings.
2. Declare the classification under the Act as arbitrary and unconstitutional.
3. Direct the State to enact a uniform framework for all mass gatherings.
4. Provide guidelines to ensure fairness, due process, and transparency.
5. Pass any other orders that the Court may deem fit.
And for this act of kindness, the Petitioner shall, as in duty bound, ever pray.
Ethical Considerations During Moot
- If unaware of any concept, state:
"My Lord, the counsel is not presently aware of that specific point but shall seek
permission to address it at a later stage, if allowed."
- Never misrepresent law or facts.
- Avoid overuse of "My Lord"—use respectfully and sparingly.
- Always acknowledge co-counsel and respect the bench.
