Question

Organise a ‘Moot Court’ in your school, prepare and ask questions related to Public Interest Litigations in this Moot Court. 

Answer 1

As part of our curriculum, we had a vibrant moot court orientation program at the school auditorium. It was all very instructive and helpful. The students participated actively and the knowledge about our law and judiciary was shared by the mooters (speakers).

Mooting is a simpler way of debating or arguing. Mooting does a lot more for the schoolchildren, as it increases their abilities to talk and present. A litigation culture is to be developed in every student to ensure the better civil life of every citizen.

There were two groups of speakers: Group A and Group B. In debates and arguments, we simply argue to win the situation in any possible manner, sometimes by shouting. But through mooting, we argue sensibly to convince the judge with proper proofs. The mooters from groups A and B kept their voices humble and followed the mooting culture and manners.

Mooting skills boosted up the confidence level of the student and the teacher insisted that every student must participate in one or any other form of speaking of this case, as it is a fun learning technique that is ultimately going to give fruits in the future. Mooting requires lots of hard work and pain, but ultimately will give an edge among all the other students. No one is a born mooter, and mooting is a technique that every student learns after entering into the process of group talks and arguments. The more you practice, the better you perform.

Moot court in our school was a very good dummy of original court where students learn the art of mooting or lawyering. The students are given cases on which they have to struggle to win the case; that actually happens in actual life situations and actual courts. It looked like a real court where 3 judges listened to the speakers while each of them presented their cases. After each presentation or inquiry, the fellow mooters start showering the presenter with thousands of questions.

The mooters prepared the things to be presented after doing a lot of research work and the mooter presents them before the judge.

The PIL was: student XYZ vs. The school

The PIL case Parmanand Katara v. Union of India was replicated here.

One of the students read out about the details of the case, “Parmanand Katara, a human rights activist, filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court. His basis was a newspaper report concerning the death of a scooterist after an accident with a speeding car. Doctors refused to attend to him. They directed him to another hospital around 20 km. away that could handle medico-legal cases.”

Based on the petition, the Supreme Court held important decisions.

The school moot court discussed the issues on:

• Protection of human life is of supreme importance.
• Every doctor, at a government hospital or otherwise, has the professional duty to extend his/her services to protect life.
• There should be no doubt that the effort to save the person should receive top priority.
• This is not only to the legal profession but also to the police and other citizens involved in the matter.
• Right to immediate medical aid.

The main highlights of the mooting session were:

On behalf of the petitioner (Mooter X), it said that the petitioner, who claims himself to be a human rights activist, filed this writ petition in the public interest on the basis of a newspaper report concerning the death of a scooterist who was knocked down by a speeding car. He states that the injured person was taken to the nearest hospital, but the doctors there refused to attend to him; they told him that he be taken to another hospital, located some 20 kilometres away. That hospital was authorized to handle medico-legal cases. Soon the victim surrendered to his injuries before he could be taken to the other hospital and died.

On behalf of the Union of India (Mooter Y), she said that there was no provision in the Indian Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code, or the Motor Vehicles Act, etc. which prevented doctors from promptly attending seriously injured persons and accident cases before the arrival of police.

Mooter X: The petitioner has prayed the directions be issued to the Union of India that every injured citizen brought for treatment should instantaneously be given medical aid to protect life. The law should be allowed to operate in order to avoid careless death, and in the event of breach of such direction, suitable compensation should be admissible.

Mooter Y: The members of the legal profession, our law courts and everybody concerned will also keep in mind that a man in the medical profession should not be needlessly harassed for purposes of questioning or for any other formality and should not be pulled during investigations at the police station, and it should be avoided as far as possible.

The mooting proceedings were so interesting that students U, V, W, Z, etc. took the roles of different parties in trial.

The Secretary (student Z), Ministry of Health & Family Welfare of the Union of India (student W), the Medical Council of India (student V) and the Indian Medical Association (student U) were later put on trial as respondents.

The teacher concluded the session like this:

“We would also like to mention that whenever on such events, a man of the medical profession is reached for help and if he finds that whatever support he could give is not adequate really to save the life of the person, but some better assistance is necessary, it is also the sense of duty of the man in the medical profession so approached to render all the help which he could and also see that the person reaches the proper expert as early as possible." She also emphasized Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees protection of life and personal liberty to every citizen. This article has directive principles of state policy and therefore includes protection of health.

Thus, the school moot court was appealing, knowledgeable and interesting.