TC-NSL09

2nd DEO MANGAL NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023

SUPREME COURT OF ARYAVART

SAMRIDHI……………………………………………………PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF ARYAVART & OTHERS……………………......RESPONDENT

&

MRINAL & AKRAM…………………………………………. PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF ARYAVART & OTHERS………………………. RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

1
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 Table of Contents
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS __________________________________________________ 3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES___________________________________________________ 4
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION_____________________________________________ 5
STATEMENT OF FACTS ____________________________________________________ 6
ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION ______________________________________________ 8
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS _______________________________________________ 9
ADVANCED ARGUMENTS ________________________________________________ 12
I. 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? _________________________________ 12
A. Petitioners has no ‘locus standi’ so PIL not maintainable. ___________________ 12
B. That the UCC is not feasible to be implemented in Aryavart. _________________ 13
II. WHETHER UCC IS VIOLATIVE OF ONE’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND
OTHER PERSONAL RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF
ARYAVART AND IS IT THE STATE’S INTERFERNCE IN THE RELAM OF THE
PERSONAL LAWS OF THE SUBJECTS? ____________________________________ 14
A. UCC is violative of one’s fundamental rights. _____________________________ 14
B. UCC is Interference in the Personal matters. ______________________________ 15
III. WHETHER THE NON-ISSUANCE OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE FOR THE
CHILD BORN FROM A LGBTQIA COUPLE IS VIOLATION OF CHILD’S RIGHT BY
THE STATE? ___________________________________________________________ 16
IV. WHETHER THE CONSTUTIONAL POWER OF COURT TO FRAME LAWS
HAS LED TO THE SCENARIO WHERE LEGISLATURE HAVE BECOME THE
EXECUTIVE WING OF THE JUDICIARY? __________________________________ 17
PRAYER FOR RELIEF _____________________________________________________ 19

2
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

S.NO. TABLE OF ABBREVIATION EXPANSION

1. AIR All India Report

2. ANR. Another

3. ART. Article

4. ED Edition

5. HON’BLE Honourable

6. ORS Others

7. ORG. Organization

8. S.C. Supreme Court

9. SCR Supreme Court Reporter

10. S.C.C. Supreme Court Cases

11. SUPL Supplementary

12. THR Through

13. UOI Union Of India

14. V. Versus

3
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASE LAW

1. Uttar Pradesh v. Nawab Hussain, AIR 1977 SC 1680…………………………………

2. Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana, 1995 (2) SCC 577 …………………………………
3. Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay, 1962 AIR 853……………...
4. State of Kerala v. K. Prabhakaran Nair, (1994) Supp SCC 73………………………….
5. Pannalal Bansilal Patil v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1996 AIR 1023…………………….
6. John Vallamattom v. Union of India AIR 2003 SC 2902……………………………….
7. Hadiya (Akhila Ashokan) v. State of Kerala (2018) 16 SCC 368……………………….
8. TMA Pai Foundation V. State of Karnataka AIR 2003 SC 355…………………………
9. Lata Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2006(5) SCC 475) ……………………………….
10. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala AIR1973 SC 1461…………………………….
11. Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2000) 6 SCC 224………………………………………
12. Union of India v. Harbhajan Singh Dhillon1972 AIR (SC) 1061……………………….
13. Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India 2006 2 SCC 1……………………………………
14. R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil NaduAIR 1982 SCC 149……………………………….

4
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Respondents have the honour to submit before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Aryavart to
the petition filed by petitioner invoking Article 32 of the constitution. The present
memorandum has set forth the facts, issues, and arguments advanced in the case.

5
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Aryavart is a sovereign country in Asiana with a conservative social atmosphere. It

consists of 28 states and 8 union territories. The population is approximately 140 crores (1.4
billion). Hinduism is the dominant religion, with 70% of the population adhering to it. Islam is
practiced by 20%, while the remaining 10% follow other religions. Only the State of Kankan,
a former Portuguese colony, has successfully implemented a Uniform Civil Code (UCC).

2. Mrinal, a Hindu trans-man, and Akram, a Muslim trans-woman, have been in a

relationship since 2010. They come from different religious backgrounds. Due to societal
norms and the unacceptability of same-sex relationships at the time, they kept their relationship
hidden.

