TC 53_P

5TH IILS NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT

OF THE REPUBLIC OF AMPHISSA
AT AMPHISSA

SPEACIAL LEAVE PETITION No. ****/2021, WRIT PETITION No.****/2021

UNDER ARTICLE 136 AND 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF AMPHISSA, 1950

CASE CONCERNING THE INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION W.R.T.

UPPAM PRADESH PROHIBITION OF UNLAWFUL CONVERSION OF RELIGION
ORDINANCE, 2020

IN THE CLUBBED MATTERS OF

DANIEL &Ors……………………………………………………………….PETITIONER

v.
1. STATE OF UPPAM PRADESH

2. UNION OF AMPHISSA……………………………………………….RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

 5th IILS NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................ ii

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ................................................................................... iv

STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................... v

ISSUES INVOLVED ......................................................................................................... vii

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ........................................................................................ viii

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ............................................................................................... 9

I. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE THE

COURT IS MAINTAINABLE. ...................................................................................... 9
A. The Petitioner has Locus Standi to Approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court ............. 9
B. Jurisdiction of Supreme Court Under Article 136 Can be Invoked When a Question
of Law of General Importance Arises. ........................................................................... 9

II. WHETHER SECTION 498A AND 340 OF AMPHISSIAN PENAL CODE

HAVE BEEN VIOLATED BY DANIEL AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. .............. 11
A. Ingredients of Section 498A of APC are Not Fulfilled. ........................................ 11
B. Ingredients of Section 340 of APC are Not Fulfilled. ........................................... 12

III. WHETHER THE UPPAM PRADESH PROHIBITION OF UNLAWFUL

RELIGIOUS CONVERSION ORDINANCE, 2020 CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID.
13
A. The Ordinance Violates Article 25 of the Constitution. ........................................ 13
B. The Ordinance is Violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. ............................... 13
C. The Ordinance Infringes the Privacy of the Person. .............................................. 14
D. There is an Excessive Criminalization under the Ordinance. ................................ 15

PRAYER............................................................................................................................. 16

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER i

 5th IILS NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES, REGULATIONS & ORDINANCE

Constitution of Amphissa, 1950……………………………………………………………….8

Amphissan Penal Code, 1860……………………………………………………………..10,11
U.P Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Ordinance, 2020………………11,12,13

CASES

Arunachalam v. P.S.R Sadhanantham&Anr. (1979) 2 SCC 297……………………………9

Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. P.N. Sharma, (1965) 2 SCR 366…………………….9
C.C.E v. Standard Motor Products, AIR 1989 SC 1298……………………………………..10
Durga Shankar Mehta v. Thakur Raghuraj Singh &Ors, AIR 1954 SC 520…………………9
Ganga Kumar Srivastava v. State of Bihar, (2005) 6 SCC 211………………………………9
Haryana State Industrial Corporation v. Cork Mfg. Co. (2007) 8 SCC 359……………….10
JanshedHormusjiWdia v. Board of Trustess, Port of Mumbai (2004) 3 SCC
214…………..………………………………………………………………………………10
Jose Da Costa &Anr. v. BascoraSadasiva Sinai Narcornim&Ors. (1976) 2 SCC
917…………………………………………………………………………………………….9
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461………………………………..13
K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of Amphissa, WP (C) 494/2012………………………………14
Narpat Singh v. Jaipur Development Authority, AIR 2002 SC 2036………………………10
Navtej Singh Johar v. UOI, AIR 2018 SC 4321……………………………………………14
Nihal Singh &Ors. v. State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 26…………………………………….9
N Suriyakala v. A. Mohan Doss &Ors., (2007) 9 SCC 196………………………………….10
Pritam Singh v. State, AIR 1950 SC 169……………………………………………………9
P.S.R Sadhanantham&Anr. v. Arunachalam; (1980) 3 SCC 141……………………………..9
Ramesh Chand v. State of U.P., (1992) Cri. L.J. 1444 (All)……………………………….12
Shafin Jahan v. Ashokan K.M, Cri A 366/2018…………………………………………..13,14
Shakti Vahini v. Union of Amphissa, WP (Civil) No. 231/2010……………………………14
Sir Chunilal Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. Century Spinning & Mfg. Co. Ltd., AIR 1964 SC
1314………………………….…………..………………………………………………….10

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER ii

 5th IILS NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

S.R. Bommai v. UOI, 1994 AIR 1918…………………………………………….…..…13,15

State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal, (1992) 3 SCC 300……………………….…12
Palash Sarkar v. State of West Bengal &Ors., WPA 9732 of 2020……………………..….14
Union Carbide Corporation &Ors. v. Union of Amphissa &Ors. (1991) 4 SCC 584………..9

BOOK
Justice Khastgir, Criminal Major Acta. Ed 2020, Kamal Law House, Kolkata…………11,12

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER iii

 5th IILS NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

I. S.L.P. No. _____/2021

The petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution of
Republic of Amphissa.

II. W.P. No. _____/2021

The petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution of
Republic of Amphissa.

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER iv

 5th IILS NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The Republic of Amphissa is located in the South Asian Region of Asia.It achieved
independence in 1947. Now, the Republic of Amphissa is a democratic country with a
written Constitution which came into force in 1950. It has 28 States and 8 Union
Territories. The Constitution has adopted Parliamentary system wherein President is
the executive Head of the government.
2. Republic of Amphissa is the most ethnically and religiously diverse country in the
world and its history is dotted with numerous religious conflicts and riots.
3. In March 2019 certain newspapers published a report about Love Jihad which is an
activity of certain Organizations under which young Muslim men and boys in the
state target young girls belonging to non- Muslim communities for conversion to
Islam by feigning love. The news report stated that there has been 3,000- 4,000
conversions in the past four years having the nature of Love Jihad in the Republic of
Amphissa.
4. The Uppam Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Ordinance, 2020,
is a law enacted by the Government of Uppam Pradesh, Amphissa. The ordinance
makes conversion non-bailable with up to 10 years of jail time if undertaken through
misinformation, unlawfully, forcefully, allurement or other allegedly fraudulent
means and requires that religious conversions for marriage in Uppam Pradesh to be
approved by a district magistrate. The law also encompasses strict action for mass
conversion, including cancellation of registration of social organization involve in
mass religious conversion.
5. On 10th January, Prabha, a jain by religion and Daniel who belonged to a family
practicing Islamic faith married each other under Special Marriage Act, 1956.Prabha
decided to convert to Islam, out of her love and respect for Daniel’s family and faith
and hoping that his family would be more willing to accept their marriage if she
undertakes such a gesture. And Prabha’s conversion was kept a secret from her
parents.
6. After marriage the couple lived in a separate apartment for two months and on 11 th
March went to visit Daniel’s home in Lunnow. On 15th March a two weeks lockdown
was announced in the state due to rise in cases of Covid.In the midst of this, Prabha’s
younger brother fell down from stairs and was put to bed-rest. Prabha strongly wished

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER v

 5th IILS NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

to visit him several times but Daniel’s family did not allow her to go during due to
limited transportation options and on an apprehension, that Prabha may contract
Covid-19 while travelling.
7. Being frustrated, after 2 months, Prabha called up her parents and asked them to pick
her up. Upon knowing about the details of their marriage and the conversion, they
suspected that Daniel and his family had forced Prabha to convert into a different
religion and were now forcefully restraining her against her will.
8. An FIR was filed in Rainbow Police Station against Daniel’s family under Section
498A APC, section 340 of APC as well as under the Uppam Pradesh Anti-Conversion
Ordinance and soon, his family members were arrested on 20 th May, 2021.
9. The Magistrate denied bail to Daniel’s family and issued a non-bailablewarrant
against Daniel under section 498A. Daniel and his familypreferred a Special Leave
Petition before the Supreme Court and alsofiled a writ petition challenging the
validity of Uppam PradeshProhibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion
Ordinance, 2020.

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER vi

 5th IILS NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

ISSUES INVOLVED

-I-

WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURT

IS MAINTAINABLE.

-II-

WHETHER SECTION 498A AND 340 OF AMPHISSA PENAL CODE HAVEBEEN

VIOLATED BY DANIEL AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS.

-III-

WHETHER THE UPPAM PRADESH PROHIBITION OF UNLAWFUL

CONVERSION OF RELIGION ACT, 2020 IS CONSTUTUIONALLY VALID.

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER vii

 5th IILS NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE THE

COURT IS MAINTAINABLE.
It is humbly submitted that the SLP against the order of the Magistrate is
maintainableunder Article 136 of the Constitution of Amphissa. The powers under Art.136
can be exercisedagainst any kind of judgment or order which is causing injustice to any party,
and to serve theneed, the power under Art. 136 is unfettered. This SLP is maintainable
because [A] thepetitioner has locus standi to approach the Hon’ble SC, [B] the matter
involves a question ofgeneral public importance involving a substantial question of law.

II. WHETHER SECTION 498A AND 340 OF AMPHISSA PENAL CODE HAVE
BEEN VIOLATED BY DANIEL AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the ingredients of Section 498A
and 340 of Amphissa Penal Code have not met and therefore, there is no violation of section
498Aand 340. There is no violation in this case because: [A] ingredients of Section 498A are
notfulfilled and [B] ingredients of Section 340 are not fulfilled.

III. WHETHER THE UPPAM PRADESH PROHIBITION OF UNLAWFUL

CONVERSION OF RELIGION ACT, 2020 IS CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that U.P Prohibition of
UnlawfulReligious Conversion Ordinance, 2020 is unconstitutional in nature. This is
because: [A]there is a violation of Art. 25; [B] there is a violation of Art. 21; [C] there is a
violation ofprivacy; [D] there is an excessive criminalization.

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER viii

 5th IILS NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION BROUGHT BEFORE THE

COURT IS MAINTAINABLE.
It is humbly submitted that the SLP against the order of the Magistrate is maintainable
under Article 136 of the Constitution of Amphissa. The powers under Art. 136 can be
exercised against any kind of judgment or order which is causing injustice to any party, and
to serve the need, the power under Art. 136 is unfettered.1 This SLP is maintainable because
[A] the petitioner has locus standi to approach the Hon’ble SC, [B] the matter involves a
question of general public importance involving a substantial question of law.

The Petitioner has Locus Standi to Approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court
It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble SC that the appellant has locus standi to
approach the court in the present case. Article 136 empowers the SC to grant in discretion
Special Leave to Appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any
cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of Amphissa.2Art. 136
is couched in the widest phraseology. This Court’s jurisdiction is limited only by its
discretion. 3 Scope of Art. 136 is very broad and confers discretion on the Court to grant
special leave “in any cause or matter”.4
The court in criminal cases can grant appeal in the cases of perversity or impropriety,
violation of principles of natural justice, error of law or errors of record or misreading of
evidence.5 The Supreme Court invokes the power under Article 136 in “exceptional
circumstances as and when a question of law of general public importance arises.” 6

Jurisdiction of Supreme Court Under Article 136 Can be Invoked When a

Question of Law of General Importance Arises.

1
Durga Shankar Mehta v. Thakur Raghuraj Singh & Ors, AIR 1954 SC 520; Associated Cement Companies
Ltd. v. P.N. Sharma, (1965) 2 SCR 366; Jose Da Costa & Anr. v. Bascora Sadasiva Sinai Narcornim & Ors.
(1976) 2 SCC 917; Arunachalam v. P.S.R Sadhanantham & Anr. (1979) 2 SCC 297; P.S.R Sadhanantham &
Anr. v. Arunachalam; (1980) 3 SCC 141; Union Carbide Corporation & Ors. v. Union of Amphissa & Ors.
(1991) 4 SCC 584.
2
Art. 136, Constitution of Amphissa, 1950.
3
Nihal Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 26.
4
Pritam Singh v. State, AIR 1950 SC 169.
5
Ganga Kumar Srivastava v. State of Bihar, (2005) 6 SCC 211.
6
Ibid.

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER 9

 5th IILS NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

The jurisdiction conferred under Art. 136 on the SC is corrective and not restrictive. 7
A duty is enjoined upon the SC to exercise its power by setting right the illegality in the
orders. It 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. In
the present case, the issue involves a matter of General Public Importance [1] and
substantial question of law [2].
The matter involves question of law of general public importance and
therefore, entitled to be maintainable.
It has been held by this 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. Art. 136 is the residuary power of SC to do justice where the court is satisfied
that there is injustice.8 The principle is that this court would never do injustice nor allow
injustice being perpetrated for the sake of upholding technicalities. 9
In the case at hand, grave injustice is done to Daniel and his family by denying the
bail in a case which has no substance. The entire issue arises solely based on the petitioner’s
religion. Hence, the matter concerned is a matter of public interest and national importance.
Hence, it is humbly submitted before this court that the matter involves question of law of
general public importance and therefore, petition is maintainable under Art. 136.
The matter involves substantial question of law and therefore, entitled to be
maintainable.
The expression “substantial question of law” is not defined in any legislation.
Nevertheless, it has acquired a definite connotation through judicial pronouncements. The
constitutional bench, 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 and if so whether it is either an open question in
the sense that it is not finally settled by this Court or by the Privy Council or by the Federal
Court or is not free from difficulty or calls for discussion of alternative views.” 10 The
question 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.

7
Haryana State Industrial Corporation v. Cork Mfg. Co. (2007) 8 SCC 359.
8
C.C.E v. Standard Motor Products, AIR 1989 SC 1298; N Suriyakala v. A. Mohan Doss & Ors., (2007) 9 SCC
196; Narpat Singh v. Jaipur Development Authority, AIR 2002 SC 2036.
9
Janshed Hormusji Wdia v. Board of Trustess, Port of Mumbai (2004) 3 SCC 214.
10
Sir Chunilal Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. Century Spinning & Mfg. Co. Ltd., AIR 1964 SC 1314.

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER 10

 5th IILS NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

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.

WHETHER SECTION 498A AND 340 OF AMPHISSIAN PENAL CODE HAVE

BEEN VIOLATED BY DANIEL AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the ingredients of Section 498A and
340 of Amphissan Penal Code have not met and therefore, there is no violation of section
498A and 340. There is no violation in this case because: [A] ingredients of Section 498A are
not fulfilled and [B] ingredients of Section 340 are not fulfilled.

A. Ingredients of Section 498A of APC are Not Fulfilled.

Cruelty consists in (i) any lawful conduct as was likely to drive such woman to
commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health whether mental
or physical; (ii) harm to such woman with a view to coercing her to meet unlawful demand
for property or valuable security or on account of failure of such woman or any of her
relations to meet the lawful demand; (iii) the woman subjected to such cruelty by her husband
or any relation of her husband. 11
In the present case, there was no conduct on part of Daniel or his family that would
likely cause Prabha to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or
health. Covid cases were steadily on rise and the country was under a national lockdown. 12
Prabha’s brother had only fell from the stairs and upon the apprehension that by travelling
Prabha will be putting her health at risk,13 the family urged her to not meet her brother.
Additionally, Daniel and his family had not made any unlawful demands such as for
property or valuable security. There was never any demand and there was also no harm
arising out of the wedding. The couple happily resided separately for two months on their
own and then happily with the family of Daniel as well. 14 It was held that a complaint under

11
Justice Khastgir, Criminal Major Acta. Ed 2020, Kamal Law House, Kolkata.
12
Moot Proposition, Para 12.
13
Moot Proposition, Para 12.
14
Moot Proposition, Para 11.

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER 11

 5th IILS NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

Section 498A could succeed only if it can be proved that there was an “unlawful demand” by
the husband of some money. 15
And ultimately, since there is no basis to impose Section 498A, Daniel and his family
are wrongfully accused of the crime and the denial of bail was a miscarriage of justice. The
Supreme Court has held that the circumstances from the which the conclusion of cruelty is
drawn should be fully proved i.e. it should be conclusive in nature. 16 In the present case, the
circumstances are not conclusive in nature.
Therefore, it is humbly submitted before the court that there is no violation of Section
498A, IPC.

B. Ingredients of Section 340 of APC are Not Fulfilled.

Section 340 envisages that: (i) the accused lawfully restrains a person; (ii) such
restraint prevented the victim from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits; (iii) the
victim had every right to proceed beyond the circumscribing limits. 17
It must be noted here that there was no restrain on the movements of Prabha. There
was a national lockdown in the country and she was discouraged from meeting her brother as
she would be putting herself at risk of contracting Covid by travelling. There was also limited
transportation. It must be noted that Prabha did not have the right to travel in the country as
the government itself had imposed restriction on travelling.
First, there was no physical restraint. Additionally, there was no impression that she
was not free to depart and that she would be forthwith restrained, if she attempted to do so.18
When her unreasonable demands were not met, in the middle of a pandemic, she colluded
with her family19 to put innocent citizens of this country through humiliation and mental
turmoil.
Therefore, it is humbly submitted before the court that there is no violation of Section
340, IPC.

15
Ramesh Chand v. State of U.P., (1992) Cri. L.J. 1444 (All).
16
State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal, (1992) 3 SCC 300.
17
Justice Khastgir, Criminal Major Acta. Ed 2020, Kamal Law House, Kolkata, pg 402.
18
Ibid.
19
Moot Proposition, Para 13.

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER 12

 5th IILS NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

WHETHER THE UPPAM PRADESH PROHIBITION OF UNLAWFUL

RELIGIOUS CONVERSION ORDINANCE, 2020 CONSTITUTIONALLY
VALID.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that U.P Prohibition of Unlawful
Religious Conversion Ordinance, 2020 is unconstitutional in nature. This is because: [A]
there is a violation of Art. 25; [B] there is a violation of Art. 21; [C] there is a violation of
privacy; [D] there is an excessive criminalization.

A. The Ordinance Violates Article 25 of the Constitution.

Article 25 of the Constitution protects the right to profess, practice and propagate
religion. The Ordinance and the Act restrict this right by imposing surveillance and
unreasonable restrictions on it. In S.R. Bommai v. UOI,20 the Supreme Court stated that
“…introduction of religion into politics is not merely a negation of the constitutional
mandates but also a positive violation of the constitution obligation, duty, responsibility and
positive prescription of prohibition specifically enjoyed by the Constitution and the
Representation of the People Act, 1951...”
Judgments like Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala 21 have upheld secularism as a
basic feature of the Amphissan Constitution. Thus, framing the State as responsible for
protecting and policing religious identities flies against the secular fabric of Amphissan
democracy. By making the conditions around inter-faith marriage as severe as these laws do,
the States infringe upon the right to freely practise one’s religion.

B. The Ordinance is Violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.

In Shafin Jahan v. Ashokan K.M,22 the Supreme Court recognised the right to marry a
person of one’s choice as an important facet of the right to life and personal dignity
under Article 21. The Court went on to assert that matters of faith form the core of
constitutional liberty. The Act and the Ordinance this precedent. The laws believe
conversions, especially before or after marriage, reflect the absence of rational choice. And
presuppose that all conversions are forced and thus undermine the autonomy of an
individual.

20
1994 AIR 1918.
21
AIR 1973 SC 1461.
22
Crl.A 366/2018.

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER 13

 5th IILS NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

In Salamat Ansari &Ors. V. State of U.P. &Ors.,23 the Allahabad High Court referred
to Shafin Jahan to affirm an individual’s right to marry a person of one’s own choice. The
Court noted that it saw the couple beyond their religious identities. And emphasised the need
for constitutional courts to guarantee an individual’s right to live with a person of his/her
choice irrespective of religion.
In Shakti Vahini v. Union of Amphissa,24 the Court has held that preventing two
consenting adults from marrying is absolutely 'illegal' and an erosion of personal choice. The
laws reflect this erosion.the Court recognised the fundamental right of an individual who has
attained majority to marry a person of their choice. Personal relationships between people
cannot be limited or encroached upon due to caste or religion.25

C. The Ordinance Infringes the Privacy of the Person.

Privacy is declared as an inalienable right by the Supreme Court in K. S. Puttaswamy
v. Union of Amphissa.26 In 2018, the definition of privacy was expanded in Navtej Singh
Johar v. UOI,27 where the Supreme Court held that the choice of a partner and desire for
personal intimacy are matters of privacy.

The petition claims that such encroaching and scrutinising powers of the State in an
individual’s intimate choice to convert on his/her own volition is a grave assault on an
individual’s liberty. Moreover, declarations and intentions to marry being recorded with the
local administration, along with personal information, can put such couples at risk. It is not
unreasonable to presume that vigilante groups will invoke this law to target men from
minority religions and interfere in inter-faith marriages. Such laws have the potential to easily
become a weapon in the hands of bad elements to falsely implicate innocent persons.

The Supreme Court emphasised the ill effects of State intervention in such matters. It
remarked that “interference by the State in such matters has a seriously chilling effect on the
exercise of freedoms.”28 The petition argue that State interference with personal matters has a
chilling effect on constitutionally guaranteed freedoms and liberties.

23
Crl. Mis. Writ Petition No. 11367 of 2020.
24
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 231 of 2010.
25
Palash Sarkar v. State of West Bengal & Ors., WPA 9732 of 2020.
26
WP (C) 494/2012
27
AIR 2018 SC 4321.
28
Shafin Jahan v. Ashokan K.M, Crl.A 366/2018.

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER 14

 5th IILS NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

The notice under section 8 29 requires those intending to convert to provide such
intrusive details as names of parents, address, occupation, monthly income, marital status,
caste and even the names of their dependents. The intended date of conversion, place of
conversion and name and address of the priest conducting the conversion must also be
provided.
D. There is an Excessive Criminalization under the Ordinance.
Lastly, the Law and the Ordinance, it can be argued, criminalise inter-faith marriages,
religious conversion and freedom of choice – all basic rights under the Constitution.
Normally, in criminal cases, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. Under these laws,
the burden of proof lies with the converted individual and/or person causing a conversion.
This makes it easy for family members and mala fide third parties to file false complaints
without evidence to harass inter-faith couples.

Except in exceptional offences, the Amphissan Penal Code prescribes less severe
punishment for an attempt as compared to the offence itself (for instance, in the case of
sedition). The impugned laws, on the other hand, prescribe equal quantum of punishment for
committing the crime and for attempts. The petitions argue that through such excessive
criminalisation, the impugned laws equate conversion due to marriage to “acts of terror”.

In Bommai v. Union of Amphissa,30 this Hon’ble Court held that while the citizens of
thiscountry are free to profess, practice and propagate such religion, faith or belief as they
choose, so far asthe state is concerned i.e., from the point of view of the State, the religion,
faith or belief of a person is immaterial. To it, all are equal and all entitled to be treated
equally. Any step inconsistent with constitutional policy is, in plain word, unconstitutional.

29
U.P. Ordinance Sec 8.
30
(1994) 3 SCC 1.

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER 15

 5th IILS NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2021

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is
humbly requested that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare:

1. That the SLP is maintainable under Article 136 of the Constitution of Amphissa,
1950.

2. That the Section 340 and Section 498A of Amphissa Penal Code have not been
violated.

3. That the Uppam Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2020 is
not constitutionally valid.

And pass any such order, writ or direction as the Honourable Court deems fit and proper, for
this the Petitioners shall duty bound pray.

ALL OF WHICH IS MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS

MEMORIAL FOR PETITIONER 16