JC - Petitioner's Memorial

CODE:
Affidavit-P
JAGARLAMUDI CHANDRAMOULI 2ndNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

REVIEW JURISDICTION
Review PETITION NO. ----OF 2023
IN THE MATTER OF–
CONSORTIUM OF RELIGIONS …PETITIONER
Versu
s
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS …RESPONDENT
(UNDER ARTICLE 137 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)
(UNDER ARTICLE 137 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)
UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE JUDGES OF JC COLLEGE MOOT COURT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS................................................................ 1
2.INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.................................................................. 2-3
I BOOKS AND COMMENTARIES REFERRED
II STATUITES REFERRED
III LEGAL DATABASE
IV REPORTS
V TABLE OF CASES
3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION..............................................................4
4. STATEMENT OF FACTS .............................................................................4 - 5
5. ISSUES RAISED..............................................................................................6
6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS.....................................................................6 - 8
7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED .........................................................................8-24
8. RECCOMENDATIONS…………………………………………………….24
9. PRAYER……………………………………………………………………..25
LISTOFABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATIONS DESCRIPTION
AIR All India Reporter
Anr Another
Art Article
¶ Paragraph
S Section
Hon’ble Honorable
HC High Court
SC Supreme court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
PIL Public Interest Litigation
IPC Indian Penal Code
Cr.P.C Criminal Procedure Code
Edn Edition
Ors Others
Supp Supplementary
U.O.I Union Of India
V. Versus
Page | 1
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
I.INDEX OF AUTHORITIESI. BOOKS AND COMMENTARIES REFERRED
i. Mulla, the Code of Civil Procedure (Lexis Nexus, 19th Edition, 2017).
ii. P. S. A. Pillai, Dr. K. I. Vibhute, Criminal Law (Lexis Nexus, 12th Edition, Re. 2016).
iii. Ratanlal&Dhirajlal, the Code of Criminal Procedure (Lexis Nexus, 22nd Edition, 2017).
iv. S. N. Mishra, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Law Publications, 20thvi.
Edition, 2016).
v. BatukLal, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Law Agency, 2017).
vi. Dr. J. N. Pandey, Dr. SurendraSahai Srivastava (ed.), Constitutional Law of India (Central
Law Agency, 54th Edition, 2016).
II. STATUTES REFERRED
:i. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
ii. The Constitution of India, 1950.
iii. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
iv. The Indian Penal Code, 1860.
III. LEGAL DATABASE
I. http://www. manupatra.com
II . http://www.ssconline.com
III. http://www.indiankanoon.com
Page | 2
IV.REPORTS
 The 42nd Law Commission report.

 152nd Law Commission report.
 The Mali math Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System, 2003.
V. TABLE OF CASES
1. Yusuf Abdul Aziz vs The State Of Bombay ... 1954 AIR 321, 1954 SCR 930
2. Smt. Sowmithri Vishnu vs Union of India &Anr …1985 AIR 1618, 1985 SCR Supl. (1) 741
3. V. Revathi vs Union Of India &Ors on 25 February, 1988 AIR 835, 1988 SCR (3) 73
4. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) &Anr. vs. Union of India &Ors.
5. Union of India vs. Nareshkumar Badri kumar Jagad &Ors, 2013
6. R. Rajagopal and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1994 SCC (6) 632
7. Suthenthiraraja @ Santhan And ... vs State Through Dsp/Cbi, Sit, ... on 8 October, 1999
8. .E.V.Chinnaiahvs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors on 5 November, 2004
9. ChetanDass Appellant vs Kamla Devi Respondent on 17 April, 2001
10. Smt. SarlaMudgal ... vs Union Of India &Ors on 10 May, 1995
11. .Pt. Parmanand Kataravs Union Of India & Ors on 28 August, 1989
12. Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India [Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 611
13. Dimes v Grand Junction Canal Proprietors (1852) 3 HL Cas 759
Page | 3
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Petitioner herein has invoked the Review Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under article 137 of
the Constitution of India, 1950. The petitioner most humbly and respectfully submits to the
jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the present matter.
ARTICLE 137 REVIEW OF JUDGMENTS OR ORDERS PASSED BY THE SUPREME

COURT
The Supreme Court enjoys review jurisdiction under Article 137 of the Constitution. This Article
provides that the Supreme Court has the power to review its own judgments and orders. The review
jurisdiction is also envisaged under Part VIII Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966.
Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any rules made under article 145, the
Supreme Court shall have power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it.
The Petitioner humbly submits that this court has the appropriate jurisdiction to hear the
matter and adjudicate accordingly.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Sowmithri filed the writ petition before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution
Challenging the validity of Section 497 of Indian Penal code. The facts leading to the Petition
are as follows:
Yusuf Abdul, the husband of the Petitioner filed the petition before the Family Court for
Divorce against the Petitioner on the grounds of desertion and adultery.

Pending the divorce proceedings, the husband of the Petitioner filed a Complaint against the
one- Joseph under Section 497 IPC charging him of committing adultery with the Petitioner
Sowmithri. Sowmithri filed the Writ petition for quashing of the Complaint on the Ground that
Section 497 IPC which created the offence of Adultery is unconstitutional.
On 19th September, 2022 the Five Judge Constitution Bench of the Court in their concurring
Judgement, in view of the anomalies, has struck down Section 497 IPC as unconstitutional being
violate of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution and section 198[2] of the Code of Criminal
Procedure [Cr.C.P] only to the extent that is applicable to the offence of Adultery under Section
497 IPC, over ruling its earlier decisions.
Consortium of Religions, an Association registered by some heads of the three major religions
in the country has filed a Review Petition on 10th October, 2022 before the Supreme
Court praying for reconsideration of the hurried verdict by considering the effects of verdict on
marriage institution, society and religion:
The Review Petitioner has prayed for a direction to the Union Government to recast Section
497 IPC removing the anomalies. The Review Petitioner further prayed for changing for any
two of the Judges from the Bench so that the Review becomes meaningful.
Page | 5
ISSUES RAISED
ISSUE 1
Whether the Consortium of religions has locus standi?
ISSUE 2
Whether Sec.497, I.P.C r/w Sec.198 (2) Cr.P.C is constitutional?
ISSUE - 3
Whether Sec 497, I.P.C Protects the sanctity of the marriasge

institution?
Page | 6
ISSUE – 4
Whether prayer by the petitioner for change of judges in the review

bench is tenable?
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1. WHETHER THE CONSORTIUM OF RELIGIONS HAS LOCUS STANDI?
It is humbly submitted that the review petitioner filed by the review petition under Article 137 of Indian
Constitution in this Hon’ble court to cure gross miscarriage of justice has Locus Standi under Section
114 and Order XLVII of C.P.C, 1908. The review petition filed as the final order of the court has
overlooked the results of such order on the society and the institution of marriage. It fulfills all the
requirements for admission as a review petition on the ground that it has error apparent on face of
record as the decision clearly declines the express provision of law and the decision would affect
considerably to general public and is opposed to general public policy and specific legislation. Thus, for
the sake of Justice and public good, the review petition filed.
3.WHETHER SEC 497, I.P.C PROTECTS THE SANCTITY OF THE

MARRIAGE INSTITUTION?
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that sec 497, I.P.C. is to protect the sanctity of
marriage. The aim of the Sec. is to deter crime which would led to lesser divorce rates and infidelity
cases ultimately laying the foundation of a happy marriage. It protects the marriage rom intrusion by an
outsider owing to the fact that the law penalizes the third party only keeping both the parties to
Page | 7
marriage in safe circuit. Also, the law can’t be evoked by the state itself but being a non-cognizable
offence, action would be taken to this effect only after taken complaint by the person so entitled under
Sec 198(2), Cr.P.C.is made. The intention behind criminalizing adultery is to punish the
Adulterer, to deter him from committing such a crime in future. Further the adverse fallout of
decriminalizing adultery on society cannot be ignore especially in a society like India where the
institution of marriage is regarded as sacramental union. The provisions of adultery law are to permit
husband and wife to make up their relation rather than to break it down.
4. WHETER PRAYER BY THE PETITIONER FOR CHANGE OF JUDGES IN THE REVIEW

BENCH IS VALID?
It is humbly submitted before the honorable Supreme court that the payer requested by the petitioner
may be permitted at the discretion of the court to protect the ends of the justice.. According to 3rd
schedule of Constitution, Form of oath or affirmation to be made by the Judges of
the Supreme. Court and the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India. When there is a conflict of
interest, a judge can withdraw from hearing a case to prevent creating a perception that she carried a
misapprehension of bias while deciding the case
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED (Issue-1)
1. WHETHER REVIEW PETITIONER, THE CONSORTIUM OF RELIGIONS HAS LOCUS

STANDI?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the review petitioner, Consortium of
Religions filed review under Article137 of Indian Constitution has Locus Standi. Article 137 of the
Page | 8
Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court to review any judgment pronounced or order made
by it subject to the provisions of any law made by the Parliament or any rule made under Art. 145.
Under Sec.114 and Order XLVII of C.P.C, 1908 to cure the gross negligence and protect the principles
of natural justice as it is a matter having far reaction impact upon the institution of family and society.
Any person can approach the court of law for justice.
Section 114 CPC – Review: An aggrieved party can file an application for review in the
same court where the decree has been passed. This provision enables the court to review
its own judgment in case of any error or mistake made with regard to the decision
rendered, to rectify the same.
ORDER XLVII –APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF JUDGEMENT.
Any person considering himself aggrieved-
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been
Preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed
The court in Suthenthiraraja V. State, has observed: “….to maintain a review petition the final order
of the court has to be shown that there has been miscarriage of justice. Of course, the expression
‘miscarriage of justice’ is all embracing.”
It is humbly submitted that the final order of the Court has overlooked the results of such order on the
society and it is contended that abuse of court process has been rampantly used as a weapon by the bad
elements for their own vested interest in weakening of the institution of marriage and encouraging the
morale of those engaged in such offence.. It must be under the rules that the Supreme Court has decided
Page | 9
to examine the review petitions filed by the State of Maharashtra and a number of women's
organisations in the Mathura rape case.In Union of India vs. Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad and
Ors, 2011, The Supreme Court held that, they have no objection to allow an aggrieved third party to
take recourse to the remedy of review petition. Order XLVII of CPC again restates the position that
any person considering himself aggrieved can file a review petition. So yes, any third party can also file
a review petition.
IT IS THEREFORE HUMBLIY SUBMITTED THAT THE REVIEW PETITION FILED BY THE
CONSORTIUM OF RELIGIONS HAS LOCUS STANDI.
2. WHETER SEC.497, I.P.C READ WITH SEC.198 (2) Cr.P.C IS CONSTITUTIONAL?
It is humbly submitted before the honorable Supreme court that this Sec. 497 I.P.C. along with Sec.
198 (2) Cr.P.C. is constitutional as the nature of Sec. 497 I.P.C. is under- inclusive, it selectively
incriminates one group of people, or one nature of acts, but not other. But that by itself will not
make them unconstitutional.
Adultery was considered as the criminal act in India before 2018. Sec. 497 defines and punishes the act
of adultery. Sec. 497 of IPC, 1860 indirectly protects the right of husband against another man who
cohabits with the former's wife. Earlier, adultery was considered as both immoral and illegal act. This
was the offence where a man files complaint against another man. Female have been exempted from
punishment under sec. 497.The Court unanimously struck down Section 497 IPC in Joseph shrine vs
Page | 10
U.O.I and declared adultery as a civil ground
2.1 Is Sec. 497, I.P.C violating Article 14 of Constitution?
It is submitted that Art. 14 prescribes equality before law, but the fact remains that all persons
are not equal by nature, attainment or circumstances, and, therefore, a mechanical equality
before the law may result in injustice. The underlying principle of Art. 14 of the Constitution of
India is that, “Like should be treated alike and not that unlike should be treated alike”,
among equals law should be equal and should be equally administered.Equality secured
under Art. 14 is not absolute and unmitigated. It is a comparative concept, and not a human
impossibility. It is not necessary as a duty of legislature to make Art. 14 applicable to all person
in rem. All person are not equal by their nature, attainment or circumstances.
In Yusuf Abdul Aziz V. State of Bombay (1954) SCR 930
In this case, the constitutionality of Section 497 was challenged on the grounds that it violates Article
14 and Article 15, by saying a wife cannot be a culprit even as an abettor. The 3 judge bench upheld the
validity of the said provision as it is a special provision created for women and is saved by Article
15(3). And Article 14 is a general provision and has to be read with other Articles and sex is just
classification, so by combining both it is valid.
In Sowmithri Vishnu V. U.OI, Court held that Observing that Sec. 497 and Sec. 198 (2) constitute a
“legislative packet”, the court observed that the provision does not allow either the wife to
prosecute an erring husband or a husband to prosecute the erring wife . Thus no discrimination has
Page | 11
been practised in circumscribing the scope of Sec. 198 (2) and fashioning it so that the right to
prosecute the adulterer is restricted to the husband of the adulteress but has not been extended to the
wife of the adulterer”
In E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, It must be kept in mind that India is still a semi-
feudal country, and not a modern country like USA and the European countries etc.; we cannot go by
mere abstract notion of women’s dignity, right to free sex, equality etc. India is still a highly
conservative country, and most people here regard having sex with another man’s wife as horrifying,
highly immoral and deeply offensive. So, to test the constitutionality of Sec. 497 and 198 (2), this
social reality of India cannot be overlooked. Thus, for achieving the socio-economic
emancipation of women, the SC has said that the constitution laid down provisions both for
protective discrimination and as also affirmative action.
Section 198(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has only given rights to the husband only in this
matter that he is entitled to file a complaint. No criminal remedy to the wife when her husband is
invSolved in adultery, the law gives monopoly to the husband over his wife's sexuality.The reason
given for this discrimination is that a wife can burden her husband with a child by a
Illicit relationship, as stated in Section 112 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
Page | 12
2.2 IS SEC 497 I.P.C READ WITH SEC 198(2) Cr.P.C IS VIOLATIONG ARTICLE 15 OF
THE CONSTITUTION?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble SC that the exemption granted to married women
from prosecution under Sec. 497 of the I.P.C. read with Sec 198(2) o Cr.P.C is not violative of
the fundamental rights guaranteed under constitution of India and is protected by Art. 15 (3) of the
constitution of India.
Under Sec. 497 of I.P.C. the offence of adultery can be committed only by a male and not by a female
who cannot be punished as an abettor. As it makes a special provision for women, it is saved by Art. 15
(3) which states: “Nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from making any special
provision for women and children.” The notion of protective discrimination aims at unequal
treatment of unequal, i.e. those who were the victim of the man-made asperities for centuries together
now need to be compensated. The meaning of Art. 15 (3) of the Constitution would be that a
special provision in favour of women would be valid even if it is an implied discrimination against
men.
In Government of A.P. V. P.B. Vijay Kumar, the court observed:
” The insertion of Clause (3) of Article 15. Is 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 Art 15(3) is placed in Art 15. Its object is to strengthen and improve the status of women.
Page | 13
In Independent Thought v Union of India, Court held that discrimination in sec 497 IPC read with
sec 198(2) of CRPC is valid and not violation of Art 15.Likewise, Order 5, Rule 15 of Civil Procedure
Code, 1908, which makes service of summon on the male members of the family, has been held not
discriminatory and it is a special provision covered by Art 15 (3). Likewise, Sec. 14 of the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956, absolutely vesting the inherited property in women, which was earlier held by
them as limited estates, has been held to be protected from attack under Art. 15 (3). The provision has
been held valid as it metes out a special treatment to women which is consistent with Art. 15 (3).
Thus challenge was dealt with and repelled on the grounds that article 14 must be read with other
provisions in part III of the constitution which prescribe the ambit of fundamental rights. In Yusuf
Abdul Aziz V state of Bombay the court held that the prohibition on treating the wife as upheld as a
special provision which is saved by article 15(3) .
2.3 IS SEC 497, I.P.C VIOLATES Art 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION?
Article 21 of the constitution contemplates that no person shall be deprived of his personal liberty
unless
according to the procedure established by law. In Joseph shine vs U.O.I, court held that sec 497 I.PC
read with sec 198(2) is violative to Art 21 as the dignity of a personal and sexual privacy is protected by
the constitution under Article 21. A girl has an equal right to privacy as a person. The autonomy of a
person is that the ability to form decisions on vital matters of life.
Page | 14
In KS puttaswami V union of India , even though the court held that the right to privacy is protected
as an intrinsic part of the freedom guaranteed by part III of the constitution, the court is yet to specify
what is privacy looks like.The right to privacy is also recognized as a basic human rights under Article
12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Act, 1948, which state as follows: “No one shall be
subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attack upon
his honour and reputation.
In Joseph shrine case, court held that sec 497 is violation to right to privacy of women in fact it
violates husband’s right to marry and right of reputation which are guaranteed under Art 21.
A right is meaningless without a corresponding responsibility or duty on someone else's part. Every
individual has a duty not to violate others personal dignity. The right to privacy and personal liberty
under
Article 21 was not an absolute right and was subject to reasonable restrictions when legitimate public
interest was at stake.
It was also argued that Section 497 was valid as being a form of affirmative action in favor of women.
It is further submitted that S.497, I.P.C. does not violate the right to privacy guaranteed under the
Indian Constitution.
The Court, in R. Raja Gopal case, held that there would be no violation of the right to privacy if
the person concerned “voluntarily thrusts himself into controversy or voluntarily invites or raises
a controversy.” It is well settled that the right to privacy is not treated as absolute and is subject to
such action as may be lawfully taken for the prevention of crime or disorder or protection of health
or morals or protection of rights and freedom of others.
2.4 THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL PART OF THE PROVISION SHOULD BE READ DOWN

BUT THE PROVISION SHOULD BE RETAINED
Page | 15
It is humbly submitted that if this court finds any part of this section violative of the
constitutional provision, the court should read down that part, in so far as it is violative of the
constitution but retain the provision.
As per Art. 13, a law is void only, “to the extent of the inconsistency or contravention” with the
relevant fundamental rights. Therefore, there is no need to repeal the entire law as it would lead to
chaos and rampant misuse across Indian society
Chief Justice DipakMisra and Justice Khanwilkar said mere adultery cannot be a crime, but if any
aggrieved spouse commits suicide because of life partner's adulterous relation, then if evidence is
Produced , it could be treated as an abetment to suicide. "Mere adultery can't be a crime, unless it
attracts the scope of Section 306 (abetment to suicide) of the IPC,".
Prevention is better than cure. So adultery must be in criminal nature than to making it as civil
ground and treating it as abatement of committing suicide, attracts the scope of Section 306 (abetment
to suicide) of the IPC,"
IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITED THAT SEC.497, I.P.C READ WITH SEC.198 (2) Cr.P.C IS
CONSTITUTIONAL AND NOT VIOLAIVE TO RT 14, ART 15 AND ART 21.
3. WHETHER CRIMINALISING SEC 497, I.P.C PROTECTS THE

SANCTITY OF THE MARRIAGE INSTITUTION?
It is humbly submitted before this hon’ble court that the said provision protects the sanctity of marriage.
Decriminalizing adultery will pave way for rise in divorce rates and cases of marital infidelity, the
Page | 16
decriminalization of adultery will critically endanger the institution of marriage.
It is further submitted that the judgment of the court in Joseph Shine v. Union of India
decriminalizing adultery is bound to have a far-reaching impact upon marriages in India, the
adverse fallout cannot be ignored. In India, the Institution of marriage is regarded as a sacramental
union. It is the basis of society. It is a contract but it is also a sacred covenant. The main aim of the
institution of marriage is to protect the society from foulness and un-chastity. Marriage and the family
are social institutions of vital importance. The Indian society and ethos give paramount importance to
family. The hon’ble court held in ChetanDass v. Kamla Devi, The institution of marriage occupies an
important place and role to play in the society Similar view has been taken in SarlaMudgal v. Union
of India- Marriage is the very foundation of civilized society. Marriage is an institution in the
maintenance of which the public at large is deeply interested. It is the foundation of the family and
in turn of the society without which no civilization can exist.Individuals to have sexual relations outside
marriage would inevitably destroy the institution of marriage and thus, the provision criminalizing
adultery was essential for maintaining the sanctity of marriage. It was submitted that an act which
outraged the morality of society, and harmed its members, ought to be punished as a crime.
SECTION 497 I.P.C. ACTS AS AN EFFECTIVE DETERRENCE
It is submitted that laws are made to deter crime and not only to punish it. Criminal law
everywhere in the world serves as a guardian of the moral principles of society, protecting a
society’s historical roots while leading it towards a progressive social order. The Deterrence
Theory, posits that legal sanctions deter citizens from engaging in criminal activity.
Page | 17
Indian criminal law explicitly criminalizes acts that deceive a person. Sec. 497 deals with the offence
committed by an outsider to the matrimonial unit who invades the peace and privacy of the
matrimonial unit and poisons the relationship between the two partners constituting the
matrimonial unit. The community punishes the 'outsider' who breaks into the matrimonial home and
occasions the violation of sanctity of the matrimonial tie by developing an illicit relationship with
one of the spouses subject to the rider that the erring 'man' alone can be punished and not the
erring woman.
The intention behind criminalizing adultery is to punish the adulterer; to deter him from
committing such a crime in future and to set an example that others also, who will commit the crime
will be punished likewise. If it is turned merely into a civil offence, adultery will only be a ground to
seek divorce and will provide a free license to prospective offenders to breach in the sanctity of
marriage.The law of Adultery works as a shield to deter crime and not as a sword to punish
offenders, even in punishing offence the law clearly takes cognizance to preserve marriage and parties
to it and punishes the outsider.
PREAMBLE OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION: WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly
resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC
REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens: JUSTICE, social, economic and political; LIBERTY of
thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote
among them all FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the
Nation; Integrity of the Nation can be achieved by integration of families, society.
Page | 18
JURISPRUDENCE ANALYSIS OF ADULTERY
Historical School of Law Father of Historical School is Savigny. He said that law is what 'people
consciousness' is. He called 'people consciousness' as Volkgiest. In this school of thought 'custom' is
considered as the purest form of people consciousness. The propagators of this theory believe that
custom is the primary source of any legislation. And thus, law is just conforming to the belief. The
legislations relating to the Adultery in India are basically based on this theory.
From ancient time adultery is considered as sin in all the religions. The religious books of different
religions also talks about the punishment which should be given to the adulterous spouse. Mainly, the
Hindu religious books and scripts only talks about the punishment which should be given to the
adulterous wife and says that wife should not take any action against her husband in any situation. This
is the epitome of patriarchal society.
Natural School of Law: The Natural School of Law is one of the oldest schools of law. It talks about
what law should be and that is why natural law is normative. According to this theory behind each and
every law there should be a logical reasoning. Natural law is same for everyone everywhere. The
Natural law is based on the structure of reality itself. It simply says, "Do good avoid evil", where good
is according to the reason and bad is contrary to the reason. This theory here plays a role when the court
talks about the "standard of proof" relating to adultery. It says that in the case of adultery, it is not
needed that petitioner should prove the act beyond reasonable doubt; mere "preponderance of
probability" is enough to prove the act. It is so because the matrimonial affairs are civil suit and not
criminal suit as stated by the Apex Court of India various times.
Page | 19
SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASE
By extra marital affairs, the parties may be effected by Sexually Transmitted Deceases (STD’s).STDs
can complicate your pregnancy and may have serious effects on both you and your developing baby.
Some of these problems may be seen at birth; others may not be discovered until months or years later.
In addition, it is well known that infection with an STD can make it easier for a person to get infected
with HIV. When the adulterous wife had sexual intercourse with her husband, husband may also be
affected by HIV. This clearly says that by the act of adultery husband and children health get affected
(Violation of Art 21).
Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides that 'Right to health forms an indispensable part of
Right to life. “Pt. ParmanandKatara vs. UOI” is a landmark judgment that upholds the preservation
of life and considers the right to life to be of utmost significance..
Aristotle, the Greek philosopher, had strongly stated about the social nature of the man: Man is by
nature a social animal; an individual who is unsocial naturally and not accidentally is either
beneath our notice or more than human. Society is something that precedes the individual. An
individual must live with the society .So individual’s interest can be curtailed for the welfare of the
society.
In V. Revathi v. Union of India&Ors, The court has rightly observed: “The philosophy underlying the
scheme of these provisions appears to be that as between the husband and the wife social good will be
promoted by permitting them to 'make up' or 'break up' the matrimonial tie rather than to drag each
Page | 20
other to the criminal court. They can either condone the offence in a spirit of ‘forgive and forget' and
live together or separate by approaching a matrimonial court and snapping the matrimonial tie by
securing divorce. They are not enabled to send each other to jail. Perhaps it is as well that the children
(if any) are saved from the trauma of one of their parents being jailed at the instance of the other parent.
.3.4 IS WIFE THE PROPERTY OF HUSBAND?
Marriage, a legally and socially sanctioned union, usually between a man and a woman, that is regulated by laws,
rules, customs, beliefs, and attitudes that prescribe the rights and duties of the partners. Husband and wife are
obliged to be faithful to each other, to love, take care of and assist each other. Bride and Groom are made to take
seven rounds around Holy Fire, for each round, they take one vow/Promise to their spouse. ”Dharmecha,
Arthecha, Kamecha, Mokshecha, NaatiCharaami ("Righteously, financially, by desire, or spiritually, I will
not walk away from her!!"). Husband is the property of wife and wife is the property of husband as one can
take care of their own property. In family spouses cares about each other.
In Joseph Shine v. U.O.I Court held that the sec 497 of I.P.C allows adultery on the husband’s
consent or connivance, which gives a man control over her sexual autonomy. This makes her a puppet
of the
husband and takes away all her individuality and also held that wife is not the property of husband. On
that ground court decriminalised sec 497 and made adultery as a civil ground.
Page | 21
Exception 2 of Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which deals with rape states that sexual
intercourse by a man with his own wife is not rape.In India, rape in a married relationship is not a
crime. In India, laws against marital rape are either non-existent or esoteric, and are interpreted by the
courts. “A man's sexual relations with his wife, his wife who is no less than 15 years old, are not rape,”
says section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Wife's Right To Maintenance Forfeited U/S 125(4) Cr.P.C Only When Acts Of Adultery Are
Committed Repeatedly: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that only continuous and repeated acts of adultery or cohabitation
in adultery would attract the rigours of the provision under Section 125 (4) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. Sec. 125(4) of the Cr.P.C states that no Wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance from
her husband if she is living in adultery.The offence of adultery, as defined in S. 497 is considered by the
Legislature as an offence against the sanctity of the matrimonial home. Therefore, those men who defile
that sanctity are brought within the net of the law.
THEREFORE IT IS MOST RESPECTFYLLY SUBMITTED THAT CRIMINALISING SEC 497,
I.P.C PROTECTS THE SANCTITY OF THE MARRIAGE INSTITUTION
Page | 22
4. WHETER PRAYER BY THE PETITIONER FOR CHANGE OF ANY TWO

JUDGES IN THE REVIEW BENCH IS VALID?
It is humbly submitted before the honorable Supreme Court that the prayer requested by the petitioner
may be permitted at the discretion of the court to protect the ends of Justice.
Further, as per the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 (XLVII. 2) a review Petition must be filed within 30
days from the judgment or order of which review is sought and must be placed before the same Bench
which had delivered the decision. According to 3rd schedule of Constitution, Form of oath or
affirmation to be made by the Judges of the Supreme. Court and the Comptroller and Auditor-General
of India. Judges personality reflects in their judgment. Judge will “perform the duties without fear or
favor”.
“JUDICIAL IMPARTIALITY IS THE CARDINAL PRINCIPLE”
About Judges Recusal
 When there is a conflict of interest, a judge can withdraw from hearing a case to prevent
creating a perception that she carried a bias while deciding the case..
 Similarly, if the judge has, in the past, appeared for one of the parties involved in a case, the call
for recusal may seem right.
Another instance for recusal is when an appeal is filed in the Supreme Court against a judgement of a
High Court that may have been delivered by the Supreme Court judge when she was in the High
Page | 22
Courts.This practice stems from the cardinal principle of due process of law that nobody can be a
judge in her case.
Process for Recusal:
Once a request is made for recusal, the decision to recuse or not rests with the judge.While there are some
instances where judges have recused even if they do not see a conflict but only because such apprehension was
cast.
Legal Provisions for Recusal
There are no formal rules governing recusals, although several Supreme Court judgments have dealt
with the issue.Ranjit Thakur v Union of India (1987), the Supreme Court held that the tests of the
likelihood of bias are the reasonableness of the apprehension in the mind of the party.
The doctrine of recusal
The trend of recusal of judges started from a case in 1852 where Lord Cottenham recused himself from the case
of Dimes V Grand Junction Canal, because he possessed some of the shares in the company involved in the
case. Since then recusal became a part of custom in common law jurisdictions. Justice Dal veer Bhandari’s
recusal from a bench in Novartis case was in response to a letter from the activists regarding his
participation in at least two international conferences for judges organized by the US-based Intellectual
Property Owners Association (IPOA), whose members include Novartis, among a host of
pharmaceutical and IT giants. In their letter to the government, the activists alleged that “several
statements in the paper could be held to conflict with the intent and letter of the Indian Patent Act”.
Page | 23
Section 369 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Confirmation or new sentence to be signed by two Judges. In every case so submitted, the confirmation
of the sentence, or any new sentence or order passed by the High Court, shall, when such Court consists
of two or more Judges, be made, passed and signed by at least two of them.
SO IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT THE PETITIONER FOR CHANGE OF ANY TWO
JUDGES IN THE REVIEW BENCH IS VALID AT THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT
RECOMMENDATIONS
 In the 42nd Law Commission report, it was recommended to include adulterous women
liable for prosecution and reduce punishment from 5 years to 2 years. It was not given
effect.
 In the 152nd Law Commission report, it was recommended introducing equality between
sexes in the provision for adultery and reflecting the societal change with regards to the
status of a woman. But it was not accepted.
 In 2003, the Mali math Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System was formed
which recommended amending the provision as ‘whosoever has sexual intercourse with a
spouse of any other is guilty of adultery’. The same is pending for consideration.
Page | 24
PRAYER
Therefore, in the light of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited,
it is humbly prayed before this Hon’ble Court that it may be pleased to hold, adjudge and declare
that:
 To allow the above review petition filed by the petitioner.
 Direct the Union Government to recast sec 497 I.P.C read with Section 198 (2) Cr.P.Cs
by removing the anomalies to uphold the constitutional validity.
 To set aside the decree of the Hon’ble court in Sowmitri v. UOI.
AND/OR
Pass any other Order, Direction or Relief that it may deem fit in the best interests of Justice,
Fairnes , Equity ,and Good Conscience.
For this Act of Kindness, the Petitioner as in Duty Bound, shall forever Pray.
DATE: Twelth Day Of January,2023 Sd/-

PLACE: Vijayawada, AP, India (COUNSELFOR THE PETITIONER)
Page | 25

JC - Petitioner's Memorial

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JC - Petitioner's Memorial

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

JC - Petitioner's Memorial

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CODE:

JAGARLAMUDI CHANDRAMOULI 2ndNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Review PETITION NO. ----OF 2023

IN THE MATTER OF–

CONSORTIUM OF RELIGIONS …PETITIONER

(UNDER ARTICLE 137 OF THE

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE JUDGES OF JC COLLEGE MOOT COURT

2.INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.................................................................. 2-3

I BOOKS AND COMMENTARIES REFERRED

III LEGAL DATABASE

4. STATEMENT OF FACTS .............................................................................4 - 5

7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED .........................................................................8-24

I.INDEX OF AUTHORITIESI. BOOKS AND COMMENTARIES REFERRED

II. STATUTES REFERRED

:i. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

ii. The Constitution of India, 1950.

iii. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

iv. The Indian Penal Code, 1860.

III. LEGAL DATABASE

 The 42nd Law Commission report.

4. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) &Anr. vs. Union of India &Ors.

5. Union of India vs. Nareshkumar Badri kumar Jagad &Ors, 2013

8. .E.V.Chinnaiahvs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors on 5 November, 2004

9. ChetanDass Appellant vs Kamla Devi Respondent on 17 April, 2001

10. Smt. SarlaMudgal ... vs Union Of India &Ors on 10 May, 1995

12. Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India [Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 611

13. Dimes v Grand Junction Canal Proprietors (1852) 3 HL Cas 759

jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the present matter.

ARTICLE 137 REVIEW OF JUDGMENTS OR ORDERS PASSED BY THE SUPREME

matter and adjudicate accordingly.

Divorce against the Petitioner on the grounds of desertion and adultery.

Section 497 IPC which created the offence of Adultery is unconstitutional.

497 IPC, over ruling its earlier decisions.

marriage institution, society and religion:

Whether the Consortium of religions has locus standi?

Whether Sec.497, I.P.C r/w Sec.198 (2) Cr.P.C is constitutional?

Whether Sec 497, I.P.C Protects the sanctity of the marriasge

Whether prayer by the petitioner for change of judges in the review

1. WHETHER THE CONSORTIUM OF RELIGIONS HAS LOCUS STANDI?

3.WHETHER SEC 497, I.P.C PROTECTS THE SANCTITY OF THE

4. WHETER PRAYER BY THE PETITIONER FOR CHANGE OF JUDGES IN THE REVIEW

schedule of Constitution, Form of oath or affirmation to be made by the Judges of

the Supreme. Court and the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India. When there is a conflict of

misapprehension of bias while deciding the case

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED (Issue-1)

1. WHETHER REVIEW PETITIONER, THE CONSORTIUM OF RELIGIONS HAS LOCUS

Any person can approach the court of law for justice.

rendered, to rectify the same.

ORDER XLVII –APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF JUDGEMENT.

Any person considering himself aggrieved-

Preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed

‘miscarriage of justice’ is all embracing.”

IT IS THEREFORE HUMBLIY SUBMITTED THAT THE REVIEW PETITION FILED BY THE

CONSORTIUM OF RELIGIONS HAS LOCUS STANDI.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED (Issue-2)

2. WHETER SEC.497, I.P.C READ WITH SEC.198 (2) Cr.P.C IS CONSTITUTIONAL?

make them unconstitutional.