3. In 2018, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Aryavart decriminalized homosexuality,

providing a sense of confidence to the LGBTQ+ community. Despite this decriminalization,
discrimination and stigma against same-sex couples persist. Society's norms primarily
recognize only two genders: male and female. Mrinal and Akram's relationship and gender
identities do not fit within these traditional norms, leading to legal and societal challenges.

4. Mrinal and Akram decide to openly disclose their relationship and wish to get officially
married. They opt to marry under their respective religious customs. Their marriage ceremony
is attended by friends and family. Mrinal becomes pregnant and gives birth to a healthy baby
boy, but they encounter difficulties obtaining a birth certificate.

5. The authorities in the State of Avanti reject Mrinal and Akram's applications for both
the marriage registration and the issuance of a birth certificate. Their legal status remains
uncertain due to the absence of a UCC to govern personal laws.

6. Frustrated with their legal conundrum, Mrinal and Akram approach the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of Aryavart via a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. They seek
the issuance of a birth certificate for their child and the recognition of their marriage. They also
advocate for the implementation of a UCC that recognizes both same-sex and inter-religious
marriages and provides equal rights regardless of sex or religion.

7. An NGO named Samridhi, working for the welfare of Muslim women, is advocating
for a UCC across Aryavart. They argue that Muslim women face difficulties accessing legal
6
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
rights under their personal laws and seek equality under a UCC.

8. The All-Indus Muslim Personal Law Board opposes the implementation of a UCC,
claiming it infringes on personal rights and the secular structure of Aryavart. They file an
impleading petition in both the PILs filed by the NGO and Mrinal and Akram.

9. The government supports the implementation of a UCC but opposes its inclusion of
LGBTQ+ rights in the code, arguing that such marriages are not recognized in any religion.

10. The cases of Mrinal and Akram, as well as the NGO's efforts, have garnered significant
media attention and public debate. The Supreme Court allows live telecasts of hearings,
recognizing the importance and sensitivity of the issues involved. The court is also considering
questions related to the maintainability of the PILs and the necessity of involving the All-Indus
Muslim Personal Law Board in the proceedings. These complex legal and societal issues are
at the center of a critical debate in Aryavart and have significant implications for the rights and
recognition of LGBTQ+ individuals, as well as the reform of personal laws in the country.

7
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

The following issues have arisen for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
Aryavart:

I. 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?

II. WHETHER UCC IS VIOLATIVE OF ONE’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND

OTHER PERSONAL RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
OF ARYAVART AND IS IT THE STATE’S INTERFERNCE IN THE RELAM OF
THE PERSONAL LAWS OF THE SUBJECTS?

III. WHETHER THE NON-ISSUANCE OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE FOR THE

CHILD BORN FROM A LGBTQIA COUPLE IS VIOLATION OF CHILD’S
RIGHT BY THE STATE?

IV. WHETHER THE CONSTUTIONAL POWER OF COURT TO FRAME LAWS

HAS LED TO THE SCENARIO WHERE LEGISLATURE HAVE BECOME THE
EXECUTIVE WING OF THE JUDICIARY?

8
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. 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?

PIL is not maintainable in the Supreme Court of Aryavart because of lack of Direct Public
Interest. A PIL could not be filed merely to protect the personal interests of the petitioner.
PILs must involve matters of significant public interest. Mrinal and Akram, primarily
concern their personal circumstances rather than a broader public interest, and therefore,
the PIL lacks maintainability. When alternative legal remedies exist, PILs should not be
entertained. The case highlighted that PILs are unnecessary when regular legal
proceedings can address the petitioner's grievances. The government should not interfere
in the internal religious affairs of a community without a compelling reason. It is not
feasible to implement UCC in country like Aryavart because of reasons like Diversity of
Personal Laws, Respect for Religious Freedom, Social Cohesion and Harmony Practical
Challenges, Community Preferences.

