NSL09-R
NSL09-R
NSL09-R
SAMRIDHI……………………………………………………PETITIONER
VERSUS
&
VERSUS
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
2. ANR. Another
3. ART. Article
4. ED Edition
5. HON’BLE Honourable
6. ORS Others
7. ORG. Organization
14. V. Versus
3
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASE LAW
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
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:
8
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
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.
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:
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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:
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
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/-
19
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT