ISSUE 1: Whether the PIL is maintainable in the Supreme court of Aryavrat or not and

is it feasible to implement Uniform Civil Code in a Country like Aryavrat?

A Public Interest Litigation can be filed under Article 32 of the Constitution for enforcement
of Fundamental Rights, as guaranteed by part III of the Constitution. In the present case, the
social discrimination made the transgender couples and implementation of Uniform Civil
Code (UCC) was seemed to be the only solutions to the elimination of all kinds of racial and
social discrimination made to the transgender couples and other weaker sections of the
society.

It is most humbly submitted that the petition filed under Article 32 based on
1. The issue occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Supreme Court
of Aryavart.
2. The existence of an alternative remedy is no bar to file petition
3. The NGO has the locus standi to file petition in public interest as Public Interest
Litigation.

1.1 The issue occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Supreme Court
of Aryavart:-

In Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union Of India & Others it was rightly held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court that
When the Court entertains public interest, litigation, it does not do so in a cavilling spirit or in
a confrontational mood or with a view to tilting at executive authority or seeking to unsurp it
but its attempt is only to ensure observance of social and economic rescue programmes,
legislative as well as executive, framed for the benefit of the have-nots and the handicapped
and to protect them against violation of their basic human rights, which is also the
constitutional obligation of the executive. The Court is thus merely assisting in the realisation
of the constitutional objectives.

1.2 The existence of an alternative remedy is no bar to file petition:-

In this prevailing case there is the involvement of issues raised in three States forming part of
Aryavart and hence according to Article 32, the NGO brought this issue before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of Aryavart as it only has the original jurisdiction to hear these issues which
are of National concern. In the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union Of India &
Others it was observed that, It is not at all obligatory that an adversarial procedure, where
each party produces his own evidence tested by cross examination by the other side and the
judge sits like an umpire and decides the case only on the basis of such material as may be
produced before him by both parties, must be followed in a proceeding under Article 32 for
enforcement of a fundamental right. In fact, there is no such constitutional compulsion
enacted in clause (2) of Article 32 or in any other part of the Constitution. There is nothing
sacrosanct about the adversarial procedure with evidence led by either party and tested by
cross-exmaination by the other party and the judge playing a positive role has become a part
of our legal system because it is embodied in the Code of Civil procedure and the Indian
Evidence Act. But these statutes obviously have no application where a new jurisdiction is
created in the Supreme Court for enforcement of a fundamental right. Therefore it is not
justified to impose any restriction on the power of the Supreme Court adopt such procedure
as it thinks fit in exercise of its new jurisdiction, by engrafting adversarial procedure on it,
when the constitution makers have deliberately chosen not to insist on any such requirement
and instead left it open to the Supreme Court to follow such procedure as it thinks appropriate
for the purpose of securing the end for which the power is conferred namely, enforcement of
a fundamental right.

1.3 The NGO has the locus standi to file petition in public interest as Public Interest
Litigation:-
In this present case, there is a flagrant violation of fundamental rights of people, especially it
affects their privacy, right to life and liberty. It violates as the transgender couples are not
recognized as a gender by Union of Aryavart and can be done only by the implementation of
UCC, and the non-issuance of the birth certificate of the child of the transgender couples.

In the case of Rajiv Ranjan Singh 'Lalan' & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors, the Hon'ble
Court explicitly observed that any member of the public having sufficient interest can
maintain an action for judicial redress for public injury arising from breach of duty or
violation of the Constitution. This is absolutely essential for maintaining the rule of law,
furthering the cause of justice and achieving the constitutional goals, subject to a caveat
which states that the member of the public who approaches by way of PIL should be acting
bona fide and not for personal gain, private profit or political motivation.

In the case of Kazi Lhendup Dorji vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, it was
unequivocally observed that a person acting bonafide and having sufficient interest in the
proceeding of public interest litigation will alone have a locus standi and can approach the
Court to wipe out violation of fundamental rights and genuine infraction of statutory
provisions, but not for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique
consideration.

In Ashok Kumar Pandey vs The State Of West Bengal it was observed that, the
expression 'litigation' means a legal action including all proceedings therein initiated in a
Court of law for the enforcement of right or seeking a remedy. Therefore, lexically the
expression "PIL" means the legal action initiated in a Court of law for the enforcement of
public interest or general interest in which the public or a class of the community have
pecuniary interest or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected8.

In Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary & Others the court rightly cautioned that expanded role
of courts in modern 'social' state demands for greater judicial responsibility. The PIL has
given a new hope to millions of justice-starved people of this country. The court must
encourage genuine PIL and discard PIL filed with oblique motives.
Considering all these issues with public concern, the NGO has filed a Public Interest
Litigation under Article 32 of Constitution of Aryavart.

1.4 Is it feasible to implement Uniform Civil Code in a Country like Aryavrat:-

It is humbly submitted to the Hon’be Supreme Court of Aryavart that implementation of

UCC is feasible in a country like Aryavart as India is rich in its diversity as in the race, caste,
sex and religion and so on. If the UCC is implemented in a country like Aryavart then all the
religions will be recognized under one code. Instead of having separate acts like Hindu
Marriages Act, Christian Marriage Act, Muslim Marriage Act, and so on, but there can be
one single Civil Code as Uniform Civil Code, but with certain exception clauses so that the
secular structure of the nation is not violated with the personal rights of the citizens.

In the case of Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court of India is also known as
the guardian of the Indian Constitution. Since India's Independence, the Supreme Court of
India has never failed to protect the integrity and sovereignty of the constitution. The doctrine
of dissolubility of marriage under traditional Hindu marriage law does not give any effect on
the conversion of religion. The conversion of religion and marrying another woman will not
result in the dissolution of the previous marriage solemnized under Hindu marriage law.
Marriage is the foundation of civilized society. Once the relationship of marriage is formed, it
binds the parties to various obligations and liabilities. On one hand, monogamy is the law for
Hindus. On the other hand, Muslim law permits four wives for a Muslim male in India
according to the Shariat law of 1937. Hindu man embraces Islam to solemnize his second
marriage without dissolving his first marriage and escape from the liabilities which were
imposed upon him under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. A marriage can be
dissolved under the provision of the Divorce act. A marriage can also be dissolved on the
death of either of the spouses. According to Hindu Marriage Act, a marriage cannot be
dissolved except on the grounds of section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1954. The second
marriage of an apostate husband under Muslim law would be a marriage in violation of the
provision of the act by which he would be continuing his first marriage. As a result, a second
marriage is illegal in the eyes of law. The second marriage of an apostate husband is against
natural justice. It is arbitrary to allow individuals to solemnize their marriage without
dissolving their prior marriage after conversion to Islam. It is a clear way out to circumvent
the provision of section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. The Supreme Court of India
emphasizes the enforcement and implementation of the Uniform Civil Code in India to
regulate matters related to marriage, divorce, adoption, inheritance, custody of the child, and
other matters related to matrimonial disputes under a uniform law applicable to all religious
communities uniformly. The objective of the Uniform Civil Code is to govern all the
religious communities in India uniformly.
ISSUE 2: Whether UCC is violative of one’s’ Fundamental rights and other personal
rights guaranteed under the Constitution of Aryavart and is it the States’s interference
in the realm of the personal laws of the subjects?

It is humbly submitted to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Aryavart that UCC is not violative to
fundamental rights and other personal rights guaranteed under the constitution of Aryavart, as
only due to Uniform Civil Code all the citizens of this nation would be treated as on the basis
of equality. This not only treats everyone equally but also recognizes all religions and
genders as it is governed under Article 15 of Constitution of Aryavart. As the transgender
should be recognized as per Transgender Person (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019.

2.1 Whether UCC is violative of one’s Fundamental Rights and other personal rights
guaranteed under Constitution of Aryavart.

It is humbly submitted to Hon’ble Supreme Court of Aryavart, as per the history of the cases
when a fundamental right is violated for one person is never counted, a fundamental right is
said to be infringed or violated when the society as a whole is at a huge risk or the humanity
itself is hanging by a thread. Only then the Fundamental Right is violated, otherwise, when it
is for a private person it is known as infringement of a private right. As in the case of
Keshavananda Bharathi V Union of India, the sage’s land property was taken away by the
Government, as he was one single individual but the whole society is at risk, so the Supreme
Court of India held that by a majority of 7:6 that Parliament can amend any provision of the
Constitution to fulfill its socio-economic obligations guaranteed to the citizens under the
Preamble subject to the condition that such amendment won’t change the basic structure of
the Indian Constitution. If the judgment was not the same above it would have violated the
Basic Structure of the Constitution of Aryavart where basic structure is that defines the
structure of Aryavart like socially, economically, culturally and so on.

As it may violate fundamental rights as for under Article 25 (freedom of religion) and Article
29 (right to have distinct culture). But the UCC may be implemented as none of the culture
has been violated as my statutes have their own laws and having few exceptions but with
valuable reasons. Like that UCC can have few exceptions so that none of the personal
religious rights are being violated.
2.1 Non violation of Article 14 of Constitution of Aryavart

It is humbly submitted to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Aryavart that due to the
implementation of Uniform Civil Code, as the Union of Aryavart has a distinct variety of
religion as Hindu, Muslims, Christians, Jainism, Buddhist, Sikhs, and so on. Therefore, if the
there is a violation would come as for in terms of religious practices, then the UCC can have
certain exceptions. For example, until the year under the Aryavart Penal Code, section 375
exception clause 2 which was repealed in the case of Independent Thought V Union of
India.

For example, in Hindu law Bigamy/ second marriage when the first marriage is active is
considered void, but as per Muslim Personal law a man can have 4 wives. Now if Uniform
Civil Code can be implemented in a manner where bigamy is a not legal but only for Muslim
man there can be an exception clause as it regards of having 4 wives. In the case of
Independent Thought V Union of India, “Economic and educational development in the
country is still uneven and child marriages are still taking place. It has been, therefore,
decided to retain the age of 15 years under Exception 2 of Section 375 of IPC so as to give
protection to husband and wife against criminalizing the sexual activity between them. 46%
of women between the ages 18-29 years in India were married before the age of 18. It is also
estimated that there are 23 million child brides in the country. Hence, criminalizing the
consummation of a marriage union with a serious offence such as rape would not be
appropriate and practical. Providing punishment for child marriage with consent does not
appear to be appropriate in view of socio-economic conditions of the country. Thus, the age
prescribed in Exception 2 of Section 375 of IPC has been retained considering the basic facts
of the still evolving social norms and issues.

2.2 Non-Violation of Article 25 of Constitution of Aryavart:-

It is humbly submitted to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Aryavart, that the implementation of
Uniform Civil Code does not violate Article 25 of Constitution of Aryavart. As Article 25
governs the freedom of religion, as the UCC gives a uniform law to all the citizens
throughout the territory of India, but it does not say that one person should follow only one
religion as but in the country like Aryavart all the religions should be given due respect and
dignity as uniform civil code’s main motive is that all the citizens should governed under one
law.

In the case of S R Bommai V Union of India, the Apex Court held that, ruled that
Secularism is the basic feature of the Constitution of India. It also observed that religion and
politics cannot be mixed together. If the State follows unsecular policies or courses of action
then it acts contrary to the constitutional mandate. In a State, all are equal and should be
treated equally. Religion has no place in the matters of State. Freedom of religion as a
fundamental right is guaranteed to all persons in India but from the point of view of the State,
religion, faith, and belief are immaterial.

In the case of Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj V. State of Rajasthan, the Court held
that the test to determine the question in deciding what is an integral part of a religion is
whether it is regarded as integral by the community following that religion or not.

In Hasan Ali v. Mansoor Ali the Bombay High Court, it was held that Articles 25 and
Article 26 not only prevents doctrines or beliefs of religion but also the acts done in
pursuance of religion. It thus guarantees ceremonies, modes of worship, rituals, observances,
etc which are an integral part of religion. What is the essential or integral part of a religion
has to be determined in the light of the doctrines and practices that are regarded by the
community as a part of their religion and also must be included in them.

In the case of SP Mittal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that Religion need not be
theistic. It is not merely an opinion, doctrine or belief but has an outward expression in the
act as well.
ISSUE 3: Whether the non-issuance of the birth certificate for the child born in the
LGBTQIA Couple is a violation of child’s right by the State:-

It is humbly submitted to Hon’ble Supreme Court of Aryavart that non-issuance of the birth
certificate for the child born in the LGBTQIA Couples is in the violation of the child’s right
by the state. It is violative as the birth certificate is the only proof that you have been existed
with a particular name, son of a couple. If the birth certificate is not issued then there will not
be any proof that a person exist in the living world and it would affect his dignity in the
society. This counsel would humbly submitted that due to the non-issuance of birth certificate
is violative of fundamental rights.

1.1 Violation of Art. 21:-

It is humbly submitted to Hon’ble Supreme Court of Aryavarth due to the non-issuance of the
birth certificate for the child of the couples belonging to LGBTQIA community it violates the
right to life which is governed under article 21 of Constitution of Aryavarth which gives of
right to life and personal liberty. As per the REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS AND DEATH
ACT, 1969, all the births and deaths occurring in the territory of Aryavarth should be
recorded under the concurrent list.

In the case of Sunita Sawhney v Union of India, the birth certificate was not issued to her at
first but it was later issued at 22nd june of 1961, but the appellant to that case was born at 20 th
june 1961, in which due to this her renewal of passport was being a big struggle. In the end of
the month of February in the year 2016, the Supreme Court has held that, the passport issuing
authorities for the change of date of birth.

As in article 21 of Constitution of India, no person shall be deprived of right to life and

personal liberty, but in this current issue the child born to the transgender couples, his birth
certificate was not issued because the infant’s parents belonged to LGBTQIA community.
Here his right to life has been deprived due to the non-issuance of birth certificate.

In the case of Fathima Richelle Mather v. Registrar of Births and Deaths &
Commissioner, BBMP, the petitioner’s name was not inserted in the birth certificate due to
the mistake of the petitioner’s parents. Then the Karnataka High Court, held that “it is not
permissible to deny the insertion of petitioner’s name which the parents did not furnish the
details while registering the birth certificate of the petitioner.

As in the facts, officials are having the trouble of issuing birth certificate of the child because
of their parents are transgender, but even from the year of 1989, even the orphans are
recognized and were given birth certificate, so if they are struggling to issue birth certificates
for the child as it was born to transgender parents, but they can issue it where how they would
issue a birth certificate for an orphan.
In the case of NALSA V Union of India, the facts was the transgender needed a gender
recognition. The Court held that transgender’s falls within the purview of the Indian
Constitution and therefore should enjoy all the rights of the Constitution. These rights include
Article 14 which guarantees the right to equality. Article 14 is a right enjoyed by “any
person” (similarly, it applies equally to men, women and transgender people. Hence,
transgender people are entitled to equal legal protection of the law. They have equal right in
employment, health care, education, and civil rights. Discrimination on the grounds of sexual
orientation and gender identity represents inequality before the law and unequal protection of
the law and violates Article 14.

1.2 Violation of Art. 14:-

It is humbly submitted to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Aryavarth, due to the non-issuance
of birth certificate for the child of the transgender couples is violative of Art. 14 of
constitution of Aryavart. As there is violation of Art. 14 which is Equality before law, which
means that no one is above the law and everyone are equal in the eyes of law. As in the above
submitted arguments by the counsel in the case of NALSA V Union of India, the Hob’ble
Bench of the Supreme Court had held that, transgender’s falls within the purview of the
Indian Constitution and therefore should enjoy all the rights of the Constitution. These rights
include Article 14 which guarantees the right to equality. Article 14 is a right enjoyed by
“any person” (similarly, it applies equally to men, women and transgender people. Hence,
transgender people are entitled to equal legal protection of the law. They have equal right in
employment, health care, education, and civil rights. Discrimination on the grounds of sexual
orientation and gender identity represents inequality before the law and unequal protection of
the law and violates Article 14.

Article 14 of Constitution of Aryavart states that “any person” and it does not have any kind
of gender biased, as it clearly states “any person” that is in the sense of neutral position, and
the usage of the terminology “any person” will ensure the rights to all persons in the territory
of Aryavart irrespective of their gender or any other social status. In the case of E P Royappa
V State of Tamil Nadu, the court held that, it has expanded the phrase equality before the
law into two principles Rule of Law and Principle of Natural Justice, and also Laid down a
new concept of Equality i.e. equality is a dynamic concept more than static with many
aspects and dimensions, and it cannot crumble or confined, etc within its doctrinaire limits.

As in article 14 one thing it has made very crystal clear that, equality is divided in two main
aspects which are, equality before law and equal protection of the laws. In the case of M. R.
Bajali and Others v. State of Mysore, the court fairly observed that there is no denial of
equality of opportunity unless the person who complains of discrimination is equally situated
with the person or persons who are alleged to have been favoured.

In the case of, Charanjit Lal Chowdhury v. Union of India the apex court held that “It can
be taken to be well settled that the principle underlying the guarantee in Article 14 is not that
the same rules of law should be applicable to all persons within the Indian territory or that the
same remedies should be made available to them irrespective of differences of circumstances.
But even now in latest laws, the child born out of living together relationship, i.e. the parents
not having a social status, the child is still considered as a legitimate child and that particular
child has all the rights that of a child born to a normal married couple. So if they deny the
child birth certificate because the parents not having a marriage certificate, but long back it
was held that live-in relationship is legal. In the case of D. Velusamy vs. D. Patchaiammal,
the Supreme Court held that a live-in relationship can be presumed to be a valid marriage if
the couple has lived together for a long time and there is evidence to show that they have held
themselves out to society as being akin to spouses.

Therefore, this counsel would humbly submit that, in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
Aryavarth it does not matter what their parents mistakes or background is, it is a right of the
child born to claim its birth certificate as it is the only proof that when, where and whether
the person is born or not, or it is the first identity proof a person claims as soon as he is born
in this world. As it is said by Justice Suraj Govindaraj in the case of Fathima Richelle
Marther V Registrar of Births and Deaths & Commissioner, BBMP, “a mistake by the
parents cannot put the child at a disadvantage”.

1.3 Violation of Art. 15:-

It is humbly submitted to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Aryavart that due to the non-
issuance of Birth Certificate for this child born to the transgender couples is in violation to
Art. 15 of Constitution of Aryavarth. As Article 15 clearly states that, the state shall not
discriminate any person on the grounds of race caste sex and place of birth or any of them.
After the NALSA V Union of India, the transgender were governed by articles 14, 15, 16
and 21 which are basic fundamental rights that are to be granted to each and every citizen of
Aryavart. Therefore, just because the parents of the child are transgender and marriage was
not registered, doesn’t mean that the child has lost a right over claiming its own birth
certificate.

In the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh v. P.B. Vijayakumar and Anr., it was
discussed that the insertion of Clause (3) of Article 15 in relation to women is a recognition
of the fact that for centuries, women of this country have been socially and economically
handicapped. As a result, they are unable to participate in the socio-economic activities of the
nation on a footing of equality. It is in order to eliminate this socio-economic backwardness
of women and to empower them in a manner that would bring about effective equality
between men and women that Article 15(3) is placed in Article 15, its object is to strengthen
and improve the status of women. An important limb of this concept of gender equality is
creating job opportunities for women. To say that under Article 15(3), job opportunities for
women cannot be created would be to cut at the very root of the underlying inspiration behind
this Article. Making special provisions for women in respect of employment or posts under
the State is an integral part of Article 15(3).

As in the above case law, it clearly article 15(3) of Constitution of Aryavart, clearly prohibits
discrimination based on any grounds especially on gender too, so as in the facts sheet it has
clearly said both registrations of marriage as well as birth certificate was rejected by the
authorities of state of Avanti, as they were having a legal conundrum of issuing the marriage
and birth certificates to both the transgender couples and their child respectively. But the
contention of the counsel to this Hon’ble bench of this Hon’ble Court is living together
relationship is legal in this country and transgender are being recognized as protection of their
rights are governed under an act known as “The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights)
Act, 2019.

As in the case of Vasantha R V Union of India, due to the factories act, women were highly
discriminated on the basis of gender as they were women they have an inability to work. The
court held that, e fundamental difference between the Anuj Garg case and the present case
was that the former challenged total prohibition for the entry of women while the latter
challenged partial prohibition only during night time. However, the reason for prohibition
was the same, i.e., the security of women. Consequently, the Supreme Court having held the
said reason to be an unreasonable encroachment on the fundamental right of women, the
same had to be applied in the present case as well.

Therefore in that case that case the Hob’ble Supreme Court section 66(1) (b) of factories act,
1948 as it was violative to fundamental rights governed under Articles 14, 15, 16, 19(1) (g)
and 21. In this article 15 was violated because there was a gender discrimination shown by
the respondant. Therefore, the Supreme Court had repealed the above section of Factories
Act, 1948. Son likewise, here in the current scenario same way there is a gender
discrimination was being suffered by the transgender like how women faced gender
discrimination then.

Therefore, this counsel would humbly contend that as per article 15 the child of the
transgender couples should not face any kind of social discriminations and the child has the
right to claim his birth certificate legally which the authorities of state of Avanti have failed
to fulfill it.
ISSUE 4: Whether the Constitutional power of Court to frame laws has led to the
scenario where Legislature have become the Executive wing of the Judiciary:-

It is humbly submitted to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Aryavart the constitutional power of
the court to frame laws had led to the scenario where the legislature have become the
executive wing of judiciary as the court has the power to amend law which are guaranteed in
the constitution where it seperates judiciary from executive organ of 3 organs of government,
as the judiciary should be independent and should not be intervened by other 2 organs which
are namely executive and legislature.

4.1 Supreme Court’s constitutional power to amend laws:-

The Supreme Court has the power to amend laws if the existing laws are violative to the
fundamental right guaranteed under articles 12-35 of Constitution of Aryavart. This power to
amend laws was given to the Supreme Court is Article 13 of Constitution of India which talks
about “doctrine of eclipse”, where it states that, when a particular existing laws are
inconsistent or in derogation of fundamental rights guaranteed under article 12-35 of
Constitution of Aryavart is considered void.

In the case of, A.K.Gopalan vs. state of Madras, it was pointed out that it was only by way
of abundant caution that the framers of our constitution inserted the specific provisions in Art
13...... In India, it is the constitution which is supreme and all statute laws must be in
conformity with the constitutional requirements and it is for the judiciary to decide whether
any enactment is constitutional or not.

In the case of Brij Bhurshan vs. State of Delhi, the Supreme Court struck down the East
Punjab Public Safety Act 1950, on the ground that pre-censorship restricted the freedom of
the press.

In the case of Ramesh Thapar vs State of Madras, Supreme Court again struck down the
Madras Maintenance of Public Safety Act 1949, on the ground that unless a law restricting
freedom of speech and expression is directed against undermining the security of the state or
to overthrow it, such law cannot fall within the reservation of clause (2) of Article 19.

In the case of Shankari Prasad vs. UOI the First Amendment was challenged on the ground
that it abrogated the fundamental right. The argument was based on the fact that the law
under Article 13 (3) shall include the constitutional amendment law. The Supreme Court
rejected the contention and held that the word law in Article 13 must be taken to mean rules
or regulations made in exercise of constitutional power and therefore A 13(3), did not affect
amendments made under Article 13 (3).
This amendment was again challenged in Golaknath vs State of Punjab, the Supreme Court
through Justice Subba Rao, held that:

The power of parliament to amend the constitution is derived from Article 245 read with
entry 97 of list 1st of the constitution and not from Article 368. Article 368 only lays down
the procedure for the amendment of the constitution. Amendment is a legislative process. An
Amendment is a law within the meaning of art 13 (3), including every kind of law, statutory
as well as constitution law and hence a constitutional amendment which contravened Art 13
(3) will be declared void.

In few cases where the legislature was the executive wing of judiciary due to the
constitutional power of the Supreme Court of amending laws for time to time as the society is
developing, the few cases are as follows:-

In the case of The Berubari Union And Ors. vs Unknown, The Supreme Court ruled that
Article 3(3)(c) does not grant India the authority to acquire territories. It makes a provision
for the absorption and integration of foreign territories that may be acquired by India. This
provision is not supported by any expansionist political philosophy.Regarding Article 368, it
was held that the power to amend our Constitution includes the power to amend Article 1.
Thus, logically, it would include the power to cede national territory in favour of a foreign
state.The Top Court further held that the power to acquire foreign territory and the power to
cede a part of the national territory are essential attributes of Cession of national territory
entails the transfer of sovereignty over the territory from the owner state to another state. So,
legislation is required for the execution of the agreement. Article 3 does not refer to the
Union territories. So, the cession of a part of the Union territories would have to be carried
out under Article 368 of our Constitution.The Supreme Court concluded that the Parliament
would not be qualified to make a law under Article 3 of our Constitution for the purpose of
carrying out the mandate. This meant that the law required to execute the agreement had to be
passed under Section 368 of the Constitution.The agreement amounts to India ceding a
portion of its territory to Pakistan. So, its implementation would involve changes being made
to Article 1 and the relevant part of the First Schedule of our Constitution because the
execution of the agreement would lead to the diminution of the territory of India. Such an
amendment can be made under Article 368 of the Constitution.

In the case of Vishaka V State of Rajasthan, The judgment of Vishakha's case was
conveyed by Chief Justice J.S Verma as a representative of Justice Sujata Manihar and
Justice B.N Kripal on account of writ petition which was file by Vishakha the victim of this
case. The court observed that the fundamental rights under Article 14[2], 19[3](1)(g) and
21[4]of Constitution of India that, every profession, trade or occupation should provide safe
working environment to the employees. It hampered the right to life and the right to live a
dignified life. The basic requirement was that there should be the availability of safe working
environment at workplace. The Supreme Court held that, women have fundamental right
towards the freedom of sexual harassment at workplace. It also put forward various important
guidelines for the employees to follow them and avoid sexual harassment of women at
workplace. The court also suggested to have proper techniques for the implementation of
cases where there is sexual harassment at workplace. The main aim/objective of the Supreme
Court was to ensure gender equality among people and also to ensure that there should be no
discrimination towards women at their workplace. After this case, the Supreme Court made
the term Sexual harassment well defined, accordingly any physical touch or conduct, showing
of pornography, any unpleasant taunt or any misbehavior, or any sexual desire towards
women, sexual favor will come under the ambit of sexual harassment.

In the case of NALSA V Union of India, the judgment was given by Justice K.S.
Radhakrishnan and Justice A.K Sikri. However, Justice A.K Sikri gave a separate opinion
with some additional comments. The judgment relied on many courts of foreign countries
such as courts of Malaysia, Pakistan, New Zealand, Australia, and English courts as well.
Firstly the Court put emphasis on the psychological sex rather than the biological sex. The
Court talks about the Corbett v. Corbett [21] with its complete emphasis on biological sex. It
also talks about Attorney-General v. Otahuhu Family Court which talks about New Zealand’s
standard requiring surgical and medical procedures to effect a transformation in. The Court
says no to gender recognition based on biological way and gives full importance to
recognition by psychological tests. Before getting into the constitutional harms it is
imperative to mention that Para 53 of the judgment: “Any international convention not
inconsistent with the fundamental rights and in harmony with its spirit must be read into
those provisions”. It is also said that all those principles discussed on TGs and international
conventions including Yogyakarta principles, which are consistent with the fundamental
rights of the Constitution of India must be recognized and followed. Transgender people are
suppressed and are faced with discrimination in various aspects of life including health,
employment, etc. The Court referred to Part 21 of the United Nations Convention against
Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment, wherein it is
stated that states are obliged to protect all persons regardless of their sexual orientation or
transgender identity. The Court acknowledged the fact that there is an absence of legislation
in the country and it was, therefore, necessary to follow International Conventions.

The Court held that transgender’s falls within the purview of the Indian Constitution and
therefore should enjoy all the rights of the Constitution. These rights include Article 14 which
guarantees the right to equality. Article 14 is a right enjoyed by “any person” (similarly, it
applies equally to men, women and transgender people. Hence, transgender people are
entitled to equal legal protection of the law. They have equal right in employment, health
care, education, and civil rights. Discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and
gender identity represents inequality before the law and unequal protection of the law and
violates Article 14. Article 15 requires the improvement of socially and educationally
disadvantaged groups. The Court said that transgender has not been able to enjoy the
provisions as under Article 15(4) for the advancement of the socially and educationally
backward. They constitute such a group and the state is bound to take some proper action to
remedy the injustice done to them for centuries. The Court stated that a person’s right to
show or express gender identity through words, dress, action or behavior is included in
Article 19 (right to freedom of expression). Privacy, self-identity, autonomy, and personal
integrity are fundamental rights protected by Article 19. The Court also held that the
Transgender community has the right to Article 21. They have the right to live a dignified life
and enjoy personal liberty. The Court declared that the Centre and State governments must
grant recognition of gender identity as male, female or third gender in the eyes of the law. It
was observed that transgender’s require full recognition in the eyes of the law. They should
get to enjoy health care, education, etc. By this judgment, all government documents such as
ration card, passports, etc. would recognize third gender. The Court also held that the
transgender’s are citizens of India and are fully entitled to get the benefit of all schemes and
programs launched by the Government irrespective of their population. Now the Election
Commission of India has also taken special measures to enroll. In his judgment in the
NALSA case Justice Radhakrishnan admits this fact in these words: “Seldom, our society
realizes or cares to realize the trauma, agony, and pain which the members of the
Transgender community undergo, nor appreciates the innate feelings of the members of the
Transgender community, especially of those whose mind and body disown their biological
sex. Our society often ridicules and abuses the Transgender community and in public places
like railway stations, bus stands, schools, workplaces, malls, theatres, hospitals, they are side-
lined and treated as untouchables, forgetting the fact that the moral failure lies in the society’s
unwillingness to contain or embrace different gender identities and expressions, a mind-set
which we have to change”. From Justice Radhakrishnan’s opening lines talking about the
moral failure of society’s unwillingness to contain or embrace different gender identities and
expressions, down to Justice Sikhri’s cognizance of the painful process of transitioning from
one gender to another, this is a text that is shot through with empathy. The Court also decided
that Hijras, Eunuchs are to be treated as “third gender”. It made various declarations and
directions to the Centre and State Governments such as to operate separate HIV Zero-
Surveillance Centres, Provision for separate public toilets and appropriate medical care in
hospitals for transgender’s, frame various social welfare awareness schemes for the
improvement of conditions of the TG community, to make the public aware about the
atrocities against the TG community and to regain the respect and trust the TG community
once enjoyed.

In the case of Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association Vs. Union of India, the
Court held with majority consisting of Justices JS Verma, Yogeshwar Dayal, GN Ray, Dr.
AS Anand and SP Bharucha with concurring separate judgements delivered by S. Pandian
and Kuldip Singh, JJ, held that view in SP Gupta’s case insofar as the issue of “primacy” is
concerned is overruled. The minority consisting of Ahmadi and Punchhi, held that the
executive had primacy over the opinion of the Chief Justice of India while on the matter of
the fixation of judge strength, Punchhi did not express a view, Ahmadi, J concurred with
Venkataramaiah, J in SP Gupta’s case allowing a limited mandamus to the issue.

In the case of Sajjan Singh V Union of India, the validity of the 17th Amendment Act, 1964
was challenged on the ground that one of the acts inserted by the amendment in the 9th
Schedule affected the petitioner on the basis that the amendment fell within the purview of
Article 368 and the requirements in the proviso to Article 368 had not been complied with.
Supreme Court approved the judgment in Shankari Prasad case and held that on Article 13
(2) the case was rightly decided. Amendment includes amendment to all provisions of the
Constitution.