II. WHETHER UCC IS VIOLATIVE OF ONE’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND

OTHER PERSONAL RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
OF ARYAVART AND IS IT THE STATE’S INTERFERNCE IN THE RELAM OF
THE PERSONAL LAWS OF THE SUBJECTS?
UCC is violative of one’s fundamental rights. The UCC may infringe upon an individual's
right to practice and propagate their religion freely as guaranteed under Article 25 of the
Constitution. Personal laws often have religious significance, and the imposition of a
uniform code could be perceived as interfering with religious practices and beliefs. Right
to Equality (Article 14): A UCC that does not adequately address the distinct customs
and practices of different religious communities lead to inequality. Article 14 of the
Constitution guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws, and a
UCC that does not consider these differences could be seen as discriminatory. A UCC
that restricts personal choices and preferences in matters such as marriage, divorce, and
succession could be challenged as a violation of an individual's right to personal liberty.

III. WHETHER THE NON-ISSUANCE OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE FOR THE

CHILD BORN FROM A LGBTQIA COUPLE IS VIOLATION OF CHILD’S
RIGHT BY THE STATE?
9
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
IV. Non- issuance of the birth certificate to child born from a LGBTQIA couple is not in
violation of child’s rights by the State because of the following reasons: there is currently
no specific legal framework or legislation in Aryavart that recognizes same-sex couples
as parents. Pending Legislative Reforms: there are ongoing legislative discussions and
proposals related to LGBTQIA rights and recognition. Preservation of Legal Clarity:
the importance of preserving legal clarity and avoiding potential confusion in issues
related to parentage. Legal ambiguity led to disputes and emphasize the need for a well-
defined legal framework. Balancing Religious Freedoms: accommodating LGBTQIA
rights should be balanced with protecting the religious freedoms and beliefs of individuals
and religious communities. Judiciary should not overstep its authority by legislating on
complex social issues. legislative action in addressing societal concerns. principle of
separation of powers and the role of the judiciary in interpreting and upholding laws
rather than creating new ones. These arguments reflect the perspective on the issue of
birth certificate issuance for LGBTQIA couples, emphasizing the need for legislative
action, legal clarity, and a balanced approach that respects religious freedoms and the
separation of powers.

V. WHETHER THE CONSTUTIONAL POWER OF COURT TO FRAME LAWS

HAS LED TO THE SCENARIO WHERE LEGISLATURE HAVE BECOME THE
EXECUTIVE WING OF THE JUDICIARY?

It is humbly submitted that the Constitutional power of the Court to frame laws has led to
the Legislature becoming the Executive wing of the Judiciary, the following elaboration
provides context using relevant principles:

 Separation of Powers: The principle of separation of powers is fundamental to the

Indian Constitution.
 Limited Legislative Capacity: The Legislature possesses the necessary capacity,
expertise, and resources to formulate and enact laws
 Democratic Accountability: Elected representatives in the Legislature are directly
accountable to the people through periodic elections. In various judgments, including
"Lily Thomas v. Union of India" (2013), the Supreme Court has recognized the
Interference with Legislative Discretion: Allowing the Court to frame laws could
infringe upon the Legislature's discretion.
 Risk of Judicial Activism: Judicial activism can lead to unpredictability and

10
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 inconsistency in the law.
 Respect for Legislative Intent: Legislative intent behind laws should be respected.

While these judgments do not directly address the specific argument presented, they
provide a legal backdrop for understanding the principles of separation of powers,
legislative competence, democratic accountability, and the respective roles of the branches
of government. These principles underpin the argument against excessive judicial
involvement in the legislative process.

11
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 ADVANCED ARGUMENTS

I. 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?
It is humbly submitted that PIL is not maintainable in the Supreme Court of Aryavart for
following mentioned reasons. Present issue is subdivided into two fundamental questions,i.e.,
[1] maintainability of PIL [2] feasibility of implementing UCC that recognizes same-sex and
inter-religious marriages.

A. Petitioners has no ‘locus standi’ so PIL not maintainable.

 Lack of Direct Public Interest - The court held that a PIL could not be filed merely
to protect the personal interests of the petitioner. It emphasized that PILs must
involve matters of significant public interest.1 Mrinal and Akram, primarily concern
their personal circumstances rather than a broader public interest, and therefore, the
PIL lacks maintainability.
 Alternative Legal Avenues Available - a PIL should not be entertained when
adequate legal remedies are available to address the petitioner's grievance through
regular legal proceedings.2 Mrinal and Akram have alternative legal remedies
available, such as pursuing individual cases for the recognition of their marriage and
the issuance of a birth certificate, and that a PIL is not necessary. When alternative
legal remedies exist, PILs should not be entertained. The case highlighted that PILs
are unnecessary when regular legal proceedings can address the petitioner's
grievances.
 Respect for Religious Freedom: government should not interfere in the internal
religious affairs of a community without a compelling reason. Courts should not
intervene in religious matters, including marriage customs, and should respect the
religious freedom of communities.3
 Lack of Broader Societal Impact - The court held that PILs should be filed to

1
Uttar Pradesh v. Nawab Hussain, AIR 1977 SC 1680
2
Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana, 1995 (2) SCC 577
3
Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb v. State of Bombay, 1962 AIR 853 1962 SCR Supl.

12
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 address issues of public importance and not to protect private or individual interests.4
The issues raised by Mrinal and Akram, while important, do not have a significant
impact on society at large and therefore do not warrant court intervention.
 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharshi Avadhesh v. UOI5 dismissed the petition
seeking the implementation of UCC. The Court took the view that it was a matter of
legislature. “The court cannot legislate in these matters”. In another famous case
Reynold Rajamani v. UOI, hon’ble Supreme Court rejected a prayer to remove the
discrimination between men and women under section of the Indian Divorce Act,
1869 (applicable to Christians). The court based its approach on the limits of the
courts’s jurisdiction.
 Therefore, for above-stated reasons PIL is not maintainable.

B. That the UCC is not feasible to be implemented in Aryavart.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Aryavart that because of
following reasons it is not practically feasible to implement UCC.

 Diversity of Personal Laws: Aryavart is a diverse country with a rich tapestry of

cultures, religions, and traditions. The existence of different personal laws for
different religious communities allows for the accommodation of these diverse
practices and beliefs. Implementing a UCC might be seen as homogenizing these
diverse customs, which could lead to resistance and social unrest.
 Respect for Religious Freedom: India's secular constitution guarantees
individuals the right to practice their religion freely. Personal laws often have
deep-rooted connections with religious beliefs and practices. Implementing a
UCC might be viewed as an infringement on the right to religious freedom,
particularly among minority communities.
 Social Cohesion and Harmony: Maintaining separate personal laws for different
religious communities can promote social harmony and prevent potential
conflicts. A UCC may be perceived as an attempt to impose a single set of laws
on all communities, potentially leading to social discord and unrest.

4
State of Kerala v. K. Prabhakaran Nair, (2004).
5
(1994) Supp SCC 73.
13
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
  Practical Challenges: Implementing a UCC in a diverse and populous country
like Aryavart poses significant practical challenges. It would require extensive
legal reforms, community engagement, and administrative changes. The process
could be complex and time-consuming.
 Community Preferences: Some communities may prefer to adhere to their own
personal laws, as these laws often reflect their cultural and religious values.
Imposing a UCC could be seen as disregarding these preferences and imposing a
uniform standard that does not align with their beliefs.
 In Pannalal Bansilal Patil v. State of Andhra Pradesh6, Hon’ble Supreme Court
observed that Uniform law for all persons may be desirable. But its enactment in
one go may be counter-productive to the unity of nation because of varied diverse
cultures. 7
 Therefore, it is not feasible to implement a common civil code for all.

II. WHETHER UCC IS VIOLATIVE OF ONE’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND

OTHER PERSONAL RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION OF ARYAVART AND IS IT THE STATE’S INTERFERNCE
IN THE RELAM OF THE PERSONAL LAWS OF THE SUBJECTS?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Aryavart that present issue raised
three fundamental questions i.e., [1] UCC is violating one’s fundamental rights [2] other
personal rights guaranteed under the Constitution of Aryavart [3] it is State’s interference in
the realm of the personal laws of the subjects.

