2nd DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2023.

nd
2 Deo Mangal Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2023

TEAM CODE-NSL41

2nd DEO MANGAL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2023

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ARYAVART

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) NO……/2023

(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF CONSTITION OF ARYAVART)

IN THE MATTER OF

IMPLEMENTATION OF UNIFORM CIVIL CODE IN THE COUNTRY OF ARYAVART

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

TRANSCOUPLE AND NGO -SAMRIDHI………………………….……..PETITIONERS

V.

GOVERNMENT OF ARYAVART………………………………..………..RESPONDENT

AND

ALL INDUS MUSLIM PERSONAL LAW BOAR………….....IMPLEADING PETITION

SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE THE SUPREME COURT OF ARYAVART

MOST RESPECTPULLY SUBMITTED BY THE COUNSELS APPEARING ON THE

BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

~MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER~ Page 1

0
Memorandum on the behalf of Petitioners
 2nd Deo Mangal Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2023

TABLE OF CONTENT

S. PARTICULARS PAGE
NO.
NO.
1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
1) Books
2) Statutes
3) Website
4) Cases
3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
4. STATEMENT OF FACTS
5 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCE
ISSUE 1:
Whether the PIL is maintainable in the Supreme Court of Aryavart or not and is it
feasible to implement Uniform Civil Code in a country like Aryavart?
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?
ISSUE 3:
Whether the non-issuance of the Birth Certificate for the child born from a
LGBTQIA couple is violation of the Child’s right by the State?
ISSUE 4:
Whether the Constitution power of Court to frame laws has led to the scenario
where Legislature have become the Executive wing of the judiciary?
8. PRAYER

1
Memorandum on the behalf of Petitioners
 2nd Deo Mangal Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2023

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

SC Supreme Court

Hon’ble Honourable

Const. Constitution

UCC Uniform Civil Code

PIL Public Interest Litigation

Art. Article

Ors. Others

Anr. Another

SCC Supreme Court Cases

AIR All India Reporter

UOI Union of India

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

w.p Writ Petition

CJ Chief Justice

AIMPLB All India Muslim Personal Law Board

PL Personal law

2
Memorandum on the behalf of Petitioners
 2nd Deo Mangal Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2023

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

BOOKS REFERRED

1. Durga Das Basu, the constitution of India 107 (26th ed. 2022).
2. Dr. J.N. Pandey, constitutional law of India 66-88 (58th ed. 2021).
3. Rachana Kaushal, women and human right in India 32 (Kaveri books 2012).
4. P. Ishwara Bhat, law and social transformation 500-503 (2nd ed. 2022).
5. Dr. S. S. Dhaktode, human rights and Indian constitution: Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s
enduring legacies 478 (Bhasya Prakashan 2012).

STATUTES REFERRED

1. Constitution of Aryavart, 1950.

2. Hindu marriage act, 1955.
3. Citizenship act,1955.
4. Muslim women (protection of rights on divorce) act,1986.
5. The code of criminal procedure, 1973.
6. Special marriage act, 1954.
7. Transgender persons (protection of rights) act, 2019.

WEBSITES REFERRED

1. Lexis Nexis, https://www.lexisnexis.com

2. Manupatra Online Resource, https://www.manupatra.com
3. SCC Online, https://www.scconline.com
4. Indian Kanoon, https://indiankanoon.org
5. Supreme Court Observer, https://www.scobserver.in
6. Supreme Court of India, https://main.sci.gov.in
7. Oxford Dictionary, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com.
8. CaseMine, https://www.casemine.com/

3
Memorandum on the behalf of Petitioners
 2nd Deo Mangal Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2023

CASES REFERRED
1. Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (D) And Another v. B.D Agarwal and Others, (2006) 6 SCC
230.
2. Asha Ranjan v. State of Bihar, (2017) 4 SCC 397.
3. Charanlal Sahu v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 630.
4. Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and Others, (1981) 1
SCC 608.
5. Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India, (2008) 5 SCC 1.
6. K.S. Puttaswamy and Another v. Union of India and Others, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
7. National Legal Service Authority v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 438.
8. Haryana State v. Jaipur development Authority, AIR 2002 SC 2036.
9. Collector of Central Excise v. Standard Motor Product, (1989) 2 SCC 303.
10. Narpat Singh v. Jaipur Development Authority, AIR 2002 SC 2036
11. R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadau and Others, (1994) 6 SCC 632.
12. Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M and Others, (2018) 16 SCC 368.
13. Janshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustee, Port of Mumbai, (2002) 3 SCC 214.
14. Dale And Carrington Investment (P) Ltd. v. P.K. Prathapan and ors., (2005) 1 SCC 212.
15. Sir Chunilal v. Mehta And Sons, Ltd v. The Century Spinning And Manufacturing Co,
Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1314.
16. Nihal Singh v. State of Punjab and Others, (2013) 14 SCC 65.
17. Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1950 SC 169.
18. Shri Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Miss Subhra Chakraborty, (1996) 1 SCC 490.
19. PUDR v. UOI, AIR 1982 SC 1472.
20. S.P Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149.
21. Ashok Lanka and Anr. v. Rishi Dixit and Others, (2005) 5 SCC 598.
22. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC 267.
23. Ram And Shyam Co. v. State of Haryana and Others, (1985) 3 SCC 267.
24. Vishaka and Others v. State of Rajashtan and Ors., (1997) 6 SCC 241.
25. State of Tripura v. Niranjan Chakraborty, (2001) 10 SCC 740.
26. Minerva Mills v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789.
27. Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Banu Begum, (1985) 2 SCC 556.
28. Danial Latifi and Anr. v. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 740.
29. Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India & Ors., (1995) 3 SCC 635.

4
Memorandum on the behalf of Petitioners
 2nd Deo Mangal Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2023

30. ABC v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2015) 10 SCC 1.

31. Lily Thomas v. Unoin of India, (2000) 6 SCC 224.
32. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1.
33. John Vallamattom and Anr. v. Union of India, (2003) 6 SCC 611.
34. Bhagwan Dutt v. Smt. Kamala Devi & Anr., (1975) 2 SCC 386.
35. Suresh Kumar Koushal and Anr. Naz Foundation and AIR 2014 SC 563.
36. Javed v. State of Haryana, AIR 2003 SC 3057.
37. Ramprasad v. State of Haryana, AIR 1961 SC 1402 (1415).
38. Govindlalji v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1963 SC 1638.
39. Ratilal v. State of Bombay, AIR 1954 SC 388.
40. Amita v. Union of India, (2005) 13 SCC 721.
41. Bindhannagar (Salt Lake) Welfare Assn. v. Central valuation Board and Ors., AIR 2007
SC 2276.
42. Lachmandas Kewalram v. State of Bombay, AIR 1952 SC 235.
43. Arkansas Gas Co. v. Railroad Commission, 261 US 379 (384).
44. Cf. State v. Bhimsingh, (1951) 6 DLR 174 (175) (Bom).
45. State of Bombay v. Narasu AIR 1952 bom 84.
46. Srinivasa Theatre v. Government of Tamil Nadu, (1992) 2 SCC 643.
47. Indian Young Lawyers Association and Ors. v. State of Kerla and Ors., (2019) 11 SCC 1.
48. Khursheed Ahmad Khan v. State Of U.P., (2015) SCC 105
49. Shamim Ara v. State of U.P. and Anr., (2002) 7 SCC 518.
50. Sharaya Banu v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1.
51. Food Corporation of India v. Kamadhenu Cattle Feed Industries, (1993) 1 SCC 71.
52. Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka, (1992) 3 SCC 666.
53. Centre For Child Law and Others v. Minister of Basic Education And Others, [2020] 1
All SA 711 (ECG).
54. M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1997 SC 699.
55. JK, R v. The Registrar General (The Secretary of State For The Home Department and
Others Intervening), [2015] 2 FCR 131.
56. Abdul Sattar Haji Ibrahim Patel v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1965 SC 810.
57. Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary, (2014) 9 SCC 516.
58. R.S. Nayak v. A. R. Antulay, (1985) 2 SCC 183.
59. Laxmi Devi v. Satya Naravan and Ors., (1994) 5 SCC 545.
60. Rattan Chand Hira Chand v. Askar Nawaz Jung, (1991) 3 SCC 67.
5
Memorandum on the behalf of Petitioners
 2nd Deo Mangal Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2023

61. Municipal Council, Ratlam v. vardhichand and Ors., (1980) 4 SCC 162.
62. Arun Gopal v. Union of India, (2019) 13 SCC 523.
63. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 138 (1803).
64. Almitra H. Patel v. Union of India, (2000) 3 SCC 575.
65. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248.
66. Swaraj Abhiyan v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 498.
67. D. Velusamy v. D. Patchiammal, (2010) 10 SCC 469.

6
Memorandum on the behalf of Petitioners
 2nd Deo Mangal Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2023

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner herein has approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Aryavart and humbly
submits this memorandum for the petition filed before this Hon’ble Court. The Writ Petition
invokes its the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Aryavart under Article 32 of the
Constitution of Aryavart as an PIL (Public Interest Litigation).

7
Memorandum on the behalf of Petitioners
 2nd Deo Mangal Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2023

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Aryavart is a Sovereign Country in Asiana consisting of 28 States and 8 Union territories and is by
and large conservative country. The Population of Aryavart is around 140 crores. Hinduism is the
major religion and 70% of the population practice Hinduism, 20% practice Islam, and other 10%
practice other religions. Only the State of Kankan which was a Portuguese colony has successfully
implemented Uniform Civil Code in Aryavart.
2. Mrinal who is a Hindu trans-man is in a relationship with Akram who is a Muslim trans- woman.
They both are residents of Avanti State which doesn't have Uniform Civil Code. They both have been
in a relationship since 2010 at a time when same-sex relationships were considered taboo and
unacceptable by the society. They were unable to openly proclaim their relationship because of the
social set up of the Country & State.
3.The couples waited for a very long to disclose their relationship in Public. In the year 2018, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of Aryavart decriminalized homosexuality, which had infused a sense of
confidence among the LGBTQ+ community in the Country. Though the harassment by the authorities
had stopped due to decriminalization of homosexuality by the Hon'ble Supreme Court yet the
homosexual couples still faced discrimination and stigma in the society.
4.There was a misconception in the society about the gender identity of the individuals. The societal
norm had only male and female stratum and entire government machinery ran around recognizing only
these genders. Though, in recent times there were identification of transgender rights in some areas,
there were still huge lacunae in recognizing their rights in most of the field especially that of marriage.
5. The couples in the present case decided to open up regarding their relationship and to get officially
married. In admission to the fact that both of them belong to LGBTQ+ community but also were of
different religion. They respected each other's faith and decided to get married under their respective
Customs. Their wedding was attended by their near and dear ones.
6. Though, friends and family supported their marriage, they were unable to get their marriage
officially registered as neither of them fell under the definition of "bride" and 'groom" and moreover
they belonged to two different religions.
7. In the meantime, Mrinal gets pregnant and gave birth to a healthy baby boy. Their problem got
complicated as they were unable to get birth certificate issued for their son as the same required name
of father and mother and in their case though Mirnal gave birth to the child, Mirnal identified to be a
male and therefore the father. Moreover, since their marriage itself could not be registered, they were
unable to get birth certificate for their child.

8
Memorandum on the behalf of Petitioners
 2nd Deo Mangal Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2023

8. Their application was rejected by the authorities in the State of Avanti. Further, they also tried to get
their marriage registered, which was also rejected by the authorities in the State of Avanti. They find
that they were in a legal conundrum. Because of lack of a Uniform Civil Code to govern the personal
laws, they were stuck in a limbo. Hence, they decided to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
Aryavart vide filing a writ petition under article 32 of the constitution of Aryavart with plea of
issuance of birth certificate to their child and recognition of their marriage and consequently sought to
implement a UCC which recognizes both same sex marriage and inter- religious marriage and grants
equal rights to all irrespective of sex and religion.
9. Meanwhile, an NGO - Samridhi working for the welfare of Muslim women has been fighting to
implement UCC across the Country. They have been providing free legal aid to Muslim women so as
to assist them fight for their rights. Though there were various legislations governing law of
maintenance and other secular issues, it was seen that by and large Muslim women were unable to
access them. In order to provide access to justice and legal rights, the NGO had filed a Public Interest
Litigation seeking to implement UCC throughout the Country of Aryavart before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court.
10. The same was pending consideration by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The main ground taken by
the NGO was that the Muslim women are treated poorly and they do not have legal weapons to claim
maintenance, or file such claims before the Courts. Their rights which are enjoyed by women of other
community are being curtailed by their personal laws. Hence, the NGO wants the implementation of
UCC across the country of Aryavart wherein women irrespective of religion will have equal rights.
The All-Indus Muslim Personal Law Board is opposing Implementation UCC as they claim that it
infringes their personal right and the same is in violation of the rights granted under the Constitution.
Hence, the All-Indus Muslim Personal Law Board has filed Impleading Petition in both the Public
Interest Litigations filed by the NGO and the Trans-couple along with violation of secular structure of
the Aryavart.
11. The Government of Aryavart whose ideology is based out of the majoritarian religion supported to
impose Uniform Civil Code and has made it as their election agenda. However, the Government is
opposing a Uniform Code which recognizes LGBTQIA community stating that such marriages are not
recognized in any religions. And The Government of Aryavart is opposing the PIL filed by the Trans-
couple on the ground of maintainability as they have an alternative remedy.
13. The Trans-Couple are opposing the Impleading Petition filed by All Indus Muslim Personal Law
Board as they find them not to be a necessary party to the proceedings. These cases have garnered
huge media attention and have become topic of debate. The Supreme Court recognizing the
importance of the case had permitted live telecast of the hearings and posted all applications together
9
Memorandum on the behalf of Petitioners
 2nd Deo Mangal Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2023

along with the question of maintainability of PIL and necessity of impleading Indus Muslim Personal
Law Board for hearing.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE 1
1. Whether the PIL is maintainable in the Supreme court of Aryavart or not and is it Feasible to
implement Uniform Civil Code in a Country like Aryavart?

ISSUE 2
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?

ISSUE 3
3. Whether the non-issuance of the Birth Certificate for the child born from a LGBTQIA Couple
is violation of the Child’s right by the state?

ISSUE 4
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?

10
Memorandum on the behalf of Petitioners
 2nd Deo Mangal Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2023

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1: The PIL is maintainable in the supreme court of Aryavart and it is feasible to
implement uniform civil code in a country like Aryavart.
The counsel for the Petitioner humbly submits before the Hon’ble Supreme court that the
Public Interest Litigation filed by the Trans couple and NGO - Samridhi is maintainable in
the Court of Law because the Fundamental Rights of the Petitioners has been violated and it
is the matter of General Public Important and there is a Substantial Question of Law, they
have the Locus Standi to approach the Court. And it is feasible for implementing Uniform
Civil Code in a Multi-cultural and diverse country like Aryavart because it is necessary to
create a Uniform Civil Code in order to make all the rights available for everyone mainly for
women.
ISSUE 2: UCC is not violative of one’s’ fundamental rights and other personal rights
guaranteed under the constitution of Aryavart and the States’s can interference in the
realm of the personal laws of the subjects.
The counsel for the Petitioner humbly submits that UCC is not violative of one’s
Fundamental Rights and other personal rights guaranteed under the Constitution of Aryavart
as it is enacted only in order to uplift the rights which are not provided to certain groups or
communities which are exempted by their Personal Laws. And the State can interference in
the Realm of the Personal Laws of the subject.
ISSUE 3: The non-issuance of the birth certificate for the child born from a LGBTQIA
couple is violation of the child’s right by the state.
The counsel for the Petitioner humbly submits that the non-issuance of the Birth Certificate
for the child born from a LGBTQIA Couple is violation of the Child’s right by the State.
ISSUE 4: The Constitutional power of court to frame laws has not led to the scenario
where Legislature have become the executive wing of the Judiciary.
The counsel for the Petitioner humbly submits that the Constitutional power of Court to
frame laws has not led to the scenario where Legislature have become the Executive wing
because the guidelines and temporary legislation can be made by the Supreme Court that the
Legislature can be made by the Supreme Court that the Legislation should follow that
accordingly.

11
Memorandum on the behalf of Petitioners
 2nd Deo Mangal Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2023

ARGUMENT ADVANCE
1. The PIL is maintainable in the Supreme Court of Aryavart and it is
feasible to implement Uniform Civil Code in a country like Aryavart.

1.1. The PIL is maintainable in the supreme court of Aryavart

The counsel for the Petitioner humbly submits before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the
Public Interest Litigation filed by the Trans couple and NGO-Samridhi is maintainable in the
Court of Law. Firstly, the Fundamental Rights of the Petitioners has been violated. Secondly,
the issue involves the matter of General Public Importance and a Substantial Question of
Law. Thirdly, the Petitioner have the bona fide interest and therefore they have the Locus
Standi.
1.1.1 PIL is maintainable when there is infringement of Fundamental Rights.
Article 321 of the Const. of Aryavart guarantees the right to move the SC by appropriate
proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by Part III of the Const. i.e.,
Fundamental Rights.
A. Article 142 of the Const. of Aryavart states that the State shall not deny to “any person”
equality before the Law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of Aryavart.
Right to equality has been declared as the basic feature of the Const. Article 14 does not
restrict the word “person” and its application only to male or female. Transgender persons
who are neither male/female fall within the expression “person” and hence, entitled to legal
protection of laws in all spheres of State activity, including employment, healthcare,
education as well as equal civil and citizenship rights, as enjoyed by any other Citizen of this
country. Any procedure which comes in the way of a party and getting a fair trial would be
violative of Article14.3
B. Article 154 of the Const. prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, race, nationality.
Gender or place of birth. By not recognizing transgenders’ rights to register their marriage
because they do not conform to the orthodox definitions of ‘man’ and ‘bride’ due to their
1
INDIA CONST. art. 32.
2
INDIA CONST. art. 14.
3
Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (D) And Another v. B.D Agarwal and Others, (2006) 6 SCC 230.
4
INDIA CONST. art. 15.

12
Memorandum on the behalf of Petitioners
 2nd Deo Mangal Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2023

gender identification and also, they belong different religion would be going against the
dictate of the Constitutional rights accorded to each individual living in the country. And
also, the personal laws in Aryavart often discriminate against Muslim women which is clearly
the discrimination grounded on sex alone must mean that one sex is discriminate against the
other5 which is in violation of Article 15 of the Constitution of Aryavart.
C. Right to life includes the right to make choices and freedom to choose is further protected by
virtue of Article 19(a)6 that provides freedom of Speech and Expression. Asha Ranjan v.
State of Bihar7, the Supreme Court declared the right of a person in choosing a partner to be
legitimate Constitutional right recognized under Article 19 of the Constitution of Aryavart.
And the rejection of the application for the marriage registration of the couple’s shows that
the right to express one’s choice is obstructed which means a violation of Article 19(a).
D. Article 218 of the Constitution of Aryavart envisages a right to life and personal liberty of a
person. The word “Life” under Article 21 means a equality of life, which includes right of
food, and reasonable accommodation to live in and the right to a wholesome environment. 9 In
the Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and ors. 10 and
Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India and another 11 wherein it was held
that the right to life and Liberty, as envisaged under Article 21, is meaningless unless it
encompasses within its sphere individual dignity and right to dignity which constitute the
meaningful expression of the human self. The right to marry a person of one’s choice is
integral to Article 21 of the Constitution. 12 In the present case the trans couple denial of their
marriage registration and the rejection for their child’s birthday certificate a by the authorities
and the Muslim women who are poorly treated and unable to access the law which are given
to them which as a consequence provides deprivation of life or personal liberty with dignity
violate the fundamental rights of the petitioners provided under Article 21.
E. In National Legal Services Authority v Union of India13, the SC held that any discrimination
on the basis of gender identity would be contrary to Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the
Constitution, the court said that Article 14 has used the expression “person” and Article 15

5
The Constitution (Ninety-Seventh Amendment) Act, 2011, § 2.
6
INDIA CONST. art. 19, cl. 1(a).
7
Asha Ranjan v. State of Bihar, (2017) 4 SCC 397.
8
INDIA CONST. art. 21.
9
Charanlal Sahu v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 630.
10
Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and Others, (1981) 1 SCC 608.
11
Common Cause (A Registered Society ) v. Union Of India, (2008) 5 SCC 1.
12
K.S. Puttaswamy and Another v. Union of India and Others, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
13
National Legal Service Authority v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 438.

13
Memorandum on the behalf of Petitioners
 2nd Deo Mangal Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2023

has used the expression “citizen” and “sex” so also Article 16 14. Article 19 has also used the
expression “citizen”. Article 21 has used the expression “person”. All these expressions,
which are “gender neutral” evidently refer to human beings. Gender identity as already
indicated forms the core of one’s personal self, based on self-identification, not on surgical or
medical procedure. Gender identity, in our view, is an integral part of sex and no citizen can
be discriminated on the ground of gender identity. The Fundamental rights of the petitioners
having been violated, they have the locus standi to approach the SC and therefore their writ
petition is maintainable under Article 32.
1.1.2 Jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 32 can always be invoked
when there was a Question of Law of general public importance and
substantial question of law arises.

The jurisdiction conferred under Article 32 on the SC is corrective one and not a restrictive
one.15 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 public interest
litigation. In the present case, the issue involves matter of General Public Importance and
Substantial Question of Law.
1.1.2(A) The matter involves question of law of general public importance
In Collector of Central Excise v. Standard Motor Product 16, 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 32 is the residuary power of SC to do
justice where the court is satisfied that there is injustice 17. The principle is that this court
would never do injustice nor allow injustice being perpetrated for the sake of upholding
technicalities.18 In the case at hand, rights of thousands of homosexuals are in question. Also,
the implementation of a law for the same will have an impact on public at large. Hence, the
matter concerned is a matter of public interest and national importance the same was
reiterated by the High court. Hence, it is humbly submitted before this court that the matters

14
INDIA CONST. art. 16.
15
Haryana State v. Jaipur development Authority, AIR 2002 SC 2036.
16
Collector of Central Excise v. Standard Motor Product , (1989) 2 SCC 303.
17
Narpat Singh v. Jaipur Development Authority, AIR 2002 SC 2036.
18
Janshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustee, Port of Mumbai, (2002) 3 SCC 214.

14
Memorandum on the behalf of Petitioners
 2nd Deo Mangal Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2023

involve question of law of general public importance and therefore, the appeal is
maintainable under Article 32 of the Constitution of Aryavart.

1.1.2(B) The matter involves substantial question of law.

The expression “Substantial Question of Law” is not defined in any legislation. Nevertheless,
it has acquired a definite connotation through various judicial pronouncements. A Const.
Bench of the Apex Court, while explaining the import of the said expression, observed that:
“The proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial
would, in our opinion, be whether it is of general public importance or whether it directly and
substantially affects the rights of the parties” 19 Where findings are entered without
considering relevant materials and without following proper legal procedure, the interference
of the SC is called for.20 In the present case the question of law in petition is regarding the
rights of homosexuals to have same sex marriage under the provision of special marriage act.
The questions raised by the Appellants involve substantial questions of law, as would be
shown in the subsequent submissions, and the same requires to be adjudicated by this
Hon’ble Court. Hence, the case involves the matter of general public importance and it
directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties as the order is erroneous and
prejudicial to the interest of the petitioners. It is humbly submitted that substantial and grave
injustice has been done to the rights of the petitioner and that the case in question presents
features of sufficient gravity to warrant a review of the decision appealed against.
1.1.3 Jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 32 can always be invoked
when the Petitioners have a Locus Standi
A. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble SC that the Petitioners have a locus standi to
approach the Hon’ble SC in the present case. Article 32 of the Constitution is couched in the
widest phraseology.21 “Locus stand” is the right of a party to appear and be heard on the
question before any tribunal. This Court’s jurisdiction is limited only by its discretion. 22 It
means the legal capacity to invoke the jurisdiction of the court. Article 32 is very broad-based
& confers discretion on the court to hear “in any cause or matter.” 23 The Supreme Court has
ruled that to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 32, it is not necessary that the affected

19
Sir Chunilal v. Mehta And Sons, Ltd v. The Century Spinning And Manufacturing Co, Ltd., AIR 1962 SC
1314.
20
Dale And Carrington Investment (P) Ltd. v. P.K. Prathapan and ors., (2005) 1 SCC 212.
21
Nihal Singh v. State of Punjab and Others, (2013) 14 SCC 65.
22
WHARTON, LAW LESICON 1019 (15th ed. 2009).
23
Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1950 SC 169.

15
Memorandum on the behalf of Petitioners
 2nd Deo Mangal Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2023

person should personally approach the court. The court can itself take cognizance of the
matter and proceed suo motu or on a petition of any public spirited individual or body.24
B. In landmark case25 the Supreme Court has evolved a new rule viz. any member of the public,
acting bona fide and having sufficient interest can maintain an action for redressal of public
wrong or public injury. In S.P Gupta v. UOP26 the court observed that, “any member of the
public having sufficient interest can maintain an action for judicial redress for public injury
arising from breach of public duty or from violation of some provisions of the constitution or
the law and seek enforcement of such public duty and observance of such constitutional or
legal provision”. However, the member of the public should not be a mere busybody or a
meddlesome interloper but one who has sufficient interest in the proceeding. In the instant
matter, the petitioners i.e., Trans couple and NGO have sufficient interest. Furthermore, even
if the petitioner in fact moved to the Court in private interest and for the redressal of his
personal grievances, or to seek his personal revenge, Court can proceed to enquire the state of
affairs of the subject of the litigation in the interest of justice and in furtherance of justice. If
the court finds the question raised to be of substantial public interest, the issue of Locus
standi of the person placing the relevant facts and materials before the court becomes
irrelevant.27 Therefore. Locus standi of the petitioners should not be in question.
1.1.4 Alternative Remedy is no bar to entertain Petition under Article 32.
Alternative remedy is a rule of convenience, not of law. 28The existence of alternate remedy is
no bar to entertain petition under Article 32. 29 Where gross injustice is done justifying
interference, the existence of alternative remedy by way of appeal or repeal would be no bar
to exercise the writ jurisdiction under Article 32.30 In the instant case the impugned enactment
is violating the fundamental rights of the petitioners and hence it results in gross injustice.
1.1.5 Impleading Petition is not Maintainable
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble SC that Impleading petition filed by the All-Indus
Muslim Personal Law Board is not maintainable as All-Indus Muslim Personal Law Board is
not impleaded as a necessary party in the suit. Because for an effective adjudication, a party
against whom relief sought is not known, no effective decree or order can be issued in the
suit. If an effective decree or order cannot be passed, the suit will never conclude to its
24
Shri Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Miss Subhra Chakraborty, (1996) 1 SCC 490.
25
PUDR v. UOI, AIR 1982 SC 1472.
26
S.P Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149.
27
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC 267.
28
Ram And Shyam Co. v. State of Haryana and Others, (1985) 3 SCC 267.
29
Vishaka and Others v. State of Rajashtan and Ors., (1997) 6 SCC 241.
30
State of Tripura v. Niranjan Chakraborty, (2001) 10 SCC 740.

16
Memorandum on the behalf of Petitioners
 2nd Deo Mangal Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2023

logical end.

1.2 It is feasible to implement Uniform Civil Code in a country like

Aryavart

It Is humbly submitted before this hon’ble Supreme court that it is feasible for implementing
UCC in a country like Aryavart. Because it is necessary to create a Uniform Civil Code in
order to make all the rights available for everyone mainly for women.

A. The UCC is a proposal in Aryavart to formulate and implement personal laws of citizens
which apply on all citizens equally regardless of their religion, gender and sexual orientation.
The UCC seeks to implement the same set of secular civil laws to govern all people,
including those belonging to different religions and regions. The UCC intends to apply to the
whole body of legislation governing property rights and personal matters such as marriage,
divorce, maintenance, adoption and inheritance.
B. Article 4431 of the Const. says that, “The State shall endeavor to secure for the citizens a
uniform civil code throughout the territory of Aryavart.”According to Article 44 of the Const.
of Aryavart, CJ of Aryavart Y. V. Chandrachud observed that, “A common civil code will
help the cause of National Integration by removing disputes loyalties to the laws which have
conflicting ideologies.”32 In the Minerva Mills v. Union of India33 case, where the SC held
that the fundamental rights must be harmonized with the directive principles and such
harmony is one of the basic features of the Constitution.
C. In Aryavart, the purpose of UCC is to replace the Personal Laws based on the Scriptures and
customs of each Major religious community in a country with a common set governing every
citizen. This draft also creates hopes for the LGBTQ+ community in Aryavart as it does not
differentiate between individuals based on their gender, or sexual orientation. Aryavart is a
homogeneous society of diverse content. This country has always believed in the ideology of
Unity in Diversity. Aryavart’s diversity and tolerance stand out all over the world and is the
beauty and strength of this country. UCC would allow for Modernization and reform of
Aryavart legal system, as it would provide an opportunity to update and harmonized the laws
with contemporary values and principles. With the world moving into the digital age, the
social attitude and aspirations of the youth are being influenced by the Universal and global

31
INDIA CONST. art. 44.
32
Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Banu Begum, (1985) 2 SCC 556.
33
Minerva Mills v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789.

17
Memorandum on the behalf of Petitioners
 2nd Deo Mangal Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2023

principles of equality, humanity, and modernity. The enactment of the UCC will help to
maximize their potential in Nation-building. The UCC help to reduce tension and conflict
between different religious or community groups by providing a common set of rules for
everyone to follow.
D. The frequent conflict between secular and religious authorities over the issue of uniform civil
code eventually decreased, until the 1985 Shah Bano case34 it was held in this case that if a
Muslim woman is able to maintain herself, only then is the duty of the husband to pay
maintenance after the iddat period ceases. If she is unable to do so, she can take the recourse
of Section 125.35 This also settled the position that there is no conflict between the said
provision and the Muslim Personal Law.
E. After the Shah Bano case, an act was enacted for the Protection of Muslim women namely,
Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act,1986 36 to promote the rights of
Muslim women after their Divorce. The sections 3 and 4 were the major sections which
provides Maintenance for the Divorced Wife and their children. The Constitutional Validity
of these sections were challenged before the SC in Danial Latifi37 case on Grounds of
violating article 14, 15 and 21. In this case, the SC looked to the Social Reality and observed,
“In our Society, whether they belong to the majority or the minority group, what is apparent
is that there exists a great disparity in the matters of economic resourcefulness between a man
and a woman. Our society is male dominated both economically and socially and women are
assigned, invariably, a dependent role, irrespective of the class of society to which she
belongs.” In the case of Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995)38, the Court observed that the
lack of a UCC is a major hurdle to the achievement of gender equality and is a violation of
the fundamental rights of women.
F. In a similar vein, the cases of Lily Thomas v. Union of India 39 and ABC v. The State (NCT
of Delhi)40 were dealt with. While in the former, the SC emphasized the significance of UCC
in terms of succession, and in the latter, it held that a single mother of the Christian religion
was eligible to apply for sole guardianship of her child without the assent of the natural father
under the Guardian and Wards Act, 189041 that had not recognized the right of Christian

34
Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Banu Begum, (1985) 2 SCC 556.
35
The Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, § 125, No. 2, Act of Parliament, 1973 (India).
36
Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act,1986, § 3, § 4, No. 25, Act of Parliament, 1986 (India).
37
Danial Latifi and Anr. v. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 740.
38
Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India & Ors., (1995) 3 SCC 635.
39
Lily Thomas v. Unoin of India, (2000) 6 SCC 224.
40
ABC v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2015) 10 SCC 1.
41
The Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, No. 8, Act of Parliament, 1890 (India).

18
Memorandum on the behalf of Petitioners
 2nd Deo Mangal Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2023

single mothers. In this context, the court pointed out the inconvenience caused in absence of a
UCC.
G. The Preamble of the Aryavart Constitution states that Aryavart is a Secular, Democratic,
Republic. The process of secularization is intimately connected with the goal of Uniform
Civil Code like a cause and effect. In the case of S.R. Bommai v Union of India42, as per the
Justice Jeevan Reddy, it was held that religion is the matter of individual faith and cannot be
mixed with secular activities and can be regulated by the State by enacting a law.
H. The Priest from Kerala, John Vallamatton43 filed a writ petition in the year 1997 stating that
Section 118 of the Succession Act 44 was discriminatory against the Christians as it imposes
unreasonable restrictions on their donation of property for the religious or charitable purpose
by will. The bench comprising of CJ of Aryavart V.V Khare, Justice S.B Sinha and Justice
A.R. Lakshmanan struck down the Section declaring it to be unconstitutional. Further, Khare
stated that; “Article 44 provides that the State shall endeavor to secure for all citizens a UCC
throughout the territory of Aryavart. It is a matter of great regrets that Article 44 of the Const.
has not been given effect to. Parliament is still to step in for framing UCC in the country.
UCC will help the cause of national integration by removing the contradiction based on
ideologies.
Therefore, it is humbly Submitted that there is a need for Uniform civil Code and it is feasible
for implementing Uniform Civil Code in a multi-cultural and a diverse country like Aryavart.

2. UCC is not Violative of one’s’ Fundamental Rights and other Personal

Rights Guaranteed under the Constitution of Aryavart and the States can
interference in the Realm of the Personal Laws of the Subjects.

2.1. UCC is not violative of one’s’ fundamental rights and other personal
rights guaranteed under the constitution of Aryavart.
It is humbly submitted that UCC is not violative of one’s Fundamental Rights and other
Personal Rights guaranteed under the Constitution of Aryavart. As it is enacted only in order
to uplift the rights which are not provided to certain groups or communities which are
exempted by their personal Laws. It is not violative of the right to practice religion under

42
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1.
43
John Vallamattom and Anr. v. Union of India, (2003) 6 SCC 611.
44
The Indian Succession Act, 1925, § 118, No. 39, Act of Parliament, 1925 (India).

19
Memorandum on the behalf of Petitioners
 2nd Deo Mangal Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2023

Article 2545 and 2646 of the Constitution, right to equality and rule of law enshrined under
Article 14 and the personal laws of Muslims, Hindus and other religions.
A. According to the Article 14 of the constitution of Aryavart the stage shows not deny any
person equality before protection of law within the territory of Aryavart it is stated that all the
people within territory of Aryavart should be treated equally and no right should be the
denied to anyone including male, female and transgender. But the personal laws of each
religion contain separate provisions, their unification will bring not only resentment, but also
enmity in the public towards one another, therefore the Uniform Civil Code will bring such
laws that strike a balance between the protection of the fundamental rights and the religious
principles of the different communities that exist in the country.
B. It is possible that the practices and beliefs of one religion may conflict with another, leading
to the need for separate personal laws. The distribution of justice needs to be different in
different situations, leading to the emergence of separate laws for different classes of people
based on their religion. However, this differential treatment in personal laws has also led to
several issues such as discrimination, inequality, and inconsistency in the application of laws.
The UCC aims to provide a common legal framework that would be applicable to all citizens
irrespective of their religion, gender, or any other identity. It would provide equal rights and
opportunities to all citizens and ensure that justice is served impartially without any biases.In
the case of Sarla Mudgal v Union of India47, the SC of Aryavart held that the concept of a
UCC is not unconstitutional and that the state has the power to implement it. The Court noted
that the Constitution of India provides for the protection of fundamental rights, including the
right to equality, and that the state has a duty to ensure that these rights are protected.
C. The UCC is also seen as a tool for reform, as it aims to eliminate gender discriminatory
practices and promote gender equality. For instance, the Hindu Succession Act, 195648,
reformed Hindu law and gave women equal inheritance rights as men. However, Muslim
women do not have the same rights under the Muslim Personal Law. The judiciary has
always tried to narrow the gap between the general provision of law and the personal law. It
is crystal clear from Bhagwan Dutt v. Smt. Kamala Dev49, wherein the apex court Ignored
the personal law and stressed that provisions under Criminal Procedure Code must be made
applicable to all irrespective of their religious beliefs.

45
INDIA CONST. art. 25.
46
INDIA CONST. art. 26.
47
Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India & Ors., (1995) 3 SCC 635.
48
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, No. 30, Act of Parliament, 1956 (India).
49
Bhagwan Dutt v. Smt. Kamala Devi & Anr., (1975) 2 SCC 386.

20
Memorandum on the behalf of Petitioners
 2nd Deo Mangal Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2023

D. The SC of Aryavart has referred to State of Kankan as a 'Shining Example" due to the
features it contains. The UCC in State of Kankan has factors like compulsory marriage
registration, prohibition of polygamy or bigamy, uniform age of marriage for men and
women, consent of men and women to perform a marriage, consent of both men and women
to attain lawful separation, etc, these features can be taken as a ground of implementing UCC
at a national level. So, according to the Statements made and authorities cited, it is humbly
submitted that there is no violation of fundamental rights in implementing a UCC in
Aryavart. Also, it is stated that the trans-couple’s marriage should be registered and the birth
certificate for their children should be issued in order to ensure the fundamental rights which
States about equality and women’s irrespective of religion will have the equal rights.
2.1.1 Uniform Civil Code is not violative of Article 25 And 26 of the
Constitution
Dr. Ambedkar explained in the Constituent assembly that the bulk of different items of civil
law have already been codified during the British rule and the only major items still
remaining for the UCC are marriage, divorce, inheritance and succession,”50 Art. 44 of the
Const. aims to fulfil this wish of our Const. framers stating that the state shall endeavors to
secure for the citizens a UCC throughout the territory of Aryavart.51

Article 44 is not violative of the fundamental right to freedom of religion as Article 25 itself
permits I.To make legislations aiming at social welfare, II. It does not cover secular
activities; and III. It is the discretionary power of court to decide the ambit of religious
practices.
2.1.1(A) Article 25 and 26 permits to make legislations aiming at social welfare
It is submitted that Art. 44 of the const. does violate the fundamental right to freedom of
religion under Art. 25 and 26 of the const. stating that subject to public order, morality and
health, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to
profess, practice and propagate religion. Art. 25 permits legislations in the interest of social
welfare and reform as a part of public order, national morality and collective health of the
people. Religions practice which is not integral part of the practices of the religion is not
protected under Art.25.52

50
Suresh Kumar Koushal and Anr. Naz Foundation and AIR 2014 SC 563.
51
INDIA CONST. art. 44
52
Javed v. State of Haryana, AIR 2003 SC 3057.

21
Memorandum on the behalf of Petitioners
 2nd Deo Mangal Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2023

2.1.1(B) Article 25 protects only those practices which form the essence of the
Religion
The freedom of practice would extend only to those rites and observances which are of the
essence of the religion and would not cover secular activities which go by the name of
religion and are no part of true religion. Such matters are those that come within the scope of
the expression “personal law” like marriage, adoption and the like, as regard which the Hindu
and Mohammedan laws are founded on religious scriptures, and yet they do not form the
essence of either religion.53 The protection under Art.25 is with respect to religious practices
which form the essential and integral part of the religion. All other practices can be regulated
by legislation in the interest of public order, morality, health, social welfare and reforms. 54
Hence, matters of personal law are subject to regulation or restriction by the State in the
larger interest of society.
2.1.1(C) It is the discretionary power of the court to determine the ambit of the
practices forming the essence of Religion
It is subject to the decision of the court to determine whether a particular practice or rite
constitutes the essence of the religion or is a mere secular activity. 55 It is only if a matter is a
matter of religion that Art. 25 and Art. 26 can be invoked by an individual or denomination
Against state action56. It is a settled law that in so far as rules regarding marriage, succession,
etc. are concerned, they are purely secular in character and are outside the guarantee of Arti.
25 and 26.57 A legislation Bringing succession and similar matters of secular character, the
competency of legislature cannot be doubted.58 It has been held that Art.25 guarantees
religious freedom and Art. 44 divests religion from social relations and personal laws. It was
held that marriage, succession and similar matters are of a secular character and are outside
the guarantee under Art. 25 and 26, The court observed, “It is a matter of regret that Art. 44
of the constitution has not been given effect to. Parliament is still to step in for framing UCC
in the country. A UCC will help the cause of national integration by removing the
contradiction based on religion.
2.1.2 Uniform Civil Code is not violative of Right to Equality
It is submitted that Article 44 is not violative of the Right to Equality as Uniform Civil code
53
Ramprasad v. State of Haryana, AIR 1961 SC 1402 (1415).
54
Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1950 SC 169.
55
Govindlalji v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1963 SC 1638.
56
Ratilal v. State of Bombay, AIR 1954 SC 388.
57
Mohd Ahmed khan v. Shah bano Begum, AIR 1985 SC 945.
58
John Vallamattom and Anr. v. Union of India, (2003) 6 SCC 611.

22
Memorandum on the behalf of Petitioners
 2nd Deo Mangal Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2023

is not against the principle of reasonable classification, and helps in bringing all communities
on Common platform.
2.1.2(A) Uniform civil code is neither unreasonable nor arbitrary
Art. 14 contemplates reasonableness in actions of the State, the absence of which would
entail its utter violation.59 “To declare an act ultra vires under Art. 14, the Court must be
satisfied in Respect of substantive unreasonableness in the statute. 60 The Court must not adopt
a doctrinaire approach which might choke all beneficial legislations. 61 The Court must see
that the inequality Produced is actually and palpably unreasonable and arbitrary,” 62 which is
clearly not the case with UCC.
2.1.2(B)Uniform civil code helps in bringing all communities on common
platform
The object behind the implementation of the a UCC is to affect an integration of the country
by bringing together all the communities on a common platform on matters which are at
present governed by diverse personal laws but which do not form essence of any religion, e.g,
divorce, maintenance of divorced wife. Moreover, the other objective of the UCC is to
prevent the dignity of women in our society from the practices that are derogatory to their
dignity. The Const. confers citizenship not on the basis of caste, creed, sex or religion, but on
the basis of birth, domicile, choice, etc. Thus, it is the right of all citizens, and women in
particular, to be treated equally and without being discriminated against; and the endeavors of
the state to achieve this must be perpetual and paramount.
Clause (e) of Art. 51A63 enjoins every citizen to renounce practices that are derogatory to the
dignity of women. The purpose of the implementation of a UCC is a legitimate one. A UCC
will help the cause of national integration by removing desperate loyalties to laws which have
conflicting ideologies
Thereby, it is humbly submitted that the UCC has a reasonable and substantial basis and is
neither discriminatory nor arbitrary and hence, does not violate Article 14.
2.1.3 Uniform Civil Code is not violative of the Muslim Personal Law
It is submitted that Article 44 is not violative of the Muslim personal law as marriage is not
an integral part of the Muslim religion, personal laws and religion are not linked, legislature
Pusses power to supersede personal law.
59
Amita v. Union of India, (2005) 13 SCC 721.
60
Bindhannagar (Salt Lake) Welfare Assn. v. Central valuation Board and Ors., AIR 2007 SC 2276.
61
Lachmandas Kewalram v. State of Bombay, AIR 1952 SC 235.
62
Arkansas Gas Co. v. Railroad Commission, 261 US 379 (384).
63
INDIA CONST. art. 51A. cl. e.

23
Memorandum on the behalf of Petitioners
 2nd Deo Mangal Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2023

2.1.3(A) Marriage does not constitute the essence of Muslim religion

It can be stated that law of marriage is not an integral part of the Muslim religion by
explaining the threefold averages for state regulation. Firstly, even though some religions lay
down sacramental formalities for the celebration of marriage or an obligation to marry for
maintenance of the lineage, modern societies do nor regard it as of the essence of any
religion, but only as a secular activity, though it may be associated with religion. So regarded,
it would, come under Art. 25(2)(a) of our Const., and be liable to state regulation in the
interest of general public.64 As regards the Muslim community, an additional reason why the
personal law of marriage cannot be regarded as an integral part of religion is that while Hindi
scriptures regard marriage as sacramental and indissoluble, the Quran regards marriage as a
matter of contract and subject to divorce; and that not merely matters spiritual but even
political and social rules of conduct are contained in the Quran, according to the exigencies of
the time. Secondly, even if it were an integral part of religion, it would be subject to state
regulation, in so Far as necessary, in interest of public under, morality and health. 65 Thirdly it
has been held in the number of cases that marriage Is a social reform 66 the legislature under
constitution, could interfere with religious practices, such as polygamy even though the
parties were Muslims.67
Once it is established that marriage, succession or the like does not constitute an essential part
of any religion but is only a secular activity associated with religious practice within the
purview of Article 25(2) or that even it is a religious practice, it should give way to social
reform according to the enlightened conscience of modern times, there cannot be any other
bar to amendment or repeal of the Shariat Act to be replaced by a common civil code for the
nation.

2.2 The States can interfere in the realm of the personal Laws of the subjects.
It is humbly submitted before this honorable Supreme Court that the State can interfere in the
realm of personal laws it can extent up to the limit of declaration of Rights of the person as
unconstitutional.
2.2.1. Article 1368:
A. According to Article 13 it states that the personal law recognized under the article 13(1)
64
DURGA DAS BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 3399(8th ed. 2008).
65
Cf. State v. Bhimsingh, (1951) 6 DLR 174 (175) (Bom).
66
State of Bombay v. Narasu AIR 1952 bom 84.
67
Srinivasa v. Saraswati AIR 1952 Mad 193.
68
INDIA CONST. art. 13.

24
Memorandum on the behalf of Petitioners
 2nd Deo Mangal Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2023

and the article 13(3)(a) it explains that the personal law is the form of customs and believes
which were practice for a long period of time being so it is stated that the personal law comes
under the article 13 of the constitution of Aryavart. Article 13 aids the court and citizens to
keep the powers of the legislature under preview. Article 13 of the Aryavart Constitution
describes the means for judicial review. It enjoins a duty on the Indian State to respect and
implement the fundamental right. And at the same time, it confers a power on the courts to
declare a law or an act void if it infringes the fundamental rights.
C. In India Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala”69 Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
makes a point on the necessity of personal laws when it comes to ‘fundamental rights’
“Customs, usages, and personal laws have a significant impact on the civil status of
individuals. Those activities that are inherently connected with the civil status of individuals
cannot be granted constitutional immunity merely because they may have some associational
features which have a religious nature. To immunize them from constitutional scrutiny is to
deny the primacy of the Constitution.” Personal laws should be subjected to constitutional
analysis as a first step toward achieving a constitutional vision. In K.S. Puttaswamy and
Another v. Union of India and Others Court helf that when human dignity in a person’s life
is infringed and physical or mental welfare is neglected and harmed, the Court would
intervene to protect and safeguard constitutional values.
G. John Vallamattom and Ors. v. Union of India, 2003 70, in this case, while holding that
Section 118 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 was unconstitutional for being violative of
Articles 14, 15, 25 and 26 of the Constitution, observed that “The right of equality of women
vis-à-vis their male counterpart is accepted worldwide. It will be immoral to discriminate a
woman on the ground of sex. It is forbidden both in our domestic law as also international
law. Even right of women to derive interest in a property by way of inheritance, gift or
bequeath is statutorily accepted by reason of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and other
enactments. This court, therefore, while considering constitutionality of Section 118 of the
Indian Succession Act, is entitled to take those facts also into consideration.
2.2.2 Interference of Government in Personal Laws:
In Khursheed Ahmad Khan v. State of U.P. and Ors.71, the SC upheld a law that
circumscribed the right of Muslim men available under MPL to practice polygamy. In this
case, a Muslim man working for the Uttar Pradesh state government was dismissed from his

69
Indian Young Lawyers Association and Ors. v. State of Kerla and Ors., (2019) 11 SCC 1.
70
John Vallamattom and Anr. v. Union of India, (2003) 6 SCC 611.
71
Khursheed Ahmad Khan v. State of U.P., (2015) SCC 105

25
Memorandum on the behalf of Petitioners
 2nd Deo Mangal Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2023

job for entering into a polygamous marriage. His action violated service rules requiring
government employees to seek prior consent before engaging in polygamy. Instead of
deferring to the will of community leaders like the Board, the SC held that the entitlement
available under MPL to take a second wife did not exempt Muslim men from this
requirement of prior permission.
2.2.3 Jurisprudential Approach of Art. 25 As Per Hofeldian Analyses
A. Wesley Hohfeld developed an analytical framework for understanding the concept of
rights and arranged eight terms in two tables of correlatives and opposites that structure the
internal relationships among the different fundamental rights. Hofeldian analysis is a
framework used in jurisprudence to examine legal relationships and rights. In the context of
Article 25 of the Aryavart Const., which guarantees the freedom of religion, a Hofeldian
analysis can help understand the complex interplay between individual rights and state
interference in personal laws.
2.2.4. Discrimination against muslim women in their personal Laws:
A. In Shamim Ara v. State of U.P. and Anr.”72, the SC negated the right of Muslim men to
instantaneously divorce their wives, as per the Board’s interpretation of Muslim Personal
Law, Here it was pleased that the availability of the device of triple talaq enabled a Muslim to
divorce his wife in her absence and without her knowledge. But the SC rejected this
submission as invalid, commenting that the right to divorce was subject to the fulfillment of
certain basic conditions. The Court asserted that instantaneous or triple talaq is antithetical to
Muslim Personal Law, because a valid talaq requires the provision of “reasonable cause” by
the husband and attempts at reconciliation before the Divorce. In this case, the court enters
directly into the Muslim Personal Law and declares Triple Talaq as an invalid and also stated
that it is violative of the fundamental rights provided by the Constitution of Aryavart.
B. Personal law i.e., “uncodified religious law” has never been free of State interference and
Involvement in India. Even in the Narasu73 judgment merely averred that personal laws were
outside the Province of the Constitution’s fundamental rights. That is a far cry, no matter
what one thinks of the decision’s merits, from stating that Muslim Personal Law is a fiefdom
of community leaders like the Board. Consequently, the judiciary has despite Narasu
intervened in Muslim Personal Law in ways that undermine the wishes of the Board.
Therefore, it is humbly submitted that from the authorities cited and stating that the personal
laws can be challenged and intervened by the State
72
Shamim Ara v. State of U.P. and Anr., (2002) 7 SCC 518.
73
State of Bombay v. Narasu AIR 1952 bom 84.

26
Memorandum on the behalf of Petitioners
 2nd Deo Mangal Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2023

3.The Non-Issuance of the birth certificate for the child born from a
LGBTQIA couple is violation of the child’s right by the state.

The counsel for the petitioner humbly submits that the non-issuance of the Birth Certificate
for the child born from a LGBTQIA Couple is violation of the Child's right by the state. In
para 7 it is given that the Trans couple were unable to get birth certificate issued for their son
as their marriage is not registered which is violative of the right to life of an individual
includes right to privacy inclusive of right to family formation and right to reproductive
autonomy. In the case R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N.74 it was held that it is a right of a citizen
to safeguard the privacy of his own, his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child-
bearing and education among other matters and right to be free from unnecessary, arbitrary
state interference in the same. Everyone, regardless of gender identity entitled to the
enjoyment of privacy without arbitrary or unlawful interference, including with regard to
their family, home or correspondence as well as to protection from unlawful attacks on their
honor and reputation (Yogyakarta principal). The privacy recognizes that we all have a right
to a sphere of private intimacy and autonomy which allows us to establish and nurture human
relationships without interference from the outside community. The way in which one gives
expression to one's sexuality is at the core of this area of private intimacy. If, in expressing
one's sexuality, one acts consensually and without harming the other, invasion of that precinct
will be a breach of privacy. Interference with the right to privacy of the trans couple does
interfering with their rights of parenthood as well as reproductive. And also, the non-
issuance of the Birth Certificate for their child as the biological mother identified as a man
therefore the father which may cause technical problems in the child’s school admission,
Aadhar document and passport.

3.1 Violation of Fundamental rights of the Child.

Non issuance of Birth certificate is also violating the various rights particularly as outlined in
Articles 14, 15, 16,19 ,21& 21A of the constitution of Aryavart:
A. Article 1475 of the Constitution of Aryavart states that “the State shall not deny to any
person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of

74
R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadau and Others, (1994) 6 SCC 632.
75
INDIA CONST. art. 14.

27
Memorandum on the behalf of Petitioners
 2nd Deo Mangal Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2023

India.” Article 14 ensures equality before the law and equal protection of laws for all citizens.
Denying a birth certificate to a child based on the sexual orientation or gender identity of
their parents could be seen as discriminatory and a violation of this fundamental right. In
Srinivasa Theatre v Government of Tamil Nadu76 The two concepts of “equality before law”
and “equal protection of law” have a different meaning this was first observed by the
Supreme Court in this case. In this judgement the court held that the expression equality
before law means that the state has an obligatory duty to restrain from preforming any act
which is discriminatory in nature. Both these expressions however make the provisions of
equal treatment binding on the state. The supreme court explained in this case that both these
expressions might appear to be same, but they have very different meanings. The term
equality before law is a very dynamic concept with various aspects within itself. One such
aspect present in the provision of equality before law is that there should be an absence of
any privilege for a person against law or a person being above the law. The court also
observed that the term equal protection of law was introduced in the 14 th amendment of the
Const. of United States of America and it states that there should not be any privileges or
favoritism towards any person or any group of persons. In Food Corporation of India v.
Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries77 court held in this case that the duty to act fairly on part
of public authorities and entitles every citizen or person must have legitimate expectations to
be treated in fair and just manner and such an expectation must be given due importance and
such expectations of fair treatment should be satisfied Further, the court also made a
significant point stating that such reasonable/legitimate expectations may not be expressly or
directly enforceable legal right but failure in taking into amount may deem a decision
arbitrary in nature. The fact that the expectations are legitimate or not must be decided on a
case-to-case basis.
B. Article 1578 prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of
birth. Denying a birth certificate based on the parents’ LGBTQIA status The right of
transgender persons to gender identity, full civil rights and equal citizenship has been upheld
by the SC of Aryavart in NALSA v. Union of India79. There is also a violation of Article 15,
as the transgender parents are being discriminated against on the basis of their gender for not
issuing the birth certificate of their child.

76
Srinivasa Theatre v. Government of Tamil Nadu, (1992) 2 SCC 643.
77
Food Corporation of India v. Kamadhenu Cattle Feed Industries, (1993) 1 SCC 71.
78
INDIA CONST. art. 15.
79
National Legal Service Authority v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 438.

28
Memorandum on the behalf of Petitioners
 2nd Deo Mangal Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2023

C. Article 1680 primarily relates to public employment, it also upholds the principle of
equality. Denying a birth certificate could be seen as denying equal opportunities and benefits
to the child, which may indirectly affect their future prospects.
D. Article 1981 guarantees the right to freedom, which includes the freedom to reside and
settle in any part of the territory of Aryavart. By not issuing a birth certificate, the state could
hinder the child’s ability to establish their identity and exercise this fundamental right.
Without a birth certificate, the child may face difficulties in obtaining various essential that
are necessary for exercising their rights.
E. Art. 2182 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. It has been interpreted by
Aryavart courts to encompass the right to live with dignity and to the fullness of life. Not
issuing a birth certificate could affect the child’s access to education, healthcare, and various
social services. It may also lead to stigmatization and discrimination, which can impact the
child’s emotional and psychological well-being. The right to life under Art. 21 and the
dignity of an individual cannot be assured unless it is accompanied by the right to education.
The state government is under an obligation to make endeavors to provide educational
facilities at all levels to its citizen. Right to health under Art.21 of the Const. of Aryavart,
although indirectly, every child has the right to lead a healthy life. Issues like HIV infections,
lack of safe drinking water, adequate sanitation, malnutrition, inter alia, come under the
protection of life. In some cases, a birth certificate may be required to access healthcare
services. Denying a child necessary medical care due to a lack of proper documentation can
lead to legal challenges. In Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka 83 in this case the petitioner
challenge notification issued by the Karnataka Government that permitted private medical
colleges to charge higher fees from students who were not allocated government seats on the
name of ‘capitation fee’ as it was violative of Equality, it is essential to the fulfilment of the
fundamental right to life and human dignity under article 21 of the Constitution.
F. Article 21A84 of the Const. of Aryavart, which guarantees the right to education. Birth
certificates are often required for enrolling a child in a school. Without a birth certificate, a
child may face difficulties in gaining admission to educational institutions. This can be seen
as an obstacle to exercising their right to education. The Right to education is provided to
every child within the boundaries of South Africa irrespective of his nationality or

80
INDIA CONST. art. 16.
81
INDIA CONST. art. 19.
82
INDIA CONST. art. 21.
83
Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka, (1992) 3 SCC 666.
84
INDIA CONST. art. 21A.

29
Memorandum on the behalf of Petitioners
 2nd Deo Mangal Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2023

citizenship. In a recent case of Centre for Child Law and Others v Minister of Basic
Education and Others,85 it was held by the Court that the right to education cannot be denied
to any child even if does not have the immigration status. The Court observed that the
nationality should be observed for controlling the immigration but it should not extend to
restrict any child of his/her fundamental rights. Some educational programs, scholarships, or
benefits may require proper identification, including a birth certificate, to qualify. The
absence of such documentation can impede a child’s access to these opportunities, limiting
their educational prospects in essence, while Art. 21A itself does not explicitly mention birth
certificates, it ensures the right to education for all children. The non-issuance of a birth
certificate can indirectly hinder a child’s access to education and may be considered a
violation of their right to education.
G. Article 2386 of the Constitution of India states that every person (including children) has
the right to be protected from trafficking, begging and other similar forms of bonded labour.
H. Under Art. 24 of the Const. of Aryavart, every child below the age of 14 has the right to be
protected from employment in factories or in any other precarious employment conditions.
And non issuance of birth certificate affects the child right as it is necessary for proving one’s
age and identity, which are critical for protecting a child’s rights. In the case M.C. Mehta v.
State of Tamil Nadu87 in led to the banning of hazardous industries employing child labor
which violated their fundamental right. The SC directed state governments to identify and
rehabilitate child laborers and take steps to prevent their exploitation.
I. Article 39(f)88 of the Const. states that children must be provided with just opportunities
and facilities to progress in a healthy way and conditions of liberty and dignity. Also,
children and youngsters are given protection against ill-treatment and moral and material
abandonment. A birth certificate serves as a primary form of identification. Another
important factor for child rights is their right to identity and registration. Only 41% of births
in Aryavart are registered. Having an identity is a fundamental right that gives an individual
the liberty to enjoy all of their other rights. Identity consists of a family name, surname, date
of birth, gender and nationality of the individual. By identification of such identities, an
individual will hold rights and obligations specific to their status. Rights of children to
participate in activities of the society, especially matters that may affect their life, to assemble
peacefully and to join associations.
85
Centre For Child Law and Others v. Minister of Basic Education and Others, [2020] 1 All SA 711 (ECG).
86
INDIA CONST. art. 21A.
87
M.C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1997 SC 699.
88
INDIA CONST. art. 31. Cl. f.

30
Memorandum on the behalf of Petitioners
 2nd Deo Mangal Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2023

On violation of fundamental rights, there is violation of Article 21, 19 and 14 rights of the
transgender parents and the rights of the child in terms argued in the cases above. The right to
one’s gender identity, privacy and family under Article 21 has been upheld by the Supreme
Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India.89.

3.2 Foreign jurisprudence with respect to birth certificate

In R (JK) v. The Registrar General (The Secretary of State for the Home Department and
others intervening) [2015] EWHC 990 (Admin).90 JK was a transgender woman who was
married to a woman and was the biological parent of two children. The Registrar General
denied JK’s request to be registered as ‘parent’ or ‘father/parent’ on the birth certificates of
both children. JK went to court against the decision of the Registrar General arguing that this
violated her Art 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) right to private life
and affected the Art 8 rights of her children to keep private the fact that their father was
transgender. Heckingbottom J found that the interference with Art 8 was necessary because a
balance had to be struck between harm to the individual on the one hand, and the right of a
child to know their biological parent and the public interest of the state in having coherent
birth registration schemes on the other.

3.3Citizenship under Article 591

In the case of Abdul Sattar Haji Ibrahim Patel v. State of Gujarat (1964)92, the 5-judge
bench of the SC pointed out that the basic condition under Article 5 is that the person must
have a domicile in the territory of India and the requirements prescribed under clauses (a), (b)
and (c) are alternate in nature and not cumulative. Hence, if any of the conditions is satisfied,
a person would be regarded as an Aryavart citizen.
So, such born citizens should be given registration for their birth and the birth certificate is
for the recognition of their identity and the children born should be given their registration of
their Birth.

4. The constitutional power of court to frame laws has not led to the
scenario where Legislature have become the Executive wing of the
89
K.S. Puttaswamy and Another v. Union of India and Others, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
90
JK, R v. The Registrar General (The Secretary of State For The Home Department and Others Intervening),
[2015] 2 FCR 131.
91
INDIA CONST. art. 5.
92
Abdul Sattar Haji Ibrahim Patel v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1965 SC 810.

31
Memorandum on the behalf of Petitioners
 2nd Deo Mangal Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2023

Judiciary
It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble Supreme Court that the Constitutional Power of
court to frame laws has not led to the scenario where legislature have become the Executive
Wing. Because the Guidelines and temporary legislations can be made by the Supreme Court
that the legislature should follow that accordingly.

4.1 Article 14293 of The Constitution:

A. According to article 142 in the Constitution of Aryavart, The Supreme Court of Aryavart
has the authority to enact laws under Article 142 of the Constitution, despite the fact that the
Parliament of Aryavart retains the primary authority to do so. The order will be in effect until
Parliament passes legislation to address the problem. The expression used in Article 142 is to
endeavors ‘complete justice’ and its ambit was explained in the case of Manohar Lal
Sharma v. Principal Secretary94wherein the Supreme Court can deal with exceptional
circumstances interfering with the larger interest of the public in order to fabricate trust in the
rule of law. In the case of R.S. Nayak v. A. R. Antulay 95, it was held that any discretion
which is given by the court should not be arbitrary or in any way be inconsistent with
provisions of any statute laid down. In Laxmi Devi v. Satya Narayan96, Supreme Court had
ordered the accused, under Article 142, to award compensation to the victim with whom he
had sexual intercourse with a promise to marry and had later retracted with his promise. It
was also made clear that the accused should not be convicted of rape.
D. In Rattan Chand Hira Chand v. Askar Nawaz Jung 97, the court held that one judicial
legislation is: “The legislature often fails to keep pace with the changing needs and values nor
is it realistic to expect that it will have provided for all contingencies and eventualities. It is,
therefore, not only necessary but obligatory on the courts to step in to fill the lacuna. When
courts perform this function undoubtedly, they legislate judicially. But that is a kind of
legislation which stands implicitly delegated to them to further the object of the legislation
and to promote the goals of the society. Or to put it negatively, to prevent the frustration of
the legislation or perversion of the goals and values of the society. So long as the courts keep
themselves tethered to the ethos of the society and do not travel off its course, so long as they
attempt to furnish the felt necessities of the time and do not refurbish them, their role in this
93
INDIA CONST. art. 142.
94
Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary, (2014) 9 SCC 516
95
R.S. Nayak v. A. R. Antulay, (1985) 2 SCC 183.
96
Laxmi Devi v. Satya Narayan, (1994) 5 SCC 545.
97
Rattan Chand Hira Chand v. Askar Nawaz Jung, (1991) 3 SCC 67.

32
Memorandum on the behalf of Petitioners
 2nd Deo Mangal Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2023

respect has to be welcomed.

4.2 Gravity of Justice
A. In the Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardichand98, the Court accepted a writ petition
submitted by a group of citizens seeking orders against the local municipal council for the
removal of open drains. The Court stated that if “the center of gravity of justice is to shift, as
indeed the Preamble to the Constitution mandates, from the traditional individualism of
Locus Standi to the community orientation of public interest litigation, the court must
consider the issues as there is a need to focus on ordinary men.”
B. In a similar vein, the Supreme Court of Aryavart accepted a petition for court orders to
safeguard the lives of people who used the Ganga’s flowing water as public interest litigation
in the case of M.C. Mehta case, 1988. In this case, the court ordered local governments to
take appropriate action to stop Ganga River pollution. Thus, the goal of public interest
litigation is to ensure justice for the most vulnerable Members of society, whereas judicial
activism is a tool for ensuring justice for all members of society. The Supreme Court and the
high courts have used their judicial activism authority to issue numerous judgements in
Public Interest Litigations. In Arun Gopal v. Union of India (2017) 99the Supreme Court set
deadlines for the disruption of Diwali fireworks and barred the use of non-green fireworks,
even though there are no laws to that effect.
4.3 Judge made Law
Dicey observed that in many countries’ rights such as the right to personal liberty, freedom
from arrest, freedom to hold public meetings, etc. are guaranteed by a written Constitution In
England, it is not so. In England, those rights are the result of judicial decisions in concrete
cases that have actually arisen between the parties. Thus, he emphasized the role of the courts
of law as guarantors of liberty and suggested that the rights would be secured more
adequately if they were enforceable in the courts of law than by mere declaration of those
rights in a document.
4.4 Judicial Review
A. Marbury v Madison (1803)100It was in this case that the principle of judicial review was
first established. The Supreme Court of the United States by unanimous decision stated that
the US Federal Courts have the right and the responsibility to declare those acts that are
unconstitutional or in violation specifically of the fundamental rights provided in the

98
Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardhichand and Ors., (1980) 4 SCC 162.
99
Arun Gopal v. Union of India, (2019) 13 SCC 523.
100
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 138 (1803).

33
Memorandum on the behalf of Petitioners
 2nd Deo Mangal Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2023

constitution, as void and strike them down. The Courts are vested with the authority to help in
the determination of the legitimacy of an act made by the legislation or an act committed by
the executive.
4.5 Judicial Activism
A. The over-arching of any hand of any public or administrative body of the government
cannot be consistently good. Similarly with the judiciary, if its intentions are good, the courts
have the ability to be positively activist in nature and bring about more equity and power to
the greater good of the laws and protecting the people. However, if its intentions are bad,
judicial activism can make the courts go on to be negatively activist in nature and negatively
affect the working of the other bodies of the government.
B. Maneka Gandhi v Union of India 101 In this case held that Due process is an extremely
important concept in the laws as it helps in balancing the power of law. Due process was on
purpose omitted from the constitution but owing to the judicial activism of the Supreme
Court bench and particularly of then Chief Justice Mirza Hameedullah, Justice YV
Chandrachud & Justice Krishna Iyer, substantive due process was introduced to the Indian
constitution into Article 21.
C. Swaraj Abhiyan v Union of India 102 In this case, the Supreme Court instructed the state to
create a disaster fund within three months when there already existed two disaster
management funds in the same state. The then finance minister, Arun Jaitley, claimed that
this was a clear case of Aryavart budget being subject to judicial review and from an
objective point of view, it was clear that this was a case of negative judicial activism and
over-reaching of the judiciary into matters of the legislature. The Judiciary had no qualm over
this matter as no breach of any rights were made by any body of the government nor any
other indicator, which would bring up the need for a judicial review.
D. Judges can fill in the gap where there is a gap in the statutory law. Some decisions had
previously held that it is for the legislature, not the judiciary, to fill in a c, but now the
prevalent opinion is that it can be done by courts, as the Indian Supreme Court in D.
Velusamy v. D. Patchiammal103
In National Green Tribunal (NGT)104 The Supreme Court ordered that no 15-year-old
petrol-driven or 10-year-old diesel-driven vehicle should be deployed in Delhi, and the
Supreme Court ordered that such vehicles be impounded, since neither the NGT nor the
101
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248.
102
Swaraj Abhiyan v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 498.
103
D. Velusamy v. D. Patchiammal, (2010) 10 SCC 469.
104
Almitra H. Patel v. Union of India, (2000) 3 SCC 575.

34
Memorandum on the behalf of Petitioners
 2nd Deo Mangal Memorial National Moot Court Competition, 2023

Supreme Court are legislative bodies.

Therefore, it is humbly submitted before this hon'ble Supreme Court that the Legislature has
not become the Executive Wing of Judiciary as the Judiciary is aware of its limits and there is
no interference with the duties of Legislature.

PRAYER

35
Memorandum on the behalf of Petitioners