A. UCC is violative of one’s fundamental rights.

It is humbly submitted that UCC is violative of one’s fundamental rights for following
reasons:
 Violative of Right to Religious Freedom (Article 25): The UCC may infringe upon
an individual's right to practice and propagate their religion freely as guaranteed under
Article 25 of the Constitution. Personal laws often have religious significance, and the
imposition of a uniform code could be perceived as interfering with religious practices
and beliefs.

6
1996 AIR 1023 1996
7
AIR 1996 SC 1023.
14
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
  Violative of Right to Equality (Article 14): A UCC that does not adequately
address the distinct customs and practices of different religious communities lead to
inequality. Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality before the law and equal
protection of the laws, and a UCC that does not consider these differences could be
seen as discriminatory. In the case of "John Vallamattom v. Union of India" (2003),
the Supreme Court held that the Christian community in India has the right to
establish and administer educational institutions of their choice, emphasizing the
protection of minority rights under Articles 29 and 30. Court highlighted the
importance of protecting minority rights guaranteed under the Constitution.8
 Violative of Right to Personal Liberty (Article 21): A UCC that restricts personal
choices and preferences in matters such as marriage, divorce, and succession could be
challenged as a violation of an individual's right to personal liberty. Article 21
protects an individual's right to life and personal liberty, which includes the freedom
to make personal choices. In the case of "Hadiya (Akhila Ashokan) v. State of Kerala"
(2018), the Supreme Court upheld the right of a woman to choose her religion and
spouse, emphasizing the importance of personal liberty and autonomy.9
 Violative of Right to Cultural and Educational Rights (Article 29 and 30): A
UCC that disregards the cultural and educational rights of minority communities
could be challenged as an infringement on their rights. Articles 29 and 30 of the
Constitution protect the rights of minorities to preserve their culture, script, and
language, and to establish and administer educational institutions. In the case of
"TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka" (2002), the Supreme Court emphasized
the autonomy of minority educational institutions in managing their affairs,
highlighting the importance of preserving cultural and educational rights. 10

B. UCC is Interference in the Personal matters.

 Consent and Choice in Marriage (Personal Rights): A UCC that imposes a
uniform set of rules for marriage may interfere with an individual's right to choose
their partner freely and give or withhold consent. Personal rights, including the right
to choose one's spouse, are considered fundamental, and any restriction on these
rights must be carefully examined. In the case of " Lata Singh v. State of Uttar

8
AIR 2003 SC 2902.
9
(2018) 16 SCC 368.
10
AIR 2003 SC 355.
15
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 Pradesh" (2006), the Supreme Court held that adults have the right to choose their life
partners, and any interference in matters of marriage and personal choices is
unacceptable.11

III. WHETHER THE NON-ISSUANCE OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE FOR THE

CHILD BORN FROM A LGBTQIA COUPLE IS VIOLATION OF CHILD’S
RIGHT BY THE STATE?
It is humbly submitted that non- issuance of the birth certificate to child born from a LGBTQIA
couple is not in violation of child’s rights by the State because of the following reasons:
 Lack of Legal Framework: There is currently no specific legal framework or legislation
in Aryavart that recognizes same-sex couples as parents. The absence of legislative
provisions that explicitly grant parental rights to same-sex couples. While there may not be
specific cases directly addressing the absence of legal recognition for LGBTQIA parents in
Aryavart, the legal context often relies on existing laws and regulations. In the absence of a
clear legal framework, courts should defer to legislative bodies to address this issue.
 Need for Legislative Action: The issuance of birth certificates to LGBTQIA couples should
be addressed through legislative action rather than judicial intervention, the legislature is the
appropriate body to enact laws in this regard.
 Balancing Religious Freedoms: accommodating LGBTQIA rights should be balanced with
protecting the religious freedoms and beliefs of individuals and religious communities. In
the case of "Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India" (2018), the Supreme Court decriminalized
homosexuality, recognizing the importance of LGBTQIA rights. However, religious
freedoms and beliefs should also be considered in striking a balance.
 Judicial Restraint: judiciary should not overstep its authority by legislating on complex
social issues. legislative action in addressing societal concerns. principle of separation of
powers and the role of the judiciary in interpreting and upholding laws rather than creating
new ones.
 These arguments reflect the perspective on the issue of birth certificate issuance for
LGBTQIA couples, emphasizing the need for legislative action, legal clarity, and a balanced
approach that respects religious freedoms and the separation of powers.

11
(2006) 5 SCC 475.
16
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
IV. WHETHER THE CONSTUTIONAL POWER OF COURT TO FRAME LAWS
HAS LED TO THE SCENARIO WHERE LEGISLATURE HAVE BECOME
THE EXECUTIVE WING OF THE JUDICIARY?

It is humbly submitted that the Constitutional power of the Court to frame laws has led to
the Legislature becoming the Executive wing of the Judiciary, the following elaboration
provides context using relevant principles from judicial decisions:

 Separation of Powers: The principle of separation of powers is fundamental to the

Indian Constitution. In the case of "Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala" (1973), the
Supreme Court recognized the doctrine of basic structure, affirming the importance of
maintaining the separation of powers among the three branches of government. The
Court held that while Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, it cannot
alter its basic structure.12
 Democratic Accountability: Elected representatives in the Legislature are directly
accountable to the people through periodic elections. In various judgments, including
"Lily Thomas v. Union of India" (2013), the Supreme Court has recognized the
significance of democratic accountability. It emphasized that elected representatives
are responsible for enacting and amending laws, ensuring that the legislative process
remains a democratic prerogative.13
 Interference with Legislative Discretion: Allowing the Court to frame laws could
infringe upon the Legislature's discretion. In the case of "Union of India v. Harbhajan
Singh Dhillon" (1971), the Supreme Court emphasized that the role of the Judiciary is
to interpret and enforce laws, not to dictate policy decisions. This judgment
underscores the importance of preserving the legislative discretion of elected
representatives.14
 Risk of Judicial Activism: Judicial activism can lead to unpredictability and
inconsistency in the law. The concept of judicial activism has been debated in various
judgments. In "S.P. Gupta v. Union of India" (1982), the Supreme Court discussed the
limits of judicial activism and the need to strike a balance between judicial review and
deference to the Legislature.15

12
AIR1973 SC 1461
13
(2000) 6 SCC 224,
14
1972 AIR (SC) 1061,
15
AIR 1982, SC 149.
17
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 Importance of Precedent: The Court should adhere to legal precedent and
established principles of statutory interpretation. The Supreme Court's consistent
reliance on precedent and principles of statutory interpretation in numerous cases,
such as "R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu" (1994), underscores its commitment
to interpreting and applying laws within established legal frameworks.

 Respect for Legislative Intent: Legislative intent behind laws should be respected.
In various judgments, including "Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India" (2006), the
Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of respecting the legislative intent
behind statutes, reinforcing the notion that the Legislature plays a pivotal role in
lawmaking.16
 While these judgments do not directly address the specific argument presented, they
provide a legal backdrop for understanding the principles of separation of powers,
legislative competence, democratic accountability, and the respective roles of the
branches of government. These principles underpin the argument against excessive
judicial involvement in the legislative process.

16
(2006) 2 SCC 1
18
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS

ADVANCED, REASONS GIVENAND AUTHORITIES CITED, THIS HON‟BLE
COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO:

I. HOLD THAT THIS PIL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE.

II. HOLD THAT UCC IS NOT FEASIBLE TO IMPLEMENT IN ARYAVART AND

DOES NOT VIOLATE THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND PERSONAL
RIGHTS IN THE CONSTITUTION.

III. HOLD THAT UCC IMPLEMTATATION IS INTERFERNCE IN PERSONAL

MATTERS BY THE STATE.

IV. HOLD THAT NON-ISSUANCE OF BIRTH CERTIFICATE TO THE CHILD

BORN OUT OF LGBTQIA COUPLE DOES NOT VIOLATES THE CHILD’S
RIGHT BY THE STATE.

V. HOLD AND ANY OTHER RELIEF THAT THIS HON‟BLE COURT MAY BE
PLEASED TO GRANT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD
CONSCIENCE, ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Sd/-

COUNSELS FOR THE RESPONDENT

19